Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak on the Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014. For many, it seems like a logical thing—we are just going to sign off on a couple of board directors—but this is of great value and it is very dear to my heart. Being a representative of a rural electorate, aviation is very important. We have the air ambulance, which is very critical to my electorate. In my electorate, nearly every town has an airstrip that is up to a standard to take the air ambulance. There would be very few electorates that could say that. We also have aviation businesses and maintenance businesses, such as Horsham Aviation Services. Ramair does a lot of air spraying in the horticultural and cotton industry in Tandou, to the north of Mildura. They are telling me that they have been very concerned about the direction CASA have been heading with the regulation burden that has been put on them. Currently there are five directors on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority board and not one of those directors has any flying experience. Whilst we need myriad skills on our board, it is important that we have people who understand aviation, have an affinity with it and can actually fly a plane.

This is an issue that is dear to my heart. I have a pilot's licence. I fly and have a plane. It is a wonderful mode of transport. It is a fairly humble little plane. Just for the record, I bought it before I became a parliamentarian. I did not afford a plane with my parliamentarian wages. I am just making that very clear. There are many people who enjoy both the sport and the necessity for air transport in Australia. In Australia there are 36,900 people with a current pilot's licence, there are more than 15,100 registered aircraft and there are more than 7,700 licensed aircraft maintenance engineers. There are more than 100 air traffic controllers, 330 operators in certified and registered aerodromes, 701 maintenance organisations and 856 holders of air operator certificates.

It is an important part of the landscape. One of the things we are blessed with in Australia is a large land mass with fairly stable weather patterns, which lends itself to aviation. But what we are hearing time and time again is that CASA have been over-regulating the maintenance of private aircraft and over-regulating the medicals. An example of this was brought to me the other day, where a guy who is 65 now has to have a medical certificate every year. The difficulty is that after he fills in the paperwork for his medical certificate it then takes six months to get it back to him. So effectively he has six months without flying. This is to fly a private plane with a maximum of six seats in visual met conditions, in nice clear skies, and the regulation on him just to pass a medical is huge. He is physically fit. If he wanted to drive a school bus with 45 kids on board, he would not have to pass a medical to that level. There needs to be some common sense. There is this perception that just because it is an aircraft it is so much more dangerous.

The thing that we are seeing squashed in Australian aviation is some of the innovation around manufacturing. The aircraft I do have—and I am pretty risky, because I happen to fly the prototype of this aircraft—is from a company called PG Aviation, based in Cowra. They are an Australian company making Australian aircraft. They get an Austrian engine but they essentially design and build the aircraft themselves. They make a high wing and a low wing, and they are a very safe and reliable aircraft. They are actually in the process of negotiating a deal to take the R&D of their business into the manufacturing opportunities in China. CASA has been very difficult to deal with in driving that company with a level of burden and regulation.

We have some great innovative people in Australia. We want to make sure that they can be productive and that they can grab hold of the opportunities that exist in personal aviation and in the broader aviation industry, but we need an attitude within CASA that encourages those people to develop and grow. By simply expanding the board we are going to allow more skill sets, we are going to allow more people who have an affinity with aviation on that board. We are going to take that from five to seven. The total cost is negligible. It is in the vicinity of $160,000 a year, which will be absorbed by CASA's operating budget, so I think that is very good.

We do have an ageing aviation fleet—there is no doubt about that—simply on the back of the withdrawal of production from Cessna and Piper in the mid-1980s on the back of litigation before some common sense came back into the US system. That means that there has to be greater oversight and watching of maintenance. From the feedback I am getting, it appears that that maintenance oversight is at the very point of putting some of our LAMEs out of business—and the pendulum has swung too far.

