Senate debates

Thursday, 20 March 2014

Bills

Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014; Second Reading

Photo of Stephen ConroyStephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Which two National Party mates are about to get a phone call—

Senator Ryan interjecting—

would you like me to speak for 20 minutes?—a phone call from Minister Truss saying, 'Have you still got your membership ticket to the National Party? Yes? Good. You're on the CASA Board.' So I look forward to seeing which National Party stooges get appointed, in true National Party fashion, to this board.

In a country like ours, air travel is critical to how we go about our business, so it is important that we work together to guard the safety of the travelling public. I want to put it on the record that the previous Labor government put the highest priority on aviation safety. In 2009, we strengthened CASA's independence. In December of that year, Labor produced the nation's first ever national aviation policy statement. The white paper process included over 530 submissions from the industry, state and local governments, and the community, and I want to congratulate all of those—as I said, 530 submissions—around the country who made a contribution to that reform and to that aviation policy statement. Of course, safety was the chief concern.

As a result of the white paper, Labor strengthened baggage and passenger screening requirements; we tightened the aviation security identification card scheme; we improved security screening standards and training programs; we modernised air traffic management, including the use of satellite technology; and we boosted CASA funding by $90 million over four years from 2010, to provide it with funding certainty. These sensible reforms were supported by the coalition. But the thing about aviation safety is that the job is never finished. CASA has met emerging challenges in the past and must continue to do so in the future.

As I mentioned earlier, transport safety is too important to be a political battleground. However, there is a role for an opposition to raise concerns about the direction of government. It is of concern that the government's austerity drive may lead to cuts in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. That is right: the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is facing cutbacks to staffing levels at the moment. The ATSB employs 110 people who investigate accidents, safety concerns and near misses in air, sea and rail transport—and what an excellent job it has done over many, many years. I am sure everyone in the chamber would agree with that. But there are now reports that the coalition is looking to cut these numbers by 20 per cent—a 20 per cent reduction in the number of those who investigate accidents, safety concerns and near misses in air, sea and rail transport. That is of great concern to the Labor opposition, and I urge, if not counsel, the government against these cuts to the ATSB or any other safety agency.

I note that the financial implications of appointing two extra board members to CASA will be $160,000 a year—$160,000 a year—and, at the same time, the government wants to cut 20 per cent of the staff at an incredibly important safety agency. It just does not make sense. Two lucky-dip National Party members are going to get put on a board, at a cost of $160,000 to taxpayers, yet 20 per cent of the staff at a safety bureau that looks into aviation accidents, near misses and other safety issues are going to lose their jobs. It seems to me that this government has its priorities all wrong.

They said before the election: no 'nasty surprises'—no surprises at all, in fact—from this government. Well, there are going to be some very surprised people at the Australian Transport Safety Bureau if these rumours are true, and there are going to be two excitedly surprised National Party members or friends of Minister Truss pulled out of the lucky dip. I used to talk about ABC Board appointments being from former prime minister John Howard's Christmas card list. We introduced a system to stop that—an independent, rigorous system. From what we are seeing here, we may need to look at something similar, because if the government can find $160,000 to reward a couple of National Party stooges it should also be able to find the resources to exclude our transport safety authorities from cuts for the sake of cuts. There is no room for austerity when it comes to safety.

CASA has done an excellent job over the years in keeping our skies as safe as possible—including in its current configuration, which is the product of those rigorous Labor government reforms in 2009. This bill does not change that structure, which is why we support it. As I said, in this context the bill is a continuation of the parliament's bipartisan approach to aviation safety, an approach that has served us well over the years.

I will, for anyone interested, be running a sweep as to which two National Party cronies get appointed to this committee and I look forward to suggestions. But I do commend this bill to the Senate.

Comments

No comments