Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to 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.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s what I said after the Lockhart report.

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

So the coalition government decision—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will have a chance—

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

I have no intention of misrepresenting the minister, and if you follow the remainder of my remarks—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of Nationals will not respond to those interjections.

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

you will note that I am not making any criticism of the Labor Party or the shadow minister at the time. He was stating the view at the time that was held by the Labor Party, by the government and indeed by the aviation industry generally.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was in the subsequent events where we had problems.

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

I am coming to subsequent events.

So the coalition government’s decision had the full support of the then opposition. The question therefore is: will the establishment of a small expert board of five members appointed by the minister, as proposed by the government, make CASA a better organisation? The government argues that CASA is a far different organisation from what it was in 2003, and I agree. According to the government, CASA is therefore now ready for a board. I guess you could equally argue, since it is doing much better than it was in 2003 without a board, that is also a case for keeping it that way.

If you do not wish to take the assurances of the government at face value, particularly regarding something as important as the state of Australia’s civil aviation regulator, you can turn to the findings of the last Senate inquiry into the administration of CASA. This inquiry took 61 submissions from the aviation sector and took evidence from a significant number of witnesses, many qualified to make informed observations about the effectiveness of CASA. The Senate inquiry established that CASA, under its chief executive officer, Mr Bruce Byron, has made progress in the way it is doing business. It has remodelled its structure to be more responsive to industry and has made an effort to change its defensive culture. At a working level, some submissions noted this improved approach. CASA has also attempted to change its arrangements to enhance its approach to engaging industry.

There are, nevertheless, issues that bothered the Senate inquiry. The inquiry expressed concerns that some in the aviation sector feel CASA senior executives are not approachable enough. Some submissions expressed an unease that CASA’s risk based safety philosophy was at the expense of a more prescriptive regulatory approach that leaves too much responsibility with the airlines to ensure their own safety standards. CASA has experienced an enormous staff turnover since 2003. While this is characteristic of an organisation trying to change its culture and way of doing business, the Senate inquiry noted that CASA appears to lack adequately trained technical staff and seems to lack a clear plan for managing its training needs.

The inquiry also heard many complain that CASA’s regulatory review program seems to have made limited progress in the last three years. Although that progress has been handicapped by inadequate resources in the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, some also argued that there were times when regulations were interpreted by some field officers in an inconsistent way. So clearly CASA faces a number of significant challenges. It can be argued with some justification that the reform process has been implemented too slowly and that the burdens and responsibilities placed upon CASA’s chief executive officer are perhaps too great.

I also note that the majority of submissions to the Senate inquiry, in contrast to what occurred prior to 2003, argued for the reinstatement of a CASA board. Qantas suggested the current governance structures are not delivering consistent policy and the responsibilities of the CEO are too broad. This point was supported by the Australian and International Pilots Association, which stated that a board would improve the capacity of the CEO to make the tough decisions needed to regulate the industry. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association argued a board would help CASA implement safety guidelines. The Senate inquiry in a bipartisan conclusion recommended that the Australian government strengthen CASA’s governance framework by introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA.

CASA faces an immense task in regulating an industry that is complex and assuming a greater role in Australia’s economic life. It must deal with an industry characterised by strong personalities, conflicting opinions and elements that often resent the hand of regulation. It is an industry where the consequences of a failure in safety can be catastrophic. The industry has been famous for internal conflicts and an unwillingness of the various sectors to agree and work together on issues of importance. CASA is often the point of focus and blame for issues when in fact there are wider industry issues involved.

CASA has certainly responded in a positive way to the concerns about the way in which it has operated. It is a very much better organisation today than it probably has ever been. But I think everyone would acknowledge that it still has a lot more work to do. I would also say that it probably will never be perfect. There is an expectation that CASA will keep our skies safe, and that is its job. But if it acts too heavy-handedly to enforce safety requirements then there will be complaints about it interfering in the legitimate role of business and the right of people to fly. In reality, to try and put together a satisfactory regime that can deal with all those sorts of issues is indeed a challenge.

You can also argue that, given the difficulties of the task, an organisation which both makes and enforces industry regulation should be a part of a department and answerable to a minister and not a board. I appreciate that these are issues that were dealt with in the Uhrig report, but there are issues about whether or not it is appropriate for a board to be responsible for enforcing industry regulation which it also has a responsibility to make. CASA certainly does not have an easy job and there are no easy answers as to the best way to approach aviation regulation.

I consider that Mr Bruce Byron made an outstanding contribution as CASA’s CEO over the past five years. His was a thankless and difficult task, yet he made significant progress in placing CASA on the path to be a world-class regulator that can work with the industry in a rigorous, responsive and effective way. He was well regarded across the sector, an honour achieved by few in the aviation business. I am not saying that the job is complete, but Mr Byron made a very credible contribution. CASA is a better organisation than it has ever been, and I wish Bruce good health and every happiness as he moves into retirement. I also wish the incoming CASA CEO, Mr John McCormick, all the best as he assumes his duties from 1 March this year. His extensive background in aviation will serve him well as he continues the challenges in regulating a key industry. Significant progress has been made. Mr Byron has put in place a spirit of reform and hopefully moved significantly to change the culture of CASA. Mr McCormick must now build on those reforms and take them to the next level.

In terms of the best model of governance for CASA, the opposition has accepted that the incoming CEO may appreciate the support of a board in his demanding position. Out of respect for the views of industry, recognising the efforts of CASA to reform and acknowledging the conclusion of last year’s Senate standing committee inquiry into CASA, we are prepared to support this element of the government’s legislation. We do so, of course, on the condition that the government manage the appointments of the board properly. It is to be an expert board. It is not a place to dump Labor mates looking for a reward. I call upon the government to make smart, apolitical appointments.

Appointing people who have regulatory experience, who understand community consultation and who command the respect of the aviation sector will be a key criterion if this board is to be successful. Let me say that past CASA boards have ended in tears. Both the previous government and the government before that had unhappy experiences with the board of CASA. Hopefully, we have all learnt from those lessons and, when the government sits down to appoint the members to this board, they choose wisely—they do not seek to try and have every sector of the industry represented, so that each sector has a voice on the board, but they have people there with expertise and with skill. They are going to have to be people who have the respect of the aviation sector. But, in reality, not every possible skill that is needed in the industry will be able to be included on the board. What we will need is capable people who are apolitical, have the respect of the industry and are therefore able to deliver a good outcome.

I turn to some of the more technical elements of this bill. The changes improve the enforcement powers of CASA. One such change is improving CASA’s oversight of foreign carriers. This bill inserts a new section in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to enable CASA to consider the effectiveness of air operators and relevant foreign regulatory authorities when assessing applications authorising the operation of foreign registered aircraft flying to Australia. This is consistent with what occurs in Europe and the United States. It seems a sensible way to improve aviation safety, since it is a regrettable truth that some foreign regulatory authorities are not as rigorous as our own. This amendment has the support of the opposition.

The second significant technical change contained in this bill is to amend the automatic stay provisions of any decision by CASA to suspend, change or cancel various types of certificates and permissions in circumstances short of serious and imminent risks to air safety. Under section 31A of the Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2003 and associated regulations, if CASA decides to suspend, vary or cancel a permission—such as an air operator’s certificate—it must first give a show cause notice to the affected holder. This is to allow the subject of the direction to make a case as to why it should not apply. Section 31A provides that any such decision by CASA does not come into effect until the end of the fifth business day after CASA gives notice.

During this period, the subject of the notice may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of CASA’s decision. If they do so, the stay or suspension of the notice will continue until the Administrative Appeals Tribunal makes a decision, or until 90 days after CASA originally notified the holder of its decision—whichever comes first. Essentially, the current arrangements give the AAT 90 days to deal with an application. This bill removes the 90-day stay provision and requires those subject to a notice by CASA to apply to the AAT on a different basis. According to item 16 of schedule 3, under proposed new section 31A(4) of the bill, if those subject to a notice choose to ask the AAT for review, they must make the request for an order under subsection 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Act 1975. According to page 16, paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum, this means that the AAT will treat such appeals on an expedited basis. I can only assume this is because a request lodged on this basis is a much narrower one. It involves requesting the AAT to make orders to extend the stay, not a general merits review of CASA’s decision, as is currently the case.

I am advised by the office of the minister that, in practical terms, this means the suspension of a notice by CASA outside the automatic five-day period will be considerably shorter than the 90-day period. It will be, according to this advice, no longer than about a week. It does seem a concern if CASA issues a direction to an air operator due to poor safety practice, only to have that order suspended for a lengthy period. The opposition is prepared to support this amendment, although we will be watching to see how it actually works in practice. We call on the minister to give an assurance in this place that the AAT will, in fact, treat any decision regarding a CASA direction in the shorter period promised. With the abolition of the 90-day limit, we would not want to see that lead to longer times in delay in dealing with these issues, rather than shorter.

The third and final significant technical change proposed in this bill is addressing the legal gap in the treatment of the consignment of carriage of dangerous goods on an aircraft. At present, this offence is dealt with on the basis of intent or recklessness. This seems unduly narrow, since the most common reason for this offence is negligence. Including negligent carriage or consignment of dangerous goods on an aircraft will enable a more tailored and appropriate prosecution. The amendment has the support of the opposition.

This bill contains a set of legislative changes to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 that should enhance the regulatory effectiveness of CASA. The key changes improving CASA’s ability to assess foreign carriers, modifying the automatic stay provisions and including the offence of negligence in the consignment or carriage of dangerous goods seem sensible administrative amendments. Reinstating the CASA board is more controversial. But, under the leadership of Mr Bruce Byron, CASA has made significant progress. A board may therefore now be appropriate and help CASA address some outstanding issues. But, I add again, boards have ended in tears in the past and will again if the government does not make sensible choices about the board membership.

I turn now to the second of the bills being dealt with in this cognate debate, the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009. Again, the coalition will support the bill, which is designed to enhance the independence of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the safety of Australian transport. The ATSB is well regarded in Australian transport and indeed around the world and is staffed by people with considerable expertise. It was created by the then coalition government in 1999.

The creation of the ATSB was part of a push to separate the responsibilities involved in maintaining the transport safety apparatus from those of ensuring that safety investigations were carried out by a body that was independent. This independence was entrenched by the passage of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. Before the passage of this act there was nothing precluding the secretary from giving directions to the ATSB. Under the new arrangements, the head of the ATSB was not subject to direction from the secretary of the department in the exercise of his powers.

ATSB investigations are conducted on a no-blame basis. These investigations rely on the independent and impartial assessment of the evidence available. If an investigation were subject to outside pressure, whatever the source, the ATSB’s effectiveness in discovering the simple facts of an incident without fear or favour would be reduced. As it stands, the ATSB remains separate from transport regulators and industry participants, and it is operationally autonomous within the department. Thankfully, it has not faced conflicts of interest or external interference. The ATSB’s objectivity is closely linked to its independence, and it is critical that this independence be protected.

Transport in Australia has an enviable safety record. This is due in no small part to the vigilance of industry participants and the regulatory and investigative regimes. The effective and independent functioning of the ATSB has been an important contributor to this exemplary safety record. Past results, however, do not mean that improvements cannot be made to ensure that Australia maintains its impressive record in transport safety. Over the years, governments from both sides of politics have contributed to positive developments in transport safety. In October 2007 the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon. Mark Vaile, announced that a review would be conducted into the relationship between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. This review was headed by Mr Russell Miller AM. The review came in response to concerns raised during the investigation of the Lockhart River air crash of 2005 and was designed to identify potential improvements in Australia’s aviation safety regime. It is worth pointing out that the Miller review repeatedly and explicitly noted that the ATSB:

… is, in practical terms, separated from normal departmental governance and treated as essentially autonomous.

The Miller review went further and declared that the Transport Safety Investigation Act:

… provides that the Executive Director is not subject to directions from the Minister or the Secretary in respect of the exercise of any of the Executive Director’s powers under the Act.

…            …            …

The powers make the Executive Director and departmental officers assigned to the ATSB effectively autonomous, not only in relation to undertaking investigations and their resultant reports, but also in relation to the broader range of powers and responsibilities under the TSI Act.

Given this, it seems clear that the ATSB is seen as being autonomous in the execution of its duties. Indeed, there is no suggestion in the Miller review that the independence of the ATSB has ever been compromised, nor have I ever heard allegations from any quarter that the ATSB is anything other than independent.