Very rarely do we hear of a plane dropping out of the air due to a mechanical failure, due to a breakdown of the structure of the aircraft, even in some of our ageing aircraft. Usually it is weather or pilot error. In fact, there is a very strong argument that the aviation industry has been pretty safe. But it is important that CASA realise that you cannot put the same regulation on small general aviation that you have been regular public transport aircraft. We know that they have to have very strict oversight of regular public transport aircraft. That is as it should be. No-one at any point is saying that jets that people are paying money to fly in should not be very well maintained. They must be well maintained. But when you are talking about general aviation—such as four-seater and six-seater aircraft—you cannot expect a person to operate them at the same level of maintenance scheduling as an airline. They simply cannot. People who fly air tractors for spraying cotton cannot do that. The regulatory burden, for really no effect, is stifling some of our small and regional manufacturing and maintenance vehicles.

I want to hark back to the importance of aviation, particularly in our rural areas. In my electorate, for example, Air Ambulance Victoria would use Horsham airport three times a day. I do not think people realise just how important air ambulance is. In the township of Mildura at the moment, if you have a cardiac problem there are not the facilities there to treat you. They will stabilise you and put you on a plane, and take you to Melbourne. Having an effective air ambulance swings on having a regulatory body that has an understanding of the importance of air ambulance in the aviation sector.

I think that this amendment will be the start and broadening the skill set will be first. Having people involved in CASA who have an affinity with the aviation industry and who actually can fly themselves will be welcomed by the general aviation sector. They will then look at replacing the CEO. The CEO, John McCormick, will be finishing up in August, as I understand. Then they will be moving in a forward direction. I hope that this is the first step to restoring confidence for general aviation and I hope this is the first step in restoring confidence for maintenance.

One of the things that I think is not talked about is the great demand we will have for aviation pilots, specifically from the Asian region. There are great training opportunities in Australia. We have the perfect weather for it and Asia's proximity enables people to come over here and do that level of training. Enhancing this field—general aviation and the training sector—by having people on the CASA board who understand aviation will have a long-term effect in attracting people to come and do their studies here.

Currently, I do get a little nervous about some of the trainers. I have been up in a plane myself and had a guy give me a 10-mile out call to tell me that he was 10 miles 'north-south' of Bendigo. And he was not sure what altitude he was at either—and I was a little nervous, I have to say. His English language proficiency did leave a bit to be desired. But I give you an example of how foolish this has become: when I applied for my private plane licence I had to prove to CASA that I had English proficiency. I am a member of the Australian federal parliament and I am an Australian citizen—I have lived here all my life—but I had to prove to CASA that I can actually speak English.

An honourable member: They must have read your Hansard!

They must have read my Hansard. Maybe they have!

The other thing that I think needs to be looked at are the ASIC cards—another regulation which I will touch on.

An honourable member interjecting—

Well, yes, but I am not a good typist, I will give you that! But I can usually string a couple of words together, which is an advantage in this House, I am told.

The other issue, too, is in getting an ASIC card to be able to get access and walk across to my private plane. If I had lived overseas in, say, England I would actually have had to get a police check from Scotland Yard. Some things have just gone to the point of ridiculous for general aviation and we need to swing that pendulum back so that we have manufacturing, good maintenance and good, safe recreational aviation and charter operators. I think we can do it. I think the first step is to expand the skill set of the board. I commend Warren Truss for adopting this, and this is why I support this bill.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Ewen Jones, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to the Speakers' Panel. It is good to see you up there, and I am sure you will bring a level of intensity and a dedication to the role that it deserves. Congratulations to you.

I rise to contribute to this debate on the Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014, and in doing so acknowledge the importance of a strong, experienced, balanced and fair Civil Aviation Safety Authority to Australia and to my electorate of Swan. Obviously, most members in this place will know that I have the Perth airport in my electorate. I share that with the member for Hasluck; I have all the good bits and he has the brickworks and some of the other industrial areas! But I have the runways—all the stuff that people in my electorate and outside my electorate go to to spend time in the observation area for, watching the planes coming in and out of Perth.

