Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

While it has been agreed that the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009 will be dealt with in a cognate debate, they are quite different in nature and the areas in which they deal, so I would like to take each of the bills separately and respond to them in that way. The first is the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009. This bill amends the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to create a board for Australia’s civil air regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The bill also makes some technical amendments to improve its enforcement powers. These include improving CASA’s capacity to oversight the safety of foreign carriers flying to and from Australia, amending the automatic stay arrangements for reviewable decisions and creating an additional offence of negligently carrying or consigning dangerous goods on an aircraft.

CASA is a statutory authority, established in 1995 under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 with a mandate to regulate Australia’s civil aviation sector to ensure its safe operation. Australia’s record of aviation safety is world class, and there is no doubt that CASA is entitled to take some credit for this admirable performance. Yet, in many ways, CASA has been a troubled regulator. Its task is not an easy one, and it is dealing with a sector that is diverse and characterised by fractious elements and strong personalities. It has been subject to strident criticism, personality conflicts, industry complaints and seemingly endless reviews.

The reviews include the 1999 audit of CASA by the Australian National Audit Office and its follow-up audit three years later; Tom Sherman’s report of May 2001 into two incidents involving the then CASA director of aviation safety; the Ted Anson 2002 report into CASA’s governance arrangements; the December 2007 Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce; the ATSB-CASA review conducted by Mr Russell Miller; and the 2008 inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the administration of CASA. In addition, the report of the Queensland coroner into the 2005 Lockhart River air crash looked at CASA’s regulatory oversight in the context of that tragedy.

Plainly, CASA has been closely scrutinised as a regulator. It is also a regulator that has experienced significant change. This mainly arose out of the decision by the previous coalition government to abolish its board in 2003. This decision, implemented by the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2003, placed the federal minister in more direct control of CASA. Following the passage of this legislation, CASA embarked on a prolonged period of reform. The Labor Party and most elements of the aviation industry supported the decision by the coalition government to abolish the board of CASA. In fact, the member for Batman, in his capacity as shadow transport minister, appeared on AM on 19 November 2002. I quote him, although I am sure that the now Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism, who is sitting at the table, will remember these words well:

For too long, in terms of CASA, we had a board in place which was a bureaucratic layer that contributed nothing. In many ways we had a lot of do-gooders without a lot of aviation experience.

Abolishing the CASA board effectively means that CASA is more accountable for aviation safety, so we all appreciate that the buck stops and starts with the Minister.

See this speech in context