At the same time, despite the autonomy granted to and exercised by the ATSB, it remains a division of the department. As a result, the theoretical possibility remains that the independence of the ATSB could be seen to be compromised in the future. Amongst its recommendations, the Miller review proposed the option of an alternative governance structure for the ATSB which would move it out of the minister’s portfolio and enhance its administrative independence. This bill therefore is the result of some of the recommendations contained in the Miller review, which was launched by the then coalition government.

This bill will establish the ATSB as a statutory body in its own right rather than keeping it as a division of the department. This will make the ATSB visibly separate from the department. Aside from being more independent at an organisational level, becoming a statutory authority will mean the ATSB will have direct control over its own budget and personnel matters under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Public Service Act 1999 respectively. At the moment, decisions on these matters are made by the department. I would hope that no government would ever seek to apply pressure on the ATSB by manipulating its personnel or its budget, but I suppose that risk still exists even after this legislation. There is no evidence that such pressure has been applied in the past nor, for that matter, that anyone intends to apply it in the future. Still, it is important that the appearance of independence be backed up by the reality of independence. Giving the ATSB a free hand will ensure that these criteria are met.

Australia is a party to a number of international aviation conventions, including the Chicago convention, which stipulates that accident investigation authorities:

… shall have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct.

Under current arrangements, although remaining a departmental officer, the head of ATSB is not subject to direction in the exercise of his duty. This actually goes beyond what is required under Australia’s international obligations, so we are there already. Under the arrangements proposed by the bill, this will not change. The minister will retain the capacity to provide his views on the strategic direction being taken by the ATSB, and the ATSB must have regard to those views. Under the legislation, the ATSB will be a statutory authority in the minister’s portfolio, and it is entirely appropriate that the minister’s views on the strategic direction of the ATSB should be taken into account. Taking the minister’s views into regard does not, however, mean that the ATSB is taking direction with respect to the execution of its core functions. The provisions in this bill do not permit the minister to micromanage an investigation being carried out by the ATSB, and they do not compromise Australia’s compliance with our international obligations.

The internal structure of the ATSB will be that of a commission headed by one full-time commissioner, who will also be the CEO of the agency and whose role will be analogous to that of the executive director now. The chief commissioner will be supported by two part-time commissioners, with the prospect of more commissioners being appointed should the need arise. All appointees will be required to have a high level of expertise in some area relevant to the ATSB’s function. Given the importance of the work carried out by the ATSB, it is important that the head of the agency have the support he needs, and a commission structure such as the one proposed in the bill can achieve this.

The bill will also require the ATSB to cooperate with other agencies or individuals that have functions related to improving transport safety. This includes the transport safety authorities of other countries. This is explicitly spelt out in the legislation and is an appropriate amendment. From time to time there has been friction between the ATSB and other transport safety agencies. The Miller review examined the relationship between the ATSB and CASA and suggested that, while the relationship between the two organisations is working well at an operational level, there is tension in the relationship. The Miller review highlighted a number of instances where significant tensions existed between the two organisations. The Lockhart River crash was one of those instances. In the course of the investigation the Queensland State Coroner reported:

… I have detected a degree of animosity that I consider inimical to a productive, collaborative focus on air safety …

Given their differing roles, it is not surprising that there might be some tension between investigators and regulators. Furthermore, creative tensions can be a positive force. Professional disagreement can lead to better outcomes in the end. The tensions present following the Lockhart River crash, however, went beyond the constructive tension that one might expect.

The clauses in this legislation that have established the ATSB as a statutory authority require the ATSB to cooperate with other agencies that seek to improve transport safety. These clauses need not compromise the ATSB’s operational independence and they do not require the ATSB to deviate from its no blame approach to investigations. Explicitly spelling out the need to cooperate with other agencies and individuals will underscore the ATSB’s core function, which is to improve transport safety by means that include communicating with relevant sectors of the transport industry, the public and other transport safety agencies.

The bill gives the ATSB the capacity to delegate its powers under the act, and such a delegation would be very similar to current provisions that allow for the executive director to delegate power. The bill also authorises the ATSB to require individuals, organisations or government agencies to provide a written response within 90 days of a recommendation being made to take safety action. This authority is aimed at ensuring that the safety recommendations issued by the ATSB are given the attention they are due. We cannot expect the ATSB to fulfil its duties in ensuring a safe transport environment without requiring that other agencies and industry participants take note of its recommendations.

Australia depends on a robust transport sector. Aviation, rail, road and maritime transport have all done a great deal to contribute to the economic and social development of Australia. I am happy, therefore, to lend my support to this bill also. (Time expired)

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009. These bills came out of reforms from a range of different reports, as the shadow minister for transport has mentioned, such as reports from Senate inquiries. They also came out of the green paper last year and Minister Albanese’s moves to establish a national aviation strategy. It is fundamental that we are now moving down this track for the first time, pulling together a national aviation strategy and pulling together all the different components of aviation that are so important to Australia generally but particularly to regional areas. These reforms are particularly important in terms of improving safety and making the operations of CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau work more effectively and efficiently.

These two bills enable CASA to establish another small member board. We heard that one was abolished back in 2003, but the legislation will re-establish that board. There are some other, technical changes in relation to the operation of CASA that I will come to. Also, the second bill will establish the Australian Transport Safety Bureau as a statutory agency within the portfolio of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.

Aviation is critical to Australia but is particularly critical to regions like Tropical North Queensland, the Torres Strait and Cape York. My electorate of Tropical North Queensland is a very diverse region that is dependent on aviation. For many people living in capital cities, aeroplanes may be something they get on to go on holidays, whether it is in Australia or overseas, but for people living in the Torres Strait, for example, aviation is the only way that they can get around to visit their families; it is the only way that they can get mail and the paper. It is a critical part of their lives and it is a critical part of their ability to live normal lives, in the same way the motor car has become so critical to many people in mainland Australia.

Similarly, communities in Cape York—whether they are remote Aboriginal communities or communities in Weipa and Cooktown, which are more strongly non-Indigenous communities—are very dependent on aviation. There are extended periods when the roads are closed and road traffic cannot get into those areas, and they are highly dependent on aviation. The economies of Cairns and Port Douglas are driven to a large extent by tourism. The industry is estimated to be worth more than $2 billion in the region and we have more than 30,000 jobs directly and indirectly dependent on the industry. More than two million visitors a year come to Cairns. Some drive but the vast majority of them fly there either through domestic airlines or through international airlines. We are an international gateway. The importance of aviation can be no greater than in the region that I represent, the region of Leichardt. It is great to be here today supporting this legislation because it is particularly important that we maintain strong safety within our aviation sector—our international aviation sector, our domestic aviation sector but particularly our general aviation sector.

One of the critical issues in general aviation that is still ongoing in my electorate is the grounding of Aero Tropics, which happened on 27 June last year, late on a Friday afternoon. Aero Tropics has since gone into receivership and I understand is now going into liquidation. Aero Tropics was selling the tickets and was the branding of the Transair aircraft which crashed at Lockhart River in May 2005, a crash in which 15 lives were lost. It was the worst aviation disaster in about 40 years. Aero Tropics has been mentioned as being the operator of the airline that crashed. The crash is quite famous and has been mentioned by many speakers today. As a result of that crash, there has been a real drive from the community, other sections of government and the opposition at the time of the crash—the Labor Party—to see changes and improvements in safety. Senator Jan McLucas was particularly involved in this, and Australian Story covered it recently.

This legislation will enable CASA not only to establish a board but to take action more quickly to ground airlines they have real safety concerns about. Tragically, people died in Lockhart River, but Transair continued to operate for an extended period of time. Part of the reason for that is that within the current legislation it is actually very difficult for CASA to quickly ground airlines they have concerns about. And we experienced this situation again last year with the grounding of Aero Tropics. It was grounded late on a Friday afternoon. I did not find out about it until late on Friday afternoon, and then only indirectly. I can understand from CASA’s point of view that they are only about safety, but people were expecting planes to arrive on Saturday morning and they were not going to show up because CASA had grounded the airline. As I am the federal representative up there, people were starting to ring up my office to ask what was going on. There was a certain amount of confusion as a result of the way that grounding was handled. I understand that CASA wanted to do the right thing, and they did do the right thing in grounding that airline, but it resulted in Aero Tropics going through a process that effectively got them up and flying again.

Some of the details of the provisions in this legislation will enable CASA to more effectively and more quickly make decisions that ground airlines they have real concerns about. This will put certainty into the community—which is very important—and it will enable us also to move on much more quickly in terms of getting replacements if that is what needs to happen. Because the reality is that from June last year there has not been an RPT—a regular transport service—up and running in the Torres Strait. Part of the reason for that is the delays that have taken place as a result of Aero Tropics getting up and flying again and then subsequently being grounded again. The operator of Aero Tropics was out communicating to his customers and clients that CASA were effectively treating him unfairly—that CASA were behaving irresponsibly. As the local member, I sought to work with the minister and work with the operator to deal with these issues, but I would talk to the operator and hear one thing and then talk to the minister’s office and have further briefings back but hear a quite different message. We need to establish within CASA the ability for these issues to be resolved much more effectively. We need to give CASA the ability to work much more effectively in taking action against airlines that need to be grounded, because there was a hell of a lot of confusion created in the community and a hell of a lot of anger and mistrust that developed between that community and CASA.

I facilitated meetings between some of the community leaders and CASA through the minister’s office and I think we have bridged that. I would like to thank the minister for the support that he has given to me and for the work that CASA has done. But I can assure you that when your plane has not arrived and you need to get to a medical appointment, or you are just wanting to read the paper and you are out on an outer islands community—and you are actually getting communicated to by the airline operator who is telling you one thing and CASA is not telling you anything—you start to think that CASA is effectively being a bit of a bully and is acting inappropriately. But when they finally did ground the airline—and it has not become public, but I am sure over time it will as these investigations go on—it was found that there was an imminent safety risk. That risk was not to people in the numbers that we saw killed in the Lockhart River crash, but there was a significant safety risk that could have seen people die again in the Torres Strait. And that would have been a tragedy not only for those families and for CASA but for everybody in this House. It is we who are responsible for introducing legislation that ensures that people in communities like mine can get on an aircraft—whether it is a little twin-engine or single-engine light aircraft in the Cape York and Torres Strait or an A380 aircraft out of Sydney—and feel comfortable and confident that they can fly safety.

That is clearly not working under the current system because it again took CASA an extended period of time before it could finally ground Aero Tropics. On grounding Aero Tropics, eventually they did become financially insolvent and have gone into liquidation. But until that happened, nobody else was particularly interested in coming in and taking up those routes. We were lucky enough to work with the minister and the minister’s office to get West Wing Aviation quickly back into Cape York after the grounding on 27 June, and we were able to get the mail services running up there. But I stress again that in Torres Strait we are still in a situation where there are no regular transport services. People on the outer islands of the Torres Strait are relying on charter services to fly them around, and most of them cannot afford that. So it is basically government officials, and people being transported by government, who are getting around. That is the only way that people are still getting around out there.

These changes are bread-and-butter issues for those communities. We are now seeing West Wing look into operating in the Torres Strait, but it took months for them to even seriously look at that because of the toing and froing that went on as a result of CASA’s inability to effectively ground this airline. Changes within these bills will make that possible and will prevent such situations as occurred after the Lockhart River crash where Transair continued to operate for a period of time. As I said, we currently have the situation where it took a number of months before Aero Tropics was finally grounded in the Torres Strait. We did get a decision on that; Aero Tropics became unfinancial and insolvent and we can now see another operator coming in. We have West Wing working—and I continue to work with CASA and communicate with them about the approval to them as an operator in the Torres Strait—and I am making sure that I am getting proper briefings and that the government is doing all it can to support this new airline that wants to come in. But it is too long. It is eight months, and we need to get an airline back into the Torres Strait.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A great Townsville-based airline!

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are a great Townsville-based airline under Mr Collings. They have been expanding quite widely, and I have had a chance to talk to him as well, but we do desperately need them back up there working. They are providing a good service into Cape York after taking over from Aero Tropics. So this legislation is critically important to my region, particularly to those isolated communities.