The people in my electorate of Swan often remark that they can almost touch the planes as they come in to land at Perth airport, particularly over the residential areas. My office does receive calls from residents where there are aircraft that seem to be flying particularly close to the ground. Just to give you some background: in 2008 we had some aircraft flight routes change due to the WARRP process, which was initiated by CASA around the issue of safety. There was no consultation with stakeholders—people in my community and people around the CBD of Perth. Because of that, we received a lot of calls with regard to changes in flight paths. We managed to get a Senate inquiry in Perth on that issue. At the same time, we directed a lot of inquiries towards the then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the member for Grayndler, who has also spoken on this bill.

In fact, the billion-dollar Gateway WA Perth Airport and Freight Access Project is in my electorate of Swan. That is a major roads upgrade project on the periphery of the airport and bordering residential areas in the Belmont area. This involves land excavation and works to ensure that complex interchanges sit at an acceptable height so as not to interfere with low-flying incoming aircraft. This again comes under the auspices of CASA. They would have had some involvement in making sure that the safety of the aircraft and the people on the ground was paramount.

As the Minister for Infrastructure explained yesterday in question time, this is a roads project that could never have been delivered under the previous government, which had said that the funding for the project would come from the mining tax. I am sure we are all aware in this place that the mining tax never raised any money. It is an anti-Western Australian tax. I mention the project during this speech because it is closely associated with the safety around the airport, which CASA oversees.

Safety is certainly always in the minds of residents and workers in my electorate of Swan, and I am pleased to be able to comment on this bill today. The bill's primary purpose is to give effect to an election commitment, made by the coalition and announced on 30 August 2013, to increase the membership of the CASA board. This is an increase from five members to seven. The bill also makes two minor amendments, consequential to increasing the size of the board. These amendments increase the number of board members required to constitute a quorum at a board meeting and increase the number of board members required to initiate an ad hoc board meeting.

This is a government that delivers on its commitments to the Australian people. It will deliver on these commitments to reform the structure of CASA. Part of this reform involves enhancing CASA's abilities to function as Australia's key aviation safety regulator by establishing a firm strategic direction for the organisation. The need for increasing the size of the board comes from the need to put some aviation experience on the board—which it currently does not have.

I received an email yesterday from one of my constituents in Langford. The member for Tangney is next to me. I am sure that he knows Langford, because it used to be in his electorate. The member for Tangney is also going to speak on this bill, because his office is also hounded by people who are complaining about aircraft noise. The constituent who wrote to me yesterday nominated that he is a pilot. He says:

As background I am a pilot who is very frustrated by what I see as unrestrained corruption and overreach in CASA. I'm not going to bore you with a diatribe about it but CASA really is Royal Commission territory as it appears that ultimate power ultimately corrupts.

So obviously there is a perception within the industry and the public that there need to be changes to the board of CASA.

As our pre-election policy outlined, CASA's board has been repeatedly established, abandoned and re-established. While boards in other agencies have been successful in setting and implementing the strategic direction of their agencies, CASA's board structure has been the subject of criticism.

While CASA was established in July 1995, under an update to the Civil Aviation Act, the CASA board in its previous form was established under the previous government in 2009. As I said before, CASA's involvement in the flight path changes in the electorate of Swan at the Perth airport was extensive. The WARRP review was undertaken to change aircraft flight patterns, which CASA, at that particular time, believed were unsafe. As I said, the outcome of that review was a Senate inquiry which made some recommendations to the government about what changes should be made to consultation between CASA and Airservices Australia when future changes are made to flight paths.

Following the Senate inquiry, the then member for Pearce, Ms Moylan, and I put its recommendations into a bill, the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011. While the bill was focused on changes to Air Services Australia, it was certainly brought in in the aftermath of the CASA flight path review of Perth airport. As Judi Moylan said in her first reading speech:

The apparent clandestine nature of the processes precipitating the flight path changes, however, as well as the uncertainty and the inconsistency of the rationale for not providing the CASA report to the public, highlights some of the current flaws in the consultation process and the reason for such disquiet from within the community.