I think the establishment of the board was a recommendation that came out of the Senate inquiry following the Lockhart River crash. By creating an expert five-member board, the bill will strengthen CASA as a safety and oversight agency. The members of the board will not be appointed to represent sectional interests but will be charged with improving safety for the Australian community. This board will not be involved in the day-to-day running of CASA but will function at a tactical level by assisting CASA in managing the extraordinary growth of aviation and technological changes in aviation in Australia. The board will decide on the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA and ensure that CASA performs its functions efficiently and effectively.

When you ground an airline, particularly in isolated communities, it is most important that you operate within the law and do what you need to do. You need to be able to communicate with the community effectively about what is happening and why, because people depend on these services. I hope that is an issue that the new board takes up. It is certainly an issue that I have spoken to CASA directly about. I know that CASA responded to this when we spoke to them through the minister’s office.

One of the changes for CASA is the automatic stay provision. I have talked about the difficulties when grounding an airline. This legislation will make it easier to keep unsafe operators out of our skies. Currently, when CASA has made a decision to suspend or cancel operators who have been found to be unsafe, the routine application of an automatic stay has meant that these operators can continue flying for months. The examples that I have given highlight that. Under the existing legislation, most decisions of this kind are automatically stayed for five days, and for a further 90 days thereafter if the person affected by the decision lodges an application for review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal within the initial five-day period. If the tribunal is unable to hear the appeal within 90 days, it may extend the stay until it is able to do so. I mentioned Transair as one practical example but Aero Tropics is another practical example. This legislation will enable CASA to move more quickly and effectively to ground airlines. As I have said, this will improve safety, but it will also create certainty for those local communities.

This legislation also closes a loophole in relation to the negligent carriage of dangerous goods on board an aircraft. The carriage of dangerous goods is a major safety issue potentially putting lives at risk. This legislation will include the offence of negligent carriage or consignment of dangerous goods. This will ensure that lack of care in the duty of carriage and consignment is addressed. It will also clarify and refine CASA’s investigative powers and bring its search warrant procedures in line with the current Commonwealth criminal justice procedures.

This legislation will also have some technical changes that will ensure better oversight of overseas carriers. I have spent most of my time talking about general aviation today because it is such an important bread-and-butter issue for people living in the Cape, the Torres Strait and the Gulf. But, as I also mentioned earlier, aviation is critically important to the community of Cairns and Port Douglas, which I am very proud to represent here. International aviation is very critical to driving our tourism economy and bringing visitors there, as is domestic aviation. This legislation will greatly improve CASA’s ability to apply oversight to foreign airlines flying into Australia. When deciding whether to allow an airline to operate in Australia, CASA will now be able to take into consideration a broader range of issues, including the conduct of that airline in their home country and other parts of the world, and the level of oversight by civil aviation authorities in the airline’s home country. This legislation will ensure that airlines that operate out of foreign countries and end up flying to Australia receive adequate oversight outside Australia; otherwise an air operators certificate will not be issued. So this legislation will strengthen CASA’s ability to oversight foreign carriers coming to Australia, which I think is particularly important.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, these changes are part of our national aviation strategy. We are looking very much at the local tourism industry and local businesses and towards the white paper. There have been a number of submissions made by tourism operators and other businesses in my region. We certainly want to maintain the competitiveness of Cairns as an international destination, but, sadly, following changes that took effect last December, we saw Qantas cut flights out of there. I will continue to work with the minister’s office and with local industry to do all we can to continue to maintain Cairns as an internationally competitive airport for people to come to. We will be looking to work with the minister on some of these issues.

The other part of this legislation involves changes to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and strengthening its independence. Creating it as a statutory authority will take it outside the department, ensuring that there is no conflict of interest so that it can properly investigate accidents when they occur and make sure that there is full transparency in investigations. This is particularly important because when accidents happen, tragically, people generally lose their lives. You can have a car accident and you may not lose your life, but generally when planes come out of the air, people often die, and this is tragic.

Following the Lockhart River crash, we saw the campaign of Shane Urquhart, whose daughter, Sally, tragically died in that crash. When you have a department or authority, like CASA, that is overseeing air transport safety in this country, it is particularly important that there is an independent statutory authority that is undertaking an investigation so that there clearly is independence. I know that Mr Urquhart has welcomed the changes that are coming with this legislation. He would obviously like to see more things happen and more support and funding into these organisations. The government is very serious about improving safety. It is a critical issue in my electorate, but it is also a critical issue for the nation. I congratulate the minister for the work that he is doing in this area. I thank CASA for their support and advice to me on this issue. I will continue to argue strongly and work hard for my local community. We desperately need to get West Wing up and flying in the Torres Strait so that we can return air services to those communities. But, fundamentally, those communities want to know that they can get in a plane safely, and that is what this legislation will do—it will improve and increase safety through changes to CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. I highly commend these bills to the House.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009. The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 will create a small, expert board of five members for CASA, Australia’s independent aviation safety regulator. The new board will include CASA’s director of aviation safety and provide high-level direction to the organisation’s regulatory and safety oversight role. The legislation also improves CASA’s ability to oversight foreign carriers flying into Australia, strengthens the provisions for preventing operators from continuing to operate services where CASA considers it unsafe for them to continue and closes a gap in the current legislation by introducing an additional offence of negligently carrying or consigning dangerous goods on an aircraft.

The Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009 seeks to reinforce the independence of the ATSB by establishing it as a separate statutory agency with a full-time chief commissioner and two part-time commissioners. Under the proposed changes, the ATSB would have operational independence from the infrastructure department with respect to the exercise of its investigation powers and the administration of its resources. Clarifying the ATSB’s independence as the national safety investigation agency was a key recommendation of the 2007 Miller review. The legislation also gives the ATSB new powers to compel agencies and operators within the aviation industry to respond to its formal recommendations within 90 days, giving the public greater confidence that the lessons from past accidents will be acted upon in a timely manner.

I do not wish to speak about the changes to the ATSB. I have always found it to be an exceptional organisation, managing, as many do, on limited funds and producing world-class results in its output. It is certainly in demand for its expertise all around the world. I would like to confine my remarks on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill to two things—firstly, the performance of CASA over the last five years and my passionate belief that unless there are changes very soon we will see an immediate decline in general aviation. The previous speaker spoke about general aviation, but he was actually referring to regular public transport services. I mean general aviation, the flying, training and light charter sector of Australia’s aviation, and I have serious concerns about its future. I would also like to raise an issue that was raised with me only yesterday and which I am currently exploring—that is, a submission that the Sydney Airports Corporation made to the government’s green paper about regional airline slots into Sydney Airport and some concerns that they may be the architects of those slots. The access and the costings may be changed to force or encourage regional airlines that service my electorate and many other regional areas, particularly in New South Wales, such as Rex, to land at Bankstown, which is something that has come up before. I do not see it as government policy, but it is being raised again and I think it needs to be addressed.

On the matter of CASA, prior to speaking on the bill today I contacted many people that I know in the aviation industry, an industry that I was involved in myself many, many years ago. I was disturbed and distressed to hear their reports. I know that if we look at CASA and its role we would have to say, ‘Well done for keeping Australia’s skies safe.’ I do not want to detract from that, because if CASA sees its role, and government sees its role, as primarily doing that then it has achieved that and achieved it well. But if you look at the performance of the organisation in terms of its operation, its process and its relationships, I hear that it is lacking in leadership and it has no accountability. The important thing about a board is that it will now be accountable to this board. People have described the last five years of CASA as a total disaster, with no clear objectives, no engagement with industry, and as a situation where general aviation now has almost no chance of survival. I think five years ago it had a limited chance of survival, but now—and I see this around me, too—in regional areas its chance of survival is pretty dismal.

I must say that I have heard reports that in the last four to five months CASA has made an attempt to re-engage with industry—I think this concerns particularly its testing and checking procedures—but the point is that if CASA treats a small general aviation operator in the same way that it treats Qantas it will price that operator out of existence. I know there are other issues. They concern the age of aeroplanes—we do have an ageing aircraft fleet—the cost for the average person to learn to fly and to get into GA, the cost of fuel, landing fees and charges at local airports. These expenses were not there in 1982, when I learnt to fly.

I believe that CASA has a role in mentoring and engaging with general aviation—and not just for general aviation’s stake, which is important to understand. The travelling public will think: ‘That’s good. People like to fly. It’s a great hobby or occupation and maybe it can lead to something more, but it’s sort of separate from what we’re doing here in the big airlines’—but it is not. And no more clearly was this demonstrated than the recent accident in the States where an extraordinarily experienced pilot carried out a landing on a frozen river and everybody got out of the plane. I am in no way suggesting that every pilot that flies an airline around the world is going to have that level of experience, but it does indicate that, where that experience exists, the people on that aircraft can have confidence, and that the most important people in any aircraft are the pilot and the co-pilot. That is the role of general aviation—to train people so that, when they do get into those positions, they have sufficient experience of the real world in aviation to meet any contingency. Where you have a lack of expertise in pilots you make up for it with flight management systems, with almost automated buttons that you press to take off, land and taxi—it is not quite like that, but when I see modern aircraft I am amazed. You can, to a certain extent, make up for that lack of expertise.

But unless we have a strong general aviation sector that feeds pilots to the next level of regional airlines like Rex, feeds them to the next level of bigger domestic airlines, carriers like Qantas and Virgin, and then of course to international airlines, we will have pilots pulled very rapidly through the system and we will have the situation, as we did recently—and ironically the global financial crisis and the reduction in demand probably means that this effect is now being slowed—where the pilot had 3,000 hours flying time and the co-pilot had 1,500 hours. Yes, they have done the training. Yes, they have spent all that time in the simulator. Yes, they are very smart and they are very good people. But they do not have the depth of experience.

I believe that CASA have killed general aviation. They would probably say, ‘Well, it wasn’t our role to support it and it wasn’t our role to mentor it. Our role is keep the skies safe.’ Yes, that is their No. 1 role—but they could also have carried out these other objectives; it would only have enhanced the status of the organisation and the job that they have to do into the future. I do not seek to make these remarks in a political sense because I am talking about five years ago, but I am desperately concerned about the state of general aviation and its survival. Now people who would like to pursue a career in aviation are simply priced out of it—as are the flying schools; I heard of another one closing the other day. Its operator said to me, ‘I can’t work in a not-for-profit organisation any longer.’ I understand that. He said he would need to not only upgrade his 30-year-old aircraft but also face the costs of complying with CASA’s requirements, which would be extremely onerous.

I think I have mentioned in this place before other flying schools who have wanted simple things—for example, to put an aircraft on their AOC that they already had and that was well known to CASA. The cost of actually achieving that transfer of one line on a piece of paper is in the thousands of dollars. Renewing your instructor rating takes half a day—to have the person come down from CASA and do the testing and the checking—and costs $1,600. The costs are enormous. Again, CASA would say, ‘Well, it’s not our job to understand the costs of a small regional based general aviation operation in training and charter,’ but it needs to understand the effect that its actions have on those organisations. Those who are interested in aviation now are simply going to get into the recreational aviation type of flying, which are not VH registered aircraft. They are managed by a completely separate body and therefore do not link in closely to CASA. They are allowed to regulate themselves. That will be a fun, hobby type activity but I do not think it will lead easily into training pilots for the future; and that is the problem.

The other remarks I would like to make concern regional aviation slots into Sydney’s airport. I received an email yesterday from the Broken Hill City Council. It read as follows:

You will be aware that Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL), in its recent comments on the Federal Government’s Green Paper on aviation policy, made a strong submission that regional air services should be relocated to Bankstown and/or the current quarantined regional slots at Sydney airport should be released to the larger airlines.

Council is completely opposed to such a suggestion and submits that SACL have an obligation to continue to provide access to Sydney Airport for regional passengers as a condition of purchase of the original lease from the Government.

Council requests that you make urgent representations to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to ensure that regional airline passengers retain dedicated access to Sydney airport and the regions remain “open for business” at this critical time for regional communities.

I note the minister at the table, so that is part 1 of my submission to the minister. This has been a longstanding issue between Sydney Airport Corporation and Regional Express. Going back to parliamentary debates in New South Wales between 2003 and 2004, the issue was raised quite often. A previous minister in this place, John Anderson, replied to concerns that were raised in September 2004 as follows:

We have a long standing policy of guaranteeing regional airline access to Sydney Airport which includes not only quarantined slots through the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act but also access to adequate terminal apron facilities. This policy is non-negotiable and will be enforced if necessary.