The relationship between Air Services Australia and CASA is an interesting one and needs to be considered. The bill drew the support of the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens and initially the Independents but was then voted down. There was extensive consultation with the Australian aviation authorities but it seemed to fall upon deaf ears. I remind the House that that bill was lost by one vote in the House. Unfortunately, it displayed the fact that the Labor Party had no interest in helping the residents of Perth with aircraft noise. I am sure the member for Tangney was just as disappointed as I was that the Labor Party spoke about aircraft noise in Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane, where we saw many Labor ministers fighting for their constituents, but when it came to Perth airport, they had no interest at all and voted the bill down.

I note the member for Grayndler's contribution to the debate yesterday evening in the chamber and his call for a non-partisan approach to civil aviation safety. But I have to take issue with the member for Grayndler on a couple of points he made in his speech. The member called for everyone to support the government of the day on issues related to CASA, but many constituents would find that difficult following the Western Australian Route Review Project, which was conducted in near secrecy, altering flight paths over my electorate of Swan and in Tangney, Hasluck, Pearce and Canning. This was of course the finding of the Senate inquiry in 2010. CASA's operations should be transparent and the people should be informed about changes to flight paths in the airspace above their houses. It was not good enough for the previous government not to explain these changes to the people of Swan, just responding that it was all down to 'safety matters', a continual line during that period by the previous government. It is good to see we are finally getting some action from this government to improve the performance of CASA by having some board members who have aviation experience. This is a view I know the minister also shares. I remember a freedom of information request by the former member for Pearce coming back to her with line after line redacted—it was virtually pages of black lines, demonstrating how secret the previous government kept their report.

It is certainly not the case that flight paths cannot be adjusted safely. We have seen this recently with an ongoing trial to change a flight path over the member for Hasluck's electorate. The response of the public has been very positive to these changes and, as I understand, the authorities are completely satisfied with the safety result. So it is not acceptable for CASA to just respond with 'safety reasons' to every inquiry about flight paths. It is, I feel, a lazy approach.

Secondly the member for Grayndler spoke about the white paper, and I say to the member that parts of that white paper were highly partisan. There was a section talking about a curfew review for Brisbane Airport—coincidentally an issue affecting former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's electorate. There was nothing for Perth, though, which remained one of the few major airports in Australia with no noise amelioration measures. Along with the member for Tangney, we have spoken to constituents and public groups advocating that there be a review of the ANEF contour system because under the current system only about 60 houses in Perth qualify for any noise amelioration similar to Adelaide and Sydney. There needs to be a review of that ANEF contour system so that we can move forward in trying to get the same noise amelioration schemes that the people of Sydney and Adelaide are the beneficiaries of.

I think the comments by the member for Grayndler are simplistic and not reflective of what happened under his government. I sought on many occasions during the last parliament to have a meeting with the member for Grayndler to present the concerns of my constituents. But in all that time that he was the minister, he never met with me once. It shows that, with regard to the concerns of the people of Perth, his focus was eastern-centric. He was however only too keen to travel to Western Australia at the time of the last state election to meet with the state Labor candidate Hannah Beazley, who was running for a seat in the member for Tangney's area. He was all over that and spruiking the talk, but in the six years I was the member he never met with me once. I think that says it all about his commitment to nonpartisanship in this area.

The Perth Airport and the aviation industry are vital to the Western Australia economy and it is vital to our mining industry. We need to make sure that we have a healthy board that overlooks Western Australia and the Perth Airport and that we have people with experience on that board.

I would like to finish with a comment from a recent meeting I had with CASA. The member for Tangney would know that there is a flight path which takes off from Perth Airport and heads south and then heads to the west and goes down the river. It is a consistent flight path for all of the fly-in and fly-outs to the north-west of our great city for the mining people. The flights are from 6 o'clock in the morning and there are a consistent 90 flights within a short period of time, which has a real effect on the lives of people in that particular flight path. In looking at the sharing of those flight paths and the aircraft noise, we asked CASA to look at making a trident type flight path where there could be three legs heading out so that some of the noise could be shared and it would not all be concentrated in one space. The answer, typically, came back from CASA that it was a safety issue and they could not look at it. It was really disappointing that they continue to hide behind safety issues. We need some people with aviation experience on the board who can look at these types of things for the benefit of people in Perth and around the Perth Airport. I support the bill.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to follow the member for Swan in supporting the Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014. I rise to speak on this bill not for the specifics so much as the general—that is, the general thrust and meaning of this bill and what it hopes to address.