If that were still the government’s policy, I would take comfort. I call on the government to emphasise to regional commuters that that is still its policy.

I have reviewed the submission that Sydney Airport Corporation made in response to the government’s aviation green paper to see what they actually said. Certainly they made the following point:

Price controls have not been subject to review for a decade. They continue to operate to hold prices for regional users at artificially low levels, cause cross subsidies from other airport users and act as a disincentive for investment in regional facilities. The extent of the pricing distortion is evidenced by the fact that the cost of operating a regional aircraft through Sydney Airport is now significantly lower than at Bankstown Airport. For example, a Saab 340 aircraft carrying 20 passengers … would incur landing and terminal charges at Bankstown Airport that were 31% higher than at Sydney Airport.

Cost is always a factor but I honestly do not think any regional passengers want to land at Bankstown airport. The issue is not the cost to the aircraft of landing at Sydney versus landing at Bankstown. Many passengers simply would not travel if the aircraft landed at Bankstown. An upgrade would be required there. Obviously the runway length and pavement strength is sufficient but an upgrade would be required for terminal facilities, for security, for fire measures et cetera. That would be enormous. So what I am saying to Sydney Airport Corporation is: you may feel you are stuck with the regional ring-fence and you may not like it but it is something that, I believe, you are going to have to live with.

If we look at the number of regional passengers that are coming into Sydney, we see that it is not as big as the number of international passengers. The submission that SACL makes talks about the dollars that Australia receives notionally from international travellers versus regional travellers. Of course it is going to be a lot more from an aircraft that contains 200, 300 or 400 people. It makes the point that it is a major contributor to the Australian economy. For every 747 that arrives at Sydney airport $1.8 million is contributed to the Australian economy and every A380 contributes $2.2 million. The submission says:

It is therefore in Australia’s national economic interest to encourage more international flights to Australia.

Maybe it is; but not at the expense of regional flights and not at the expense of access to Sydney for the citizens of Australia’s regional cities such as those in my electorate of Farrer. When one reads these type of submissions it is almost as if there are two worlds: the city world and the country world. I have never accepted that there is. There is a significant interlocking of those two groups and if we freeze out regional travellers from Sydney then we do so much more to exacerbate the city-country divide—and I do not think that is what anyone in this place would want to see happen.

The regional airlines flying in and out of Sydney airport at the moment include Air Link, which is a member of the Rex group, which flies from Sydney to Mudgee, Bathurst, Dubbo, Coonamble, Walgett, Lightning Ridge, Bourke and Cobar. Rex flies from Sydney to Albury, Ballina, Broken Hill, Dubbo, Grafton, Griffith, Lismore, Melbourne, Merimbula, Moruya, Narrandera, Leeton, Orange, Parkes, Taree and Wagga Wagga. It is an issue of enormous significance for us in western New South Wales that the government does not accept the views of SACL and increase the cost of landing or decrease the timeslots available or the access into Sydney airport or do anything to encourage regional airlines to relocate to Bankstown, with all of the problems that that would involve. It is extremely important that that does not happen. I am pleased that the minister was here to listen to the first part of what I said and hopefully he now has that on his radar screen.

For a community like Broken Hill, the airline is everything—it is for every reasonably remote community, but Broken Hill is quite a large town and it is only serviced by Rex. The flight in and out is a major part of the activity of the town, because if you miss the aircraft there is often not another one and the flights are often completely fully booked. When they run late you have all the ramifications that anyone who has a flight running late or who misses a flight has—it is tiresome and a nuisance et cetera. Multiply all that by more when you are in Broken Hill. If it happened to me in Albury, I would just jump in the car or drive to Melbourne or get the next flight or change from Rex to Qantas or Virgin et cetera. But in Broken Hill you cannot do that. Rex services the town and if you miss the flight you do not have any other options, because it takes hours to drive to anywhere where there is another one. You basically have to cancel what you were going to do. So it is important that the end result, after the white paper, is not that regional airlines have to fly into Bankstown or that services are reduced because demand is reduced. Remember, I do not believe that many passengers want to go to Bankstown. The public transport is not nearly as good as it is at Mascot. Anyway, why should regional Australians have a second-class service? Why should we not be able to fly into Mascot airport to do a day’s business in the city, just like anybody else? It is extremely important and I appreciate the opportunity to raise that in the context of this debate.

In summary, I return to the matter of CASA and its board. Clearly, from my previous remarks, I am in support of a board. I do not think ministerial accountability was the right way to go. I think that put too much pressure on the minister. There were good arguments for and against and many of them were made by the Leader of the Nationals in his earlier speech. My personal view has always been that accountability to a board makes an organisation like CASA be more accountable, and we clearly need that when we look at its troubled history. The board needs to be skills based, and I note that it will be. It desperately needs to have people that have a depth of experience in both general and regular public transport aviation in this country. I know that you can have a good mix of skills on a board and sometimes there are skills that may not be aviation related, but where possible I really believe that we need to have the two together. Everyone who has experience in an industry thinks that they understand the industry and that people who have not worked in it do not. I know that. Sometimes it is useful to have a perspective from right outside an industry. But I do believe that CASA has suffered in the past by having a leadership that has not had the depth, breadth and strength of experience in aviation—not just the airlines. So I look forward to the appointments on that board and I look forward to a brighter future for CASA.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009, which are being debated together. These bills reflect the Rudd Labor’s government’s commitment to a strong and safe aviation industry. I enjoyed listening to the previous speaker’s analysis of this matter, particularly in relation to regional airlines’ access to Sydney airport. As someone who flies from capital city to capital city, I do find it frustrating to queue up at Mascot behind a couple of small prop jets with maybe 12 or 20 people in them while several jets with hundreds of people in them are delayed. As a capital city dweller or a city slicker I have railed against those regional jets holding up much bigger groups of passengers travelling from capital city to capital city or, indeed, from overseas. So it was interesting to hear that particular perspective even if it was not directly related to the contents of these bills.

There are a number of obvious reasons why this government is so committed to reform in this area to ensure that a strong and safe aviation industry continues to serve Australia’s interests over the next not only few years but couple of decades. It is a critical industry for our country, most obviously because we are an island economy. Airline links to the rest of the world are very critical for not only our lifestyle but our economic prosperity, especially in areas of particular interest to me such as tourism but also for freight. So it is important as an island that we have a strong, safe, vibrant aviation sector, and these bills go towards that end. As a large continent, it is also very important for internal domestic reasons that our aviation industry remains strong and safe. It is important in ways that smaller, more densely populated countries in continents with sophisticated rail and road networks do not really understand. The previous speaker spoke about the capacity to substitute an air trip for a road trip if the schedule does not suit. But in many parts of this continent, unlike much of travel within the US or Europe, particularly Great Britain, there is simply no alternative to air travel. So it is very important that Australians have confidence in a strong and safe aviation industry.

It is an industry which is a very large source of employment. They are secure and well-paid jobs, by and large, in the aviation industry, which employs around 50,000 Australians. It is an industry which, particularly in our region, the Asia-Pacific region, is experiencing very significant growth. In spite of the global recession and the downward pressure that the economic turmoil we are experiencing at the moment is placing on international air travel, particularly leisure travel and business travel, the Asia-Pacific region, particularly around China and India, but not exclusively, is experiencing very strong growth.

That poses a range of opportunities for Australia, including its tourism industry, but it also poses increased competition for our airlines and airlines from the region which fly to and from Australia. Increased competition in the sector always places if not pressure then at least the perception of pressure on things like maintenance, quality of service, security and safety standards. As I say, if there is not pressure then there is at least the perception of pressure and the need for increased public confidence that those very important aspects of aviation are not being sacrificed in order to deal with the increased competition which the aviation industry is facing in the Asia-Pacific.

The government are—as are all members of this House, I am sure—committed to setting a very strong platform for this industry over the coming 20 years and more. As with so many areas of reform undertaken by this government, we have set about a very detailed consultation process with the community to ensure we do that right. Firstly, in April 2008 the government issued an issues paper intended to stimulate debate within the community about the need for reform in this area. It was a paper that attracted over 290 submissions, indicating a very high level of interest in the community not only from big players in the aviation industry but also from ordinary members of the community—community groups impacted by the activities of airports and suchlike.

After consideration of that issues paper in December 2008, the government, or the minister particularly, issued a green paper which contains a number of proposals which will be the subject of ongoing discussion over coming months but also some proposals highlighted for early action which are the subject of these bills. As I just foreshadowed, there is intended to be ongoing discussion over the course of this year about a number of the issues raised in the green paper, with the government intending to issue a white paper later in 2009.

There has been very strong support from stakeholders in this industry, including the big players, for this very considered, consultative approach to reform of aviation. There has also been strong support for these bills. The first bill is the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009. It largely deals with the governance and powers of CASA. The recommendations are largely drawn from a unanimous Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport report in September 2008 but also pick up a number of issues foreshadowed in the green paper that followed that Senate report a couple of months later.

There are four components to the bill. The first component, as the previous speaker and other speakers have indicated, reintroduces a board to the governance structure of CASA, a board that was abolished in 2003. After that abolition, the sole decision-making authority within CASA lay with the chief executive officer, who also holds the statutory office of Director of Aviation Safety. CASA is a hugely complex and self-evidently important organisation within Australia. It employs some 600 staff and has responsibility for some of the most critical elements of community safety that we know of.

The green paper describes the role of CASA much better than that I could. Just to highlight the breadth of responsibility that this chief executive officer has in a strategic sense as well as in a day-to-day management sense, the green paper says on page 52:

CASA oversees the activities of over 42,000 licensed industry personnel (including pilots, Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers and Air Traffic Controllers), over 13,000 registered aircraft, more than 850 general aviation operators, more than 40 airline operators, over 700 maintenance organisations, more than 170 certified aerodromes, more than 130 registered aerodromes, and 26 air traffic control (ATC) facilities including major ATC centres in Brisbane and Melbourne.

CASA has a complicated dual role, being required to work constructively day-to-day with the industry it regulates, but also needing to take firm regulatory action against industry where necessary to ensure safety.

The Senate report I referred to earlier that reported in September 2008 heard overwhelming support from the industry for the reintroduction of a board structure into CASA. Certainly it is no reflection on the chief executive officer, who does a very outstanding job, but nevertheless all the key players that I have been able to research and which gave evidence to the Senate committee have indicated their support for a board structure. For example, going to that committee report at paragraph 2.99:

… Qantas submitted that the current governance structures are not delivering consistent policy direction and that the current responsibilities of the CEO are too broad.

They supported the concept of the reintroduction of the board structure. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association was also said to be supportive of this. Paragraph 2.101 said:

The committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses suggesting the re-establishment of the CASA board would have benefits for the governance of the organisation. AOPA told the committee that it considered the reintroduction of a board would provide a level of accountability for the CASA CEO and senior management.

The union for Qantas pilots, AIPA, also supported this approach. At paragraph 2.103 it says:

Captain Ian Woods from AIPA told the committee that, in his opinion, the re-establishment of a board would give CASA the ability to operate independently, with confidence, and in the public interest.

Lastly, but not least, the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation, ASAC, said in paragraph 2.104 that it also supported the reintroduction of the CASA board.

Although much of the green paper contains proposals for discussion leading up to the issuing of a white paper later this year, the green paper did foreshadow the intention of the government to act on that unanimous Senate committee recommendation before July 2009, which is how we find ourselves debating these bills today.

Within these bills, the government is proposing to introduce a five-member board. It is very clearly intended not to have members that represent sectional interests of the aviation industry but to have members with broad skills and experience relevant to the job. The job of the board will be to set the strategic direction of the organisation of CASA. The chief executive officer will properly be an ex-officio board member, responsible to the board for the performance of his or her duties and responsible to manage the day-to-day operations of the organisation that I outlined earlier from the green paper quote.

The legislation also deals with concerns within the industry that were highlighted in the issues paper and the discussions that followed that—concerns in the industry that the automatic stay provisions involved in safety investigations have become overly lax. The bill provides now that those automatic stay provisions will last for a maximum of only five days and that any extension of those provisions will only be able to be approved by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The third component of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill reflects the identification in the green paper of the need to tighten CASA’s oversight of foreign operators. I talked in my introduction about the growth of competition within our region, which reflects—or is reflected by, depending on your perspective—a proliferation of new airlines within the region, including some low-cost and some more mainstream operators. From a tourism and consumer perspective, this is a good thing. Increased competition is driving down airline prices and, to quote an ad, ‘democratising air travel’ for many people within a region that is—not before time—finally becoming richer.