The increased diversity in the Australian aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the aviation safety regulatory system. While Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety, built on a strong regulatory system, any regulator must keep pace with the industry it regulates. Australia's aviation safety governance structures and processes have continued to evolve since the initial establishment of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 covering the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority—Australia's aviation safety regulator. CASA was established in July 1995, under an updated Civil Aviation Act 1988, as the independent aviation safety regulator—a Commonwealth statutory authority with responsibility for the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia and Australian aircraft operating outside Australian territory.

At the very heart of this bill is safety. How does a governing body catch up with an industry that is moving so quickly? This bill adds two members to the CASA board, taking the total from five members to seven. This includes the Director of Aviation Safety as an ex-officio member. The two additional members, importantly, will have operational and/or technical aviation experience. The provisions of the bill will provide for the CASA board to be comprised of six members appointed by the minister, plus the Director of Aviation Safety as an ex-officio member—in other words, seven members in total.

An expanded board with experience and background in aviation would be better equipped to implement CASA's new strategic direction to be established by the government after considering the outcomes of the external aviation safety regulation review due to be completed in May 2014. There are other issues related to bringing CASA up to world best standard. It is the hope of all government members that the proposed changes in this bill will achieve that standard.

It is the hallmark of a good government, and especially this government, that common sense be at the heart of legislation. So yes, the size of the board is to increase, but this is to address the backlog of issues building due to the changing nature of aviation and the increasing complexity surrounding that industry. There are too many new issues to detail. Suffice to say that the world is a very different place from what it was in 1995. The common-sense aspect of this legislation is item 2 of the bill, which increases the number of written requests that the chair must receive from board members before the chair is required to call an ad hoc board meeting. With the increased size of the board, this amendment keeps in place the requirement that the chair must call an ad hoc board meeting if he or she receives a written request from at least 50 per cent of the remaining board members, including the director. This cuts down on the number of two-person board meetings. It cuts down on expenses claims for meetings that have no value. It is more democratic and more efficient.

Responsible government is responsive. This legislation, while in process for a considerable time, looks timely in light of revelations arising from an inquiry in the other place into CASA's standards. During the inquiry into Qantas an engineering union official accused CASA of failing to properly supervise maintenance and of favouring the national airline. A Senate committee was told that the engines on a Qantas jet were not properly attached after it was serviced in Hong Kong, and CASA was accused of handling the incident inappropriately. There is no reason why CASA should not be a world leader, nor is there any reason why Australia should not set industry standards rather than follow industry leaders.

Let me expand on the specific example of the use of electronics during take-off and landing. In the United States it is possible to use electronic devices at all stages during flight, including take-off and landing. This is not the case in Australia. While this is not a big issue in and of itself, it is indicative of a governing authority that is behind the curve. So this legislation is timely. CASA is a slow body and governing processes are even slower. It is my ardent hope that this necessary increase in bureaucracy results in the speeding up of the process. Hopefully more hands will make light work of the increased demands on CASA.