But the Australian community, Australian travellers and the Australian aviation industry need to know more about what these aviation operators have in their safety backgrounds. We need to know more than simply what those operators do while they happen to be in Australia, and this bill does that. The bill will now allow CASA to take account of a number of factors not currently within its purview: firstly, the conduct of those operators offshore, not just when they happen to be within the Australian jurisdiction; and, secondly, the level of safety oversight provided by the overseas equivalents of CASA within the home jurisdictions of the various airlines that now come to Australia.

The fourth and final component is that the bill closes a loophole in offences that are designed to protect the sector—and passengers, for that matter—from the carriage of dangerous goods. The act now contains an offence dealing with the carriage or the consignment of dangerous goods on aircraft. To close a loophole, this bill adds a further offence that deals with the negligent, as opposed to the wilful, carriage or consignment of dangerous goods on aircraft. It is self-evident that this is an important loophole to be closed.

The second bill is the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009. It is also directed at improving or increasing public confidence in the safety regulation of the aviation industry. In a nutshell, the bill delivers greater independence to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which is currently an independent statutory agency run by a chief commissioner and a number of part-time commissioners. The level of independence currently in the act has been regarded by most in the industry and by this government as insufficient. The Miller review in 2007 recommended greater independence, and this bill delivers that, as was foreshadowed in the green paper.

The bill removes the bureau from any direction from the government, except that the minister can direct a particular incident to be investigated. Independence in this area is a core element of public confidence in an investigation authority, and this bill improves and solidifies the public confidence in an already outstanding bureau. I add for completeness that the level of independence contained within this bill is an element of the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation and so reflects our existing international obligations.

In summary, these bills together constitute a very significant advance in improving public confidence in our aviation regulation. There is more to come. The minister, and the government more generally, is still engaged in a detailed consultation process arising out of the matters raised in the green paper. As I indicated earlier, we will see a white paper issued later this year that no doubt will contain a number of other important recommendations for reform in this area. The government is committed to a vibrant, safe and sustainable aviation industry well into the future, and these bills go a long way towards delivering that objective. I commend them to the House.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Safety and security are the most important issues for Australia’s aviation industry, and Australian travellers rightly expect the highest standard from regulators to trainers, from air traffic controllers to pilots and from attendants right through to maintenance crews and security staff. The bills before the House, the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009, seek to improve governance of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and establish the Australian Transport Safety Bureau as a statutory agency.

The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 will mainly amend the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to reintroduce a board to govern the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and make improvements to the aviation safety regulatory regime under the act. In December 2008 the government released the national aviation policy green paper, Flight path to the future. The paper was the result of an industry consultation process and will serve as the foundation of a white paper due in late 2009. The matters covered in Flight path to the future were wide-ranging in scope, including aviation safety issues, and I note that the government stated that it would strengthen safety issues as well as strengthen the Civil Aviation Safety Authority by its retention as an independent statutory agency with responsibility for aviation safety regulation.

The government intends to reinforce CASA’s governance arrangements. That includes establishing a small expert board to guide the organisation and to recommend enhancements to CASA’s approach to regulation and surveillance of airlines. It will also strengthen CASA’s regulatory powers to inspect and regulate the operation of international carriers to ensure safety standards are met. It will update the regulatory powers and enforcement provisions in the Civil Aviation Act 1988, ensuring the effective management of future safety risks as well as giving CASA the necessary powers to deal effectively with operations that do not meet safety standards.

The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 strengthens CASA’s capacity to access information on suspected safety deficiencies through self-reporting by operators, affirming the obligation on AOC holders to notify CASA immediately of any failures in safety compliance and ensuring CASA’s penalty provisions provide a balanced and effective range of responses to breaches. The government is seeking to implement these commitments through the bill. A further commitment by the government following the release of Flight path to the future is to strengthen the independence of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau as a safety investigation agency as part of a statutory agency within the infrastructure portfolio working under a commission structure. This commitment is provided through the associated bill, the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009.

Aspects of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 dealing with the CASA governance have also been influenced by the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and related matters. Recommendation 1 was that:

… the Australian Government strengthen CASA’s governance framework and administrative capability by:

• introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA; and
• undertaking a review of CASA’s funding arrangements to ensure CASA is equipped to deal with new regulatory challenges.

As I said previously, safety is the most critical issues to passengers and all others involved in the aviation industry. Recent incidents involving Qantas simply reinforced basic safety issues to both passengers and airlines. In fact, these incidents were reported in the January 2009 edition of the European based Flight International magazine in its incidents and accidents listing. Under the category of ‘significant non-fatal incidents worldwide’ the actual events listed were the loss of electrical power in a Boeing 747 approaching Bangkok airport in January, the onboard explosive decompression over the Philippines in July and the unexpected drop in altitude for those aboard an Airbus A330 flying over north-west Australia in October 2008. These three incidents involved over a thousand people. Fortunately, all survived, but each incident reminded us why we cannot take air travel safety for granted.

The government has introduced these bills but conversely has apparently cut the number of armed air marshals by 35 to 40 per cent. These are the specially trained people who have secretly protected Australian passengers and aircraft with great effect since September 11. This was a $55-million-a-year program. I also understand that the government halted the terrorism awareness training program known as Operation Hawkeye, due to have been implemented at airports right around Australia in 2007. In fact, it was reported in the Australian on 24 February:

Airport staff, including front-counter ticketing officers, baggage handlers and cleaners, have not been given basic terrorism awareness training, despite it being a requirement under federal laws brought in after the September 11 attacks.

The article quoted counterterrorism expert Nick O’Brien, of Charles Sturt University’s centre for policing, as saying:

Considering al-Qa’ida is still interested in aviation as a target … there is nothing wrong with awareness training if it is being provided by the AFP or aviation authorities.

The expansion of aviation transport, especially into regional areas, enhancing tourism and regional economies, is extremely important. The Western Australian government has a new tourism campaign, launched recently, ‘Holiday at Home’. It has, by recent accounts, received overwhelming support. A recent survey indicated that Western Australians believe that, in the current economic circumstances, they should be holidaying at home instead of overseas. Many of those will be holidaying in our state and in my part of the state, rediscovering local world-class destinations and enjoying the convenience and value for money of holidaying at home while injecting much needed income into regional economies. It is not surprising, however, that total inbound visitor arrivals are estimated to drop by 4.2 per cent in 2009. Tourism operators and their employees in the industry will continue to be hard hit because the government has failed to support the industry during the global financial crisis.

The coalition, when in government, delivered additional support for the tourism industry to assist during times of global crisis. The support included the $79 million tourism recovery initiative, the $10 million SARS recovery package and a special $8 million funding boost for the former regional tourism program to help regional communities increase tourism sales. The Rudd government, in its first budget, introduced nearly $1 billion of new tourism taxes this year, including a 24 per cent increase in the passenger movement charge. This saw the charge increase from $38 to $47 and is an extra cost to airlines, agents, tourism operations and flying travellers. This has hit the aviation industry at a time when it is already struggling with rising costs and economic uncertainty. Should the government implement all 84 recommendations of the Beale report, that would impose an additional $1 billion in taxes on the tourism industry over the forward estimates, which is of even more concern. That would be $2 billion of new government tourism taxes in two years.

Tourism is a key economic driver for Western Australia, generating 80,000 jobs and injecting $7 billion into the economy, with over $2 billion of this spent in regions like my own. With over 483,000 Australians employed in the sector, I believe the government should explain how the $2 billion of tourism taxes will help tourism operators keep their doors open and retain Australian jobs during this period. Regional tourism is hurting. In the south-west in my electorate during the Christmas holiday period, forward orders and bookings were down by a record 10 per cent. Over summer the Busselton, Dunsborough and Margaret River areas are traditionally packed with holiday-makers. These are very difficult times indeed for regional tourism. In the Augusta Margaret River Times on Friday, 23 January the CEO of the tourism association, Francine Burton, confirmed what operators feared most: a 10 per cent slide in visits during the peak January period. And visitors who did come were spending less.

Jobs, jobs and jobs in the tourism industry require visitor growth, staff training and infrastructure projects such as regional airports, rail and road upgrades, particularly the Bunbury Outer Ring Road, the Perth to Bunbury highway, a dual highway to Margaret River and the Perimeter Road. I commend the launch of the WA government’s marketing campaign aimed at keeping those tourism dollars in the state. It also targets travellers from the eastern side—this side—of Australia as well as Singapore, one of Australia’s largest tourism markets. The federal government’s first budget provided an eight per cent decrease in total tourism spending, including a $5.9 million funding cut for Tourism Australia, and the Australian Tourism Development Program was cut by nearly half, from $29.9 million to just $16 million. In addition to the increase in the passenger movement charges, passport fees jumped by four per cent and visa application fees rose by $25.

A regional airport is very important to my south-west. Currently there are no domestic scheduled services for the holidaying public at any of the airstrips in my electorate. Air movements are serviced by local charter aircraft and privately owned planes. A regional airport facility located in this area would indeed enhance tourism numbers to the region, both of interstate and overseas visitors. It is interesting to note that the 2007 statistics for general aviation in Western Australia, excluding major airlines and regional airlines, showed 1,384 active aircraft flew a total of 394,300 hours. They show 145,300 hours were spent on charter, 110,500 were spent on training, 81,700 were spent on undertaking aerial work involving surveying, photography, mustering and ambulance transport and 30,200 hours were spent on private business.

Population growth is increasingly strong in my south-west. It is one of the three fastest-growing regions in Australia, and major infrastructure works are needed for future economic growth in the region. As I have stated before in this House, the population of the shire of Busselton increased by over 7,000 people from 1996 to 2006, an increase of 43 per cent. Over the same period, the state population grew by only 15 per cent. The Busselton shire has a strategy to cater for an additional 11,000 to 12,000 people over the next 15 to 20 years. An expanded airport service will be a necessity to cater for the extra activity in the region. The shire has also identified that the Busselton airport needs to be upgraded and expanded to become a regional airport with domestic services to attract workers and tourists from Perth and interstate. Of course, any expansion would have to deal with avoidance areas, residential estates, sensitive rural activity and noise factors. Currently there are 25 aircraft housed at Busselton airport, and training aircraft regularly take off and land.

The Royal Flying Doctor Service conducts regular training and patient pick-ups out of Busselton. In fact, the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Western Australia is kept very busy throughout the whole state and needs to be strongly supported to continue providing invaluable services to remote and regional areas. In 2006-07 the RFDS travelled over five million kilometres, flew over 16,000 hours, transferred over 6,000 patients, conducted over 1,600 clinics and made over 24,000 telehealth calls. In my electorate in the 2007-08 year, the RFDS transferred 768 patients from south-west hospitals, including 493 from Bunbury, 104 from Busselton, 61 from Manjimup, 47 from Collie, 28 from Margaret River, 19 from Bridgetown and eight from Augusta. As a result, we need to have continued investment in regional aviation infrastructure to ensure these and future services are aligned with the needs of regional Australians.

The problems at the Perth domestic airport are an example of planning and expansion that have not kept pace with growth. As Geoffrey Thomas reported in the West Australian on Monday, 2 March:

Rapid passenger growth, congested air space and big demand from mining companies’ fly in, fly out workforces have combined to turn Perth Airport into Australia’s most disjointed and dysfunctional, with the worst record in the country for late departures … with only 64 per cent of flights leaving on time.

…            …            …

Thirty minute-plus delays are not uncommon.

Airservices Australia, the government operator of the air traffic control system, has completed a major review of airlanes into the Perth Airport area in an effort to minimise delays. The 61 per cent growth in movements of large aircraft in the past five years has exceeded all expectations and is at the root of the problems at the airport. In 2007-08 the airport was bulging, handling 9.17 million passengers, which is a 73 per cent leap in just five years. That is four times more than the population of Western Australia.

I am also concerned that the green paper makes no mention of flying clubs and instead places its emphasis on training with universities. Beatrice Thomas reported in the West Australian on 18 February that the WA aeroclub warned that flying clubs are under threat from the government’s proposed reforms aligning flight schools with universities and also that pilot training could be compromised by the move. The president of the aeroclub, Jack Gregor, said clubs already affected by the slump in the aviation industry would suffer if stripped of training income and believes that practical tuition is better served by flying clubs. It is very important that the government responds to stakeholders in the aviation industry to ensure that the local flight schools and aeroclubs continue their practical, hands-on training.

The green paper proposed a five-member board, as I said earlier. That board would appoint the CEO. However, I notice that, on 16 December, the minister announced a new CEO.

Flight path to the future examined CASA’s regulatory powers and industry interactions and considered options for voluntary and mandatory aviation safety reporting requirements, as well as increased penalties for regulatory breaches. The task force recommended that the current reform process be completed by 2011-12.

As has been said in this House previously, there is widespread support within industry for the new CASA board that will assist the organisation in managing growth and trends—trends such as low-cost carriers—as well as facilitating effective interaction between the regulator and industry. Continuous technology and other changes taking place in the aviation sector will require governance arrangements that ensure CASA is equipped to monitor and drive the safety outcomes. The new board is expected to facilitate better relations across agencies with safety responsibilities as well as assist with the integration of the industry’s and other related stakeholders’ strategy input.

The bill also states that CASA is not intended to represent sectional interests but is intended as a governance board working for overall safety benefits for the Australian community. It will involve striking a balance between the competing needs of different industry sectors and operating at a strategic level supporting CASA’s role in regulation and safety oversight. It will not be involved in day-to-day activities.

The bill also strengthens and improves CASA’s enforcement powers across a number of areas, including that of negligence in carrying dangerous goods. It extends the period of enforceable voluntary undertakings to redress identified safety deficiencies from six months to one year. The bill contains a number of changes to CASA’s investigative powers and its search and seizure procedures to bring them into line with current Commonwealth criminal justice procedures and practices. It extends powers to allow CASA to use search and seizure powers under chapter 7 of the Criminal Code. Giving CASA the ability to exercise more effective oversight of foreign aircraft operations will significantly enhance CASA’s ability to impose requirements on holders of AOCs and other permits authorising the operation of foreign registered aircraft into and out of Australia. This will ensure the provision of more information about their ability and willingness to satisfy safety requirements.

I am pleased that the government has accepted the recommendation of Mr Russell Miller to clarify the ATSB’s independence as the national safety investigation agency—something that received strong support from industry. I strongly support this civil aviation amendment and transport legislation. However, I do call on the government to fund the air marshal program.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009. Before I do so, I thought I would declare any possible conflict of interest for the benefit of the House. The first declaration is that I, too, have a general aviation airport in my electorate—Archerfield Airport—and have a long family history with that airport. In fact, I think my grandfather drove bulldozers there back in World War II when the American air force was based there. Also, I live in Moorooka and used to live in Tarragindi, and nearly every single plane that goes into Brisbane Airport coming from the south flies right over my electorate. In fact, when I used to live in Tarragindi, they seemed to fly right over my bedroom. Also, as a member of parliament, obviously, I get to inspect a lot of airports—mainly Brisbane and Canberra airports, but we do wander around the country a bit and see a lot of airports.

I turn now to the legislation before the House. I will firstly say that, although it is not perfect, Australia’s aviation safety record is the envy of the world. In Australia, aviation accidents and fatalities are extremely infrequent, and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found that air travel is the safest travel option in Australia. As I said, we do have a very, very proud history. If we look at Qantas, the Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services, it has a proud record—a record known round the world, in fact. I take your mind back to the movie Rain ManI am talking about the movie Rain Man, not the former environment minister, the member for Wentworth, and his cloud-seeding experiment but the movie Rain Man that had Dustin Hoffman in it—where there was that famous exchange between Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman. Tom Cruise was playing the character Charlie, and Raymond was played by Dustin Hoffman. I will just quote that exchange, which was a very popular piece of footage on Qantas in-flight movies but which was not shown on any other airline’s in-flight movies. The Tom Cruise character, Charlie, says:

All airlines have crashed at one time or another. That doesn’t mean that they are not safe.

Raymond, the autistic brother, says:

Qantas. Qantas never crashed.

Charlie says:

Qantas?

Raymond says:

Yes, never crashed.

Charlie says:

Oh, that’s gonna do me a lot of good because Qantas doesn’t fly to Los Angeles out of Cincinnati, you have to get to Melbourne! Melbourne, Australia in order to get the plane that flies to Los Angeles! Do you hear me?

Then Raymond’s response is:

Canberra’s the capital. 16.2 million population.

And then Charlie lets go. That exchange illustrates the proud history of safety in Australian air transport. Not only does this safety record ensure that there is greater peace of mind for frequent flyers; it also helps boost confidence in related industries like tourism and freight, so that, when we do a pitch to the world, we are able to do so with a lot more substance.

But unfortunately we have not been without incident. Only last year, Qantas passenger aircraft were involved in three significant incidents. Maybe the Rain Man of today would not have that exchange. Thankfully, serious accidents were avoided and no-one was badly injured or killed. However, last year 38 people died as a result of air transport, general aviation and recreational aviation activities. Air safety is something we should never take for granted and something which should remain a top priority for industry and for government. No matter how good our aviation record is, Australia must strive to do even better. Government and industry must work together to ensure the Australian aviation industry remains one of the best and safest in the world.

The Rudd government released the national aviation policy green paper Flight path to the future in December last year. I know this paper involved a broad consultation process with industry, and they received a number of submissions from all around Australia. I especially noted some submissions from aviation interests in my electorate, particularly those people connected with the Archerfield Airport. I would like to particularly mention them: the president, Lindsay Snell, who has taken me for an inspection of Archerfield Airport in his helicopter; the executive officer, Ross Steele, who works tirelessly for the Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce; the vice-president, David McGrath; the secretary, Clement Grehan; and the treasurer, Des Harrison. All of these people are pilots connected with the Archerfield Airport in my electorate and they do fantastic work. Brisbane’s secondary airport has long been a magnet for aviation enthusiasts and continues to provide a base for pilot training, freight and weekend pilots such as the office holders that I mentioned.

The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 implements a key policy of the green paper: to strengthen Australia’s civil watchdog, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, more popularly known as CASA. The bill gives CASA greater powers to enforce safety standards and improves the governance of CASA by establishing a CASA board. The board will provide strategic oversight and direction for air safety and will ensure that CASA performs effectively. The five-member board will be appointed by the minister for terms not exceeding three years. However, the minister will still be limited from directing CASA on certain matters to ensure that decisions are made in the interests of air safety, not political interest. The board will also consider the future directions of air safety and the implications of new technologies and other changes in the industry as they come online.

As I said previously, this bill also strengthens CASA’s power to enforce air safety standards. For example, a new offence of the negligent carriage of dangerous goods will be created. This effectively closes a loophole to ensure that carriers take appropriate care when transporting dangerous goods on an aircraft. The bill also gives CASA greater powers relating to overseas based operators who are flying to Australia. Before allowing a flight to enter Australia, CASA will be able to take into account the conduct of the air operator and the level of safety oversight provided by civil aviation authorities in other countries. This measure will help build confidence that aircraft entering Australian skies comply with appropriate safety measures. These extra powers will also ensure that CASA can take reasonable steps to enforce air safety while not placing an unnecessary burden on the industry.

In addition to the increased powers and better governance for CASA, the government is also committed to boosting the independence of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill will establish the Australian Transport Safety Bureau as an independent statutory authority from 1 July 2009. In his 2007 review, Russell Miller recommended that the government address the independence of the ATSB and clarify its role as the national safety investigation agency. These amendments will achieve this. The position of executive directors will be replaced by commissioners appointed by the minister. Apart from having matters referred for investigation, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau will be able to exercise its powers without any interference.

Travel is such a vital and important part of modern life, particularly in a nation like Australia that is such a large continent. As a Queenslander, coming from the most decentralised state, I am particularly passionate about air travel and transport in all forms. Whether we are travelling to work, to visit friends or just for fun, everybody has a right to expect that their journey will be a safe one. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. I accept, and I think we can all acknowledge, that sometimes accidents happen and sometimes people make mistakes, but it is our responsibility as a government to ensure that we do whatever we can to keep our roads, rails, skies and waterways safe. It is also our responsibility to ensure that mechanisms are in place to thoroughly investigate breaches of safety, that dodgy transport operators are held accountable and that measures are put in place to ensure that mistakes do not happen again. Any smart society knows that you learn from your mistakes rather than keep repeating them. These bills work together to improve transport safety for everyone. I thank the transport minister for his commitment to improving transport safety and his work in introducing these bills. I commend the bills to the House.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 and the cognate bill and to vent my extreme anger with CASA, which I think is a disgraceful organisation that takes no responsibility for responsibilities it is supposed to be exercising. In the case of bananas, I hope we will prosecute the public servants responsible personally, because we just cannot go on having government in Australia like this.

Karumba is a little town of nearly a thousand people who were completely cut off during the floods, being some 15 kilometres from the nearest land. The nearest town was three hours away by a glorified dinghy; that was the only way for nearly a thousand people to get out of that town if they broke a leg or had a heart attack, because there is no airport, because thanks to privatisation no-one is looking after the airport and the airport has fallen into disuse and cannot be used anymore. So there is no way of getting in or out except by helicopter. There are no helicopters in the area that have CasEvac stretcher facilities, so if people had a heart attack—as you would be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Washer—or a broken limb, there was no way we could transport them out except in a glorified dinghy, for a journey of nearly three hours across raging, crocodile-infested floodwaters up to Normanton.

After being venomously attacked in the media, the state government—they must be condemned—eventually put a helicopter there, but the helicopter had no stretcher facility. After being venomously attacked again, the government gave us a stretcher facility. But when the helicopter was put there—and this was the second week of what became two months of Karumba being cut off in this way—it had no night-flying capacity. There are very few choppers in Queensland that do have night-flying capacity, and this is not a problem. I use helicopters a lot and the arguments over safety are absolutely, totally spurious. If you ascend 50 or 100 feet above Normanton, you can see Karumba. You can see it during the day and you can see it at night. Even though it is three hours away by boat, because you have to follow the river, it is only about 35 or 40 kilometres as the crow flies. You can clearly see it, so the arguments about deep holes and disorientation and all of that rubbish are enormously spurious.

In addition to that, the helicopter has an instrument that tells you whether you are horizontal, so if you have a GPS and an instrument that tells you whether you are horizontal or not and if you can see the lights of both towns then any argument that says that the helicopter cannot be used at night is spurious. I rang up three of the leading helicopter operators in Queensland and asked them about it. They said: ‘Why wouldn’t you be allowed to do that? Sure, you need a night rating’—and these people do not have night rating—‘but why would anyone refuse you the right to do that?’ I said, ‘CASA is point-blank refusing to give it.’ At this very moment those people up there—a thousand Australians—have been deprived of that right and possibly of their life. If anyone dies there, let there be no doubt I will be in Slater & Gordon’s office so fast all you will see is a blur of speed for me to get in there and sue these people.

The clause says that in an emergency the helicopter can be used. But who is to say it is an emergency? All we wanted from CASA was for them to say that there was an emergency situation there. The chopper pilot, according to CASA, was going to risk his life. But he is now risking his life, according to CASA, and his job because the onus and burden of proof shifts to him to prove why he should not be prosecuted. They made it quite clear that they were not going to declare an emergency situation at Karumba.

These people are drunk with power. Dick Smith needs to be put back in charge. Dick Smith used the phrase ‘affordable safety’. For people sitting down here comfortably in Canberra, it might be very nice to make it impossible to have an aeroplane crash; that would be very comfortable for them. My grandad put a lot of money he could not afford into a little company called Qantas because it might just have been a matter of life and death for us to have aeroplanes operating. They may not have been really safe but they were a hell of a lot better than having nothing. My father, a wonderful man, said that if ever on earth he had met a saint it was ‘Flynn of the Inland’—the Reverend Flynn—who instituted the Royal Flying Doctor Service. We do not know how many lives they saved, but they went out in little aircraft that in today’s terms would be very unsafe indeed. They risked their lives to save lives and they saved hundreds and hundreds of lives, and to my knowledge they never lost an aeroplane.