At this juncture I would like to talk about how CASA impacts constituents in my electorate of Tangney. Tangney is an electorate that knows the benefit of both private and commercial flight and also the downsides associated with both—which were spoken about by the member for Swan. Jandakot Airport is a key stakeholder and, like any airport or private operator, should have a role in the greater discussion regarding aviation regulations and CASA. However, it is not only significant financial stakeholders that are impacted by any change to CASA or the regulatory environment surrounding aviation. A demonstration of this point is that, in October 2013, I was briefed by a constituent, Mr John Janssen, about how seemingly small changes can have a very significant impact. He wished to highlight what he had been alerted to by Mr Max Scorer—namely, that while the strictest standards of safety should be religiously enforced on commercial airlines it is sometimes not possible or practical in relation to recreational airplanes. Mr Scorer had recently retired from CASA—at the end of June 2013—after just on 30 years of service with CASA and its predecessors as an airworthiness inspector. Prior to his appointment in 1983 to the then Department of Aviation, he worked in the field of aircraft maintenance as a licenced engineer on large airline aircraft, light aircraft and corporate jet aircraft. He also spent some time as a flight engineer and in his younger years he served with RAAF City of Melbourne 21 Squadron. So to say he is a person of great experience would be no exaggeration. Mr Scorer approached me with a view to offering his services to the aviation industry to give something back to an industry that has provided him with a living for many years. In January 2014 he clocked up 50 years of service in aviation.

Mr Scorer gave me a presentation with regard to the recently implemented Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998 part 42. It is my belief that more of the aviation community should be aware of the situation as it now exists under part 42. One would obviously realise that the intricacies of government legislation can be complex, so I will try to explain the requirements as briefly as possible and attempt to give you some idea of what changing safety legislation could mean for the general aviation sector.

Under Civil Aviation Regulation [1988] 30, the regulation under which GA maintenance organisations presently gain approval, the norm has been for the operator's chosen maintenance organisation to control all the pending maintenance requirements for their aircraft. In other words, the maintenance organisation would keep concise records of what is required to safely maintain the aircraft and comply with all CASA legislation. Much of this is provided to the customer as part of maintenance services and as a normal function of aircraft maintenance. It is called continuing airworthiness control or continuing airworthiness management.

CAMOs are granted approval under part 42G. The RPT sector, which used to operate under CAR 30, now operates under part 145—the actual physical maintenance function—and part 42G—airworthiness management—two different approvals. Part 42B, specifically 42.040 (2) says that the registered operator of an aircraft operating under an air operator's certificate 'must' have a contract with a CAMO or form their own CAMO.

The requirements relating to gaining approval as a CAMO are very costly and difficult for the GA sector to achieve. For instance, a small maintenance organisation consisting of a chief engineer—quite often the owner—hangar foreman, and licensed aircraft maintenance engineers, unlicensed personnel and quite often a couple of apprentices will not be allowed to utilise any of those personnel to form a CAMO. It will not be acceptable for them to carry out the two roles as they have done in the past. The CAMO must have a management structure consisting of an accountable manager, responsible manager, quality manager, continuing airworthiness manager, airworthiness review manager and so on. All of these personnel have to have formal qualifications to be acceptable to CASA to fill these positions. For instance, to fill the position of continuing airworthiness manager you would have to be a LAME or equivalent. There are not enough LAMEs in Australia to carry out aircraft maintenance as it is; pulling them out of the system and putting them into a CAM role would severely hamper the industry in available personnel and impose a huge increase in cost to the operator.

At this time CASA has not approved any independent CAMOs. All approvals have been granted within the RPT sector. There are thousands of aircraft in Australia that are affected. There are many private aircraft owners who make their aircraft available to operators under leasing agreements. This helps in two ways: it lessens the cost of ownership where maintenance costs et cetera are concerned and it makes aircraft available to operators who would otherwise not be able to finance the purchase of the aircraft. If any such aircraft are operating under an AOC then the owner will have to contract the services of a CAMO to gain an ARC—no ARC, no flying. The maintenance organisations will not be able to issue a certificate to release the service following the maintenance unless the aircraft has an ARC.

These requirements will have far-reaching implications where the GA sector is concerned. The Royal Flying Doctor Service, for instance, will have to comply with the CAMO and ARC requirements. At the moment the operation of the ESSO helicopters in Victoria ferrying workers out to the oil rigs is a 'private operation'. This operation, by the way, rivals the airlines in terms of departure and arrival frequencies. Via the new operational regs, this operation will be under an AOC.