I will come back to my own family’s experience—and I do not have to go any further than my own family’s experience, living on the frontiers of Australia for four generations on the Katter side. My uncle—who I never, ever saw; he died before I was born—was injured in a football match, and there was a previous car accident. He was in very desperate straits and, because my grandfather was perspicacious enough to know that you could get an aeroplane to fly him to Brisbane, after some phoning around—this is back in the 1920s—they got an aeroplane. But by the time they got the Qantas aeroplane to come across from Longreach to Cloncurry it was really too late. By the time he arrived in Brisbane it was too late.

That is the difference with ‘affordable safety’: it is our decision if we wish to have a situation where it may not be safe. But we have no aeroplanes. At Ingham, we simply cannot get in or out because there are no light aircraft left in North Queensland. They have all been closed down because of the cost structures that have been imposed principally, they tell me, by CASA. The privatisation of the airports has created another huge problem for aviation affordability in Australia. There is no use us saying that the planes may not be safe, because there are no planes at all. If you break a leg on a cattle station, too bad for you; you just have to die. You may have something that might be a headache or it might also be an aneurism in the brain and you might be about to die.

The famous Saxby case, which down through the years got an awful lot of publicity, was just such a case—there was a kick in the head at the rodeo and a headache. You cannot justify sending a Royal Flying Doctor Service plane a thousand kilometres every time a person gets a headache. I defended the Royal Flying Doctor Service in that situation. But the fact of the matter was that the man had brain damage and died. If there had been a light aircraft in the vicinity, he would have been flown out by that light aircraft and he would be alive today. It was that sort of case. The doctor said, ‘If this man had been flown out when the owners of the station requested him to be flown out then that man would be alive today.’ I am saying that Dick Smith’s concept of affordable safety is where we should be at.

To demonstrate the towering hypocrisy of CASA, I can tell you that I sent two letters to them concerning an aviation company in North Queensland. To my knowledge, there was not one single thing done about that airline—not a single damn thing. I do not think I even got the courtesy of a telephone call from CASA. There was evidence there of a series of conduct that was not in line with what I would expect from an airline in terms of safety. So, for the only problem I had in that area, CASA was not there at all; they might as well have been on Mars.

The other case is the case of the helicopters. They tortured our mustering helicopters. They imposed all sorts of conditions that were almost impossible to meet. If they had got away with it at the time, it would have doubled the cost of mustering in the cattle industry in Australia and achieved absolutely nothing in the way of safety. It concerned fatigue. I have lost some very close friends in chopper accidents, so I take a very keen interest in chopper accidents. Having had cattle all of my adult life, almost since I was a kid—just me, not my parents—obviously it is a matter that concerns me greatly. The mustering industry—not necessarily the cattle industry—is one of the major industries in the electorate that I represent.

Out of seven accidents—before this controversy with CASA arose, which I will come to in a moment—not a single one had the slightest, remotest element of fatigue associated with it. It just so happened that in all seven cases the bloke had had a very long and adequate night’s sleep—and there was no-one sharing his sleep, if you get my drift. There was no fatigue element, yet these people were going to go out and impose a regime that would have nearly doubled the cost of mustering cattle on the big runs in the areas I represent—not to achieve a single iota of extra safety. Worse still: they were acting out of complaints by one company against another company. So they acted at the behest of a big corporate company against an owner-operated company in North Queensland.

The point I am coming to is that I have written to CASA again and again. I have had personal meetings with them to plead with them to put electrical powerline sounders on helicopters, because five of those seven deaths were the result of helicopters running into powerlines. That is the gravest of dangers that continues for any helicopter operator. Whether he is a tourist operator or a parachute facilitator or a crop duster helicopter—whatever the hell he is—the greatest danger is powerlines. It is a very simple device. When you come close to a powerline, it starts shrieking and tells you: ‘Hey! Stop! Stop where you are. Don’t go any further, because you are about to run into a powerline.’

The cost of these units is $5,000. If you are paying a couple of hundred thousand dollars for a helicopter, $5,000 is not a lot of money one way or the other. Purchased in bulk—through a government contract, of course—I would say they would probably be under $3,000. But CASA has not done one single thing to put the sounders in. There will be friends of mine who will die in the next five or 10 years as a result of the irresponsibility of these people. These are the same people who said: ‘You can’t take the chopper into Karumba.’ I will tell you why: because they get a big buzz out of the power. They get a big buzz out of deciding who will live and who will die. It made them feel really powerful. It was the only reason that this occurred.

The remarks I have just made are unassailable. There is nothing in the regulations that requires an electricity transmission line sounder on helicopters—nothing at all. I have spoken to hundreds of mustering pilots over the years, and they all say: ‘Yeah, it would be a good idea, but I don’t do it, Bobby, because I drive very safely.’ These blokes all consider themselves bulletproof. They are blokes who are roughriders in rodeos and play rugby league football. The chopper pilots are a pretty good mob. They are my mob, and I know them all well. They are people who are of the very essence of the business that they are in. They love the sense of adventure and excitement—and, of course, they believe they are bulletproof. Take the example of safety belts in cars: all of the opinion polls that were taken before safety belts came in said people did not think they should be compulsory. But no-one put them in voluntarily; that had to be done by the government. It is a similar situation here.

So I would plead with the minister. I do not like the increased search and seizure provisions. These are people who have clearly demonstrated—in the case of Karumba—that they like throwing their weight around and having their power. People are terrified of them. Every single person involved in aviation in Australia is absolutely terrified of them—and quite rightly so. They literally have the power of life and death, and they have the power of taking your income away from you as well. We have reached a situation in North Queensland where we really have to ring up probably a week in advance now to get aeroplanes, because there are no aeroplanes left. We had five charter operators working out of Townsville, and now we have effectively one—that is all. Where we had maybe 20 charter planes there, we might now have two or three at the most.

People tell me—not necessarily people in Townsville—that CASA has imposed such heavy cost burdens upon this industry that they no longer can operate, and ‘If we charge what we have to charge to make a quid, there’d be no business out there; no-one would use us.’ That is the reason behind the ridiculously high charges, but they have to charge like that to meet the requirements. These people have no reason to tell me lies, and they did not say these things with any vindictiveness towards CASA—far from it. I said to them, ‘Costs have doubled over the last seven or 10 years’—or whatever it was; it might have been three years—and they said, ‘Mate, the costs of meeting the regulations these days have exploded; they’ve skyrocketed.’

People in the country, where I come from, will die if we do not have aeroplanes. It has become almost impossible to have aeroplanes. I would say that, when I was elected to parliament, we had 100 or maybe 200 aeroplanes in country North Queensland—if I could use that expression. I doubt whether we would have 15 or 20 now. Why have they gone? The price of an aeroplane has not increased all that much. The price of fuel most certainly has, but that is not a huge item in this case. And the wages for pilots have hardly moved much at all, unfortunately.

There are rules. Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools, and every single person who has lived under a regime of rules will know that that is a very, very true thing to say. But this has a different dimension to it. When you know that people’s lives were placed at risk at Karumba due to something which cannot be described in any other way except pedantic arrogance, you know that that is a group that needs to be called into question. CASA are there to deliver safety for people. How conscious are these people of safety when a thousand human beings were left for three hours in tiny, glorified dinghies, in raging, crocodile-infested floodwaters, thanks to their decision—which not a single operator in Queensland thought was anything more than ridiculous?

When I rang people, they could not understand why I was ringing them. One person said, ‘How could it be dangerous? Are there storms around?’ I said, ‘No. If there are storms around that is a dangerous situation, but I’m not talking about storms; I am just talking about an ordinary, star-lit night.’ He said, ‘Well, why wouldn’t you do it?’ And I said, ‘Because they won’t give us a clearance. The bloke has to risk his job’, and—according to them—risk his life. We all know that there is no risk to life over and above what is the normal risk with a helicopter. We know that, but they are now told that they risk losing their job if they go in and rescue someone. I am sure that, if called upon, those young chopper pilots—decent, terrific people; exciting people to be with, actually, in every respect—would have gone in and risked their jobs. I do not think that they would have been risking their lives, but I think that they most certainly would have been risking their jobs. That stress was put upon them by CASA. I see no reason to praise this organisation—none whatsoever—and I see every reason to condemn them. (Time expired)

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009, and I look forward to this opportunity. These bills are important in their detail, but the overall context is also important. The bills are also important for my electorate of Corangamite, in Geelong. I will get to the detail of the legislation in a minute, but first of all let us look at the context surrounding the bills. The bills show just how much attention we give our airline industry. They show that in Australia we are constantly trying to improve and refine our aviation industry. We are constantly trying to make our airline industry and air commuting safer. We are vigilant about improving regulation and governance arrangements in the industry—and so we should be.

Obviously, this is an industry where there are risks and where accidents can be catastrophic. I think if you sit back and look at this legislation in context for a minute, you will see that it says a lot about our whole approach to aviation. It says we have the very healthy attitude that we can always do better. We are constantly searching for excellence in the running of this industry. That is certainly what this government is about. I think if you look at the attitudes behind this legislation, you will see why Australia has one of the safest and most efficient aviation industries in the world. I want to put on the record that I am proud of the Australian aviation industry’s record, particularly on safety.

In the first instance, I will go to some of the detail of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009. This bill puts in place the government’s national aviation policy green paper commitment. This commitment was about establishing a Civil Aviation Safety Authority board and enhancing CASA’s ability to take critical additional actions around safety. The board that is proposed to be established will be a small expert board, responsible for CASA’s strategic oversight. We will have the best in the business on this board, with an appropriate mix of very high-level skills. It will support the Director of Aviation Safety in managing CASA. The director will retain responsibility for the normal day-to-day decision-making processes.

There are a number of things in this bill that will help CASA’s ability to take necessary safety action. These measures include creating an offence for the negligent carriage of dangerous goods; extending CASA’s powers to regulate foreign operators; amending the automatic stay provisions in relation to CASA’s power to prevent an unsafe operator from flying; and bringing CASA’s investigation powers into alignment with the Criminal Code.

This bill will further enhance CASA’s governance arrangements. The CASA board is not intended to represent the sectional interests of the aviation industry. It will be a high-level, very skilled and knowledgeable strategic body. It will not be directly involved in the day-to-day activities of the authority. Whilst to a certain extent these roles are undertaken today, this structure very much clarifies the situation. There will be very clear structural governance arrangements. The director will manage CASA under the board’s strategic guidance and will be responsible to the board.

Another important aspect of this bill is what is termed the ‘automatic stay provisions’. In the past, I believe, CASA has been hamstrung by automatic stay provisions, which nullified CASA’s ability to suspend dodgy operators. Without naming names, in my electorate we have had at least one operator whom I believe has taken enormous risks, and I would go as far as saying that this operator defines the word ‘shonky’. Passengers, pilots and the public were all put at risk by this operator, who was expert in using legal loopholes to continue with very dubious operations. CASA had a lot of difficulty in dealing with this operator and in taking decisive action where necessary. Partly, this was due to the regulatory difficulties within the various acts. I think the new regulation will help CASA deal with these types of outfits.

Amendments in this bill are proposed to the automatic stay provisions. This will ensure that any extension beyond five days of a CASA decision to vary, suspend or cancel certain civil aviation authorisations is the result of an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a stay and the AAT’s determination on that application. The effect of this amendment will be to ensure important safety related implications of permitting a stay to continue beyond a five-day period only occur if a stay order from the AAT is sought. This would minimise any incentive, on the part of civil aviation authorisation holders or other affected persons, to unreasonably delay a determination of the matter on the merits by the AAT. I think that is an important step forward.

The other important aspect of this bill is regulatory oversight of foreign based operators. The bill strengthens CASA’s regulatory oversight of foreign based operators flying to Australia. It ensures CASA has the ability to satisfy itself that all operators flying into Australia are receiving adequate safety oversight outside Australia. That is a crucial power. This is obviously a difficult area and one which will need ongoing close monitoring to see whether these regulatory changes actually achieve what we have set out to achieve. The changes in this area allow CASA to take a broader range of issues into account when considering whether to allow a foreign operator to fly into Australia. They enable CASA to take greater account of the conduct of air operators in their home and in other jurisdictions as well as the level of safety oversight provided by civil aviation authorities in other countries. This is another important step forward.

The other major aspect of this bill is about carrying dangerous goods. The bill closes a loophole that controls the carriage of dangerous goods on board an aircraft. This is a major safety issue. The inclusion of an offence for the negligent carriage or consignment of these goods makes sure that any lack of care by carriers and consignors is adequately addressed.