The Royal Flying Doctor Service is funded largely by donations. The requirement to either contract a CAMO or gain their own 42G approval will entail the use of some of those vital funds. The adoption of the European Aviation Safety Agency legislation, which is what the new legislation is based on, is all very fine for airline-type operators, such as Qantas or Virgin. However, it is a bit ludicrous to expect an organisation that is operating a couple of piston-powered Robinson R44 helicopters, carrying three passengers to a remote site to view cave paintings, to provide the same infrastructure as Qantas does for the Boeing 747s. As Mr Scorer pointed out, that needs to be back at the heart of law making. I believe this bill is a fine example of sense. Items 2 and 3 of the bill exemplify this common-sense approach. That is, with item 3 increasing the quorum limits, there is an added incentive to get more board members to attend, thus ensuring better delivery and decision making.

The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill demonstrates this government's ongoing commitment to aviation safety. The coalition government is taking decisive action now to strengthen the nation's safety regulator and its oversight of the aviation industry. In the final analysis, it demonstrates the government's clear commitment to deliver hope, reward and opportunity to all Australians.

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

In summing up, may I thank those members who contributed to this debate on the Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014. Their contributions have been wide ranging, dealing with a whole spectrum of aviation issues: noise, regulatory arrangements and issues associated with CASA and the way in which the industry has managed, and other related concerns. Obviously we are very proud in this country that we have an aviation industry that is safe by world standards and safe by comparison with other modes of travel. Indeed, I was interested to read statistics this morning showing that aviation now has a safety record matching that of rail. The number of casualties arising from the aviation industry means that it is something like 30 times safer to travel by plane than it is to travel on the road. That is a tribute to those associated with the industry, and it has to be acknowledged that the regulator also plays a key role in our achieving that objective.

However, there are, as was evidenced from the debate today and yesterday, a range of concerns about the operations of the regulatory system in Australia. We are therefore conducting a safety regulatory review with an international panel, and I anticipate that, arising from that review, significant reforms will be under consideration. The panel is due to report to the government by the end of May 2014. Once the government has considered the report it will finalise an updated strategic direction for CASA, which will enhance the authority's role as Australia's independent aviation safety regulator.

The shadow minister reported a little on the history of civil aviation regulation during the time he was the minister. As usual, he looked at it through somewhat rose-coloured glasses. But I am sure that even he must acknowledge that there is widespread concern in the industry about the way our regulatory system is working, the difficulties in managing and dealing with the new rules that are currently being developed and the widespread acceptance that there needs to be a simplification in the way in which we administer safety issues in the aviation industry. Also, there needs to be a substantial improvement in the relationship between the regulator and the industry. There needs to be confidence on both sides and also a willingness to work together to achieve a satisfactory outcome.

So, I thank all members who have participated in the debate, and also the opposition, for their willingness to support the legislation. The bill represents one of a number of initiatives being implemented by the coalition government to strengthen the nation's independent aviation safety regulatory agency, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

The bill maintains the existing CASA board structure but provides for the appointment of two additional board members. It has been a relatively small board and, therefore, the absence amongst the current board members of anyone with substantial aviation experience is obviously an issue. The current board obviously contains very capable people, but I think aviation experience is one of the skills that should be guaranteed in the board of CASA. The government will use the bill's provisions to add beneficial aviation experience to strengthen the board's future operations. Having an expanded board is timely given the government has established this external safety review that is being undertaken by a small panel of leading international aviation experts. I compliment that panel on the way in which it is seeking to consult with industry, taking on board their views and developing constructive ideas that I hope will provide us with a path ahead that will be acceptable to industry and continue to deliver effectively the safety objectives that the organisation is designed to ensure. The expanded board will be well placed to oversee CASA's new strategic direction, which the government will issue, as provided for under section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. The new strategic direction for CASA will reinforce safety as CASA's primary responsibility, but it also will set out a more active leadership and review role for the board.

In summary, enhancing the CASA board is an important step in helping fulfil this government's commitment to a safe, competitive and sustainable Australian aviation industry. I again thank members for their contribution to the debate and commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.