Finally, when we are talking about the aviation industry and there is a politician from the Geelong region speaking on this issue in this chamber, one might expect some of the detail related to the establishment and development of Avalon airport within Geelong. I will get to how the detail of this bill relates to Avalon, but first I would like to, again, put on the public record the importance of Avalon. As you are probably aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Washer, the future development of Avalon airport, both for domestic aviation and potentially for international carriers, is critical to the future of my region. It is critical for tourism operators, who are already one of the major drivers of our economy, particularly along the Great Ocean Road. If Avalon is opened up to international carriers, tourism will go to a whole new level in my region. Thousands more people will be employed in the tourism sector if Avalon goes international.

There is nothing more significant to tourism in my region than the future of Avalon. Avalon is also important to a range of other industries, particularly industries trading overseas and high-tech industries, because goods can be brought in or exported much faster, more efficiently and much more safely. Goods can be exported or imported on time. What happens to Avalon will have a big bearing on our region’s whole future. I think all ministers in this government are now aware of the importance of Avalon. This bill, I believe, is another little step in the future development of Avalon.

One of the key issues with the future development of Avalon is, of course, security. Avalon, if it is opened up to the world, will become another part of the Australian border. This bill, by degree, improves border security by providing better governance arrangements in the aviation industry. It makes the governance of the aviation industry more robust, safer and more secure. The bill also gives us greater control over foreign airline operators. This will surely also add to the confidence we can have in security. Of course, the activities we are dealing with are not just decisive in security; they will all play their part in giving us confidence in the overall system.

The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill shows this government’s commitment to aviation safety. In yet another important area of public policy we are taking decisive action to strengthen the nation’s safety agencies and their oversight of the aviation industry. Circumstances have clearly changed since the decision in 2003 to abolish the CASA board. Since then, a substantial amount of organisational reform has been undertaken in CASA, and the way that CASA interacts with the aviation industry has evolved. This legislation recognises that evolution. As I said, the bill is just another example of why Australia has the safest, and certainly one of the most efficient, airline industries in the world.

I will now make a few comments about the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009. The bill amends the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 to establish the Australian Transport Safety Bureau as a statutory agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999. The agency will be established with a commission structure and will come into being on 1 July 2009.

The intent of this amendment is very simple. It is to strengthen the independence and clarify the role of the ATSB as the national safety investigation agency. It clarifies the relationship with CASA and puts in place arrangements to ensure independence in the investigation process. This change did not come out of any whim. It was the result of some careful consideration and, in particular, a review in 2007 by Mr Russell Miller AM. Mr Miller found that there was room for improvement and clarification in the relationship between the two agencies at a governance level.

This issue was also addressed in the national aviation policy green paper, released on 2 December 2008. It is crucial that, where accidents or incidents occur, investigations are independent of the parties involved in an accident, including transport regulators and government policymakers. It is a way of avoiding conflicts of interest and external interference so that the findings of any investigation are completely beyond question.

The amendment is also completely consistent with the Convention on International Civil Aviation, which states:

The accident investigation authority shall have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct …

The ATSB will also have operational independence with respect to exercising its investigative powers and functional independence with respect to the administration of its resources.

The Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009 again demonstrates this government’s commitment to aviation safety. It demonstrates Labor is committed to scrutinising and improving all areas of our aviation industry. Labor is taking decisive action to strengthen the nation’s safety agencies and their oversight of the aviation industry. I commend these bills to the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009. These bills implement the government’s national aviation policy green paper commitment to establishing a Civil Aviation Safety Authority board and to enhancing CASA’s ability to take necessary safety action. With respect to that, I note that the primary functions of the board will be: deciding on the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA; ensuring CASA performs its functions efficiently and effectively; and ensuring CASA complies with directions given by the minister under section 12B.

Enhanced safety will be achieved through this legislation by implementing four specific actions. Firstly, an offence will be created for the negligent carriage of dangerous goods on board aircraft; secondly, CASA’s powers will be extended to regulate foreign operators; thirdly, the automatic stay provisions in relation to CASA’s power to prevent an unsafe operator from flying will be amended; and, fourthly, CASA’s investigative powers will be brought into alignment with the Criminal Code.

Whilst Australia’s aviation industry has a very good safety record, the government needs to maintain a watchful eye on the existing legislation relating to the aviation industry in Australia. It is an industry that employs roughly 55,000 people across the nation. Last year, according to the latest figures I was able to obtain, there were some 48.8 million passenger movements within Australia. There were also 23.5 million international passenger movements at airports in the major city and regional airports in Australia. That is a lot of people using aircraft services. Interestingly, last year 38 people died in aviation accidents in this country, and the year before the figure was 23. It might be coincidental that the number has increased and, when one looks at the number of people killed or injured in aircraft accidents compared to, perhaps, those killed in road accidents, the number is pretty low. But, for people who fly, there is always that concern. The loss of any life is huge, and if it can be avoided then so it should be.

Also interestingly, in the year 2003, there were 4,856 incidents reported that related to the aviation industry. In 2008, the figure was 7,833—a fairly substantial increase. Likewise, when it comes to serious incidents, in 2003 there were six reported and in 2008 there were 64. I acknowledge that that may well be a result of the better reporting procedures put in place in 2003.It does not necessarily imply that there was a dramatic increase in the number of incidents and serious incidents—it may well be that the reporting arrangements are much better and that, as a result, we are therefore able to better track what is happening. It may be that; but I do not know for certain, and I do not think that anyone else does either—it may also be the case that there has, in fact, been an increase in the number of incidents that have been investigated by the relevant authorities.

In recent times, hardly a week has gone by when we do not hear or read about an aircraft incident in some part of the world. Regrettably, when a serious accident does occur, the number of lives lost is often substantial. Even more regrettable is that most of those accidents might have been avoided if additional safety precautions had been taken. Any action, therefore, that can be taken to ensure a greater level of safety for aviation passengers should be implemented. Aviation travel has become a necessary and frequently used mode of travel by commuters, and we are likely to see aviation passenger numbers increase in the years ahead. I heard the member for Port Adelaide make a reference to that in his address earlier on, and I believe he is absolutely right when he talks about the trends in the aviation industry worldwide.

Simultaneously, many of those carriers are likely to be foreign owned airlines, as the airline industry becomes more globalised and more competitive. While competition provides passengers with cheaper prices—and we have seen a substantial reduction in some airfares—it also inevitably leads to cost-cutting by the carriers. That cost-cutting can sometimes jeopardise the safety standards that are expected of the aviation industry. With the global financial recession, one can only expect that the aviation industry will also face additional financial pressures and, in turn, that those will lead to further cost-cutting. That cost-cutting may well lead to cost-cutting in areas relating to safety. For example, the screening of goods—and, in particular, dangerous goods—that are taken on board aircraft has not always been as thorough as it should have been. I suspect—and I do not have any particular evidence of this—that there would be many examples of products taken on board aircraft where, had the authorities been aware that those goods were being taken on board the aircraft, they would never have been allowed.

Under this bill, negligence by the carriers in allowing dangerous goods on board an aircraft will become an offence, thereby creating a greater level of responsibility by the carriers. In other words, in the future, negligence will no longer be a defence from prosecution. Importantly, under this bill, CASA’s powers will be extended to include foreign operators. This is a critical change the CASA’s authority, because, presently, there is little control over the maintenance and safety standards applied by foreign airlines—yet they fly into Australia and carry Australian passengers. We have absolutely no control, really, with respect to those airline services’ maintenance standards in the countries in which they are based. I note that this provision is consistent with actions taken in the European Union and in North America with respect to these issues. Of course, the ideal situation would be that uniform aircraft safety legislation would apply across the world. If that legislation was in place, there would be an obligation on all countries and on all governments to enforce the provisions of that legislation.

I also very much welcome the provisions in this bill which bring CASA’s investigative powers in line with the Criminal Code. Investigating the cause of aircraft incidents can be a very difficult task. Therefore, providing CASA with both the investigative tools required and appropriate penalties to impose where breaches are established can only improve compliance by the carriers and improve safety for passengers. I point out that that particular provision of the bill contains a number of changes to CASA’s investigative powers and search and seizure procedures to bring them into line with current Commonwealth criminal justice procedures and practices. It will also extend powers to allow CASA to use search and seizure powers under chapter 7 of the Criminal Code. I welcome the introduction of those provisions.

Parafield Airport is a general aviation airport located adjacent to the electorate of Makin, which I represent. It is located just north of the city of Adelaide and was established almost 80 years ago. I am very familiar with the airport and with the safety concerns that have been raised with me by residents living in the area surrounding the airport over many years—because, prior to being a member of this place, I was the Mayor of the City of Salisbury, which has jurisdiction over the area in which Parafield Airport is located. Over the years, it would be fair to say that I have received numerous—probably hundreds—of representations from residents about aircraft safety issues relating to Parafield Airport. Those concerns arise because of two specific factors. Firstly, over the years, the residential development has encroached on land in very close proximity to the airport. While the airport was always there, and while the new homeowners were aware of the proximity of the airport to their homes, the fear of a mishap and of an aircraft crashing into a residential area is always there among some homeowners. Added to that is the fact that there has been a substantial level of commercial and industrial development on the airport land itself in recent years, bringing aircraft activities—particularly take-offs and landings—much closer to where people work or shop.

The second concern is that much of the airport activity—and I am referring to the flying activity at the airport—is related to a flying school, where, logically, many of the aircraft are being flown by trainee pilots. The safety record of the airport and of the training school is very, very good, and I believe that the safety concerns raised may not be warranted. But, whether they are warranted or not, they are nevertheless real in the minds of many of the residents who have raised them with me. Therefore, any additional action that we can take as a parliament to improve aviation safety will put their minds at ease and will certainly be welcomed by those residents. If those residents know that the provisions relating to airport safety have been strengthened, they will then at least have some peace of mind and will know that every possible precaution is being taken to ensure that a mishap does not occur and that their safety is not being placed at any risk.

In respect of flight safety and accidents, I refer to a comment I made when we were debating the Safe Work Australia Bill. One of the matters that I believe is sometimes overlooked is that many of the people who work in the airline industry—and I referred to some 55,000 earlier on—are obviously onboard these planes. Ensuring that we have the right regulations in place to ensure their utmost safety is also an issue of safe work practices. For them it is a work safety issue because they are employees and their livelihoods depend on working within the aviation industry, whether it is onboard the plane or at the airport itself, where many of the accidents occur. If for no other reason, there is certainly a good argument to ensure that we protect those who work within the industry and that we do whatever is possible to ensure their safety.

These amendments complement other legislative changes to aviation safety that have already been introduced by the Rudd government and bring additional peace of mind to aircraft passengers, to airline staff and to the broader community. I commend both of these bills to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009 will strengthen Australia’s aviation safety regime and honour a pledge I made when releasing the government’s aviation green paper late last year. I thank all members who participated in the debate for their input to this legislation.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority will have its governance enhanced by the creation of an expert board to provide high-level direction of the organisation’s regulatory and safety oversight role. The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill will also make changes to improve CASA’s oversight of foreign carriers flying into Australia. The bill strengthens the provisions for preventing operators from continuing to operate services where CASA considers it unsafe for them to continue. Finally, it closes a gap in the current legislation by introducing an additional offence of negligently carrying or consigning dangerous goods on an aircraft.

I have noted the comments from the shadow minister for transport, who expressed some concern about the nature of appointments. Let me assure the shadow minister that the appointments to this board will be in accordance with the highest standards. We need to make sure that these appointments are not political. I was surprised, given the number of former staffers of National Party transport ministers that I run into in official positions, that the shadow minister made those comments. I am sure that those comments apply to people when they come up for re-appointment as well, given the shadow minister’s expression. Indeed, we need to make sure that right across the transport sector we have the best possible appointments to official positions, but there is nowhere where this is more important than in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

The Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill reinforces the ATSB’s independent status by establishing it as a separate statutory agency with a full-time chief commissioner and two part-time commissioners. It will also give the ATSB new powers to compel agencies and operators within the aviation industry to respond to its formal recommendations within 90 days.

The amendments in these two bills strengthen public confidence in the safety and reliability of air travel. I commend the bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.