|
senate vote 2019-07-22#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-07-26 11:29:48
|
Title
Bills — Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019; Second Reading- Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Refer to Committee
Description
<p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>The opposition is pleased to support the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019, as we have a proud record of bipartisanship when it comes to aviation safety. We supported the bill when it was passed by the House of Representatives in April this year, prior to the election being called, and will support it again through the 46th Parliament.</p><p>Labor understands the importance of the aviation industry, especially in regional Australia. This bill takes a balanced approach between the need to protect the travelling public and, of course, ensuring the viability of the sector. This bill is in response to concerns from some in the general aviation sector who have been concerned that CASA's strong focus on safety has resulted in overregulation, which can be costly for small operators. This bill is about general aviation and balancing the critically important need for safety with making sure that the regulatory burden is not too great for small operators to bear. The bill amends the Civil Aviation Act to ensure that when CASA develops aviation standards it takes into consideration the impacts and costs for those within the sector.</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-22.145.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [Janet Rice](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/janet_rice) (Greens). This motion would have added the words below to the usual [second reading motion](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html): "*That this bill be now read a second time.*"
- Agreeing to read a bill for a second time is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill.
- ### Motion text
- > *At the end of the motion, add:*
- >
- > *", and the bill be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 September 2019."*
- Senator Rice [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-22.145.1):
- > *I hope that the Senate will support that inquiry. But, if it doesn't go to an inquiry, then this bill, as it stands, is too dangerous. We need to know more information. We don't have justification. We have such serious concerns from the pilots and other safety standards, and there is far too much uncertainty to support this bill today.*
- ### What does this bill do?
- The [bill](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/s1207) was introduced "*to require the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards, to take into consideration the impacts of costs and the relative risk environment of the different aviation industry sectors.*"
<p>Labor will continue to monitor implementation and to work with the sector to bring forward additional reforms if they are required. Whilst we're comfortable with the bill, we do know that the Australian and International Pilots Association has called for the addition of a clause to legislate the requirement for CASA to ensure that aviation safety standards maintain or improve the overall safety of the civil aviation system. The opposition understands the main objective of the Civil Aviation Act is to enhance and promote safety in the aviation sector, so it will be important for the government to ensure that this focus is maintained.</p><p>Aviation is a critical part of Australian life. Unlike in times past, today's aviation services are much more affordable and aviation has become a critical component of our transport system. It is important for the movement of people, for the movement of freight, for access to medical services and expertise, for farming operations and to reduce isolation in the bush. A vibrant aviation sector is important for many industries, especially tourism. General aviation is the lifeblood of regional Australia. It is also where many of our commercial airline pilots learn their trade.</p><p>Labor has a strong track record when it comes to the aviation industry. When Labor was in government, Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler, as aviation minister, delivered Australia's first and only aviation white paper. An important element of this white paper was to ensure that the general aviation sector continued to be a safe, efficient and innovative part of Australia's transport system. Labor's aviation white paper was a comprehensive framework which brought all aspects of aviation policy together into a single, forward-looking policy direction. Labor initiated a number of key reforms in the aviation sector, including in relation to depreciation, restricted air spaces, secondary capital city airports, and the final burden of regulation being placed on airlines.</p><p>Labor will continue to advocate for the aviation sector to ensure safe, effective aviation services are available to the Australian community. Labor has heard the concerns of the general aviation sector that CASA's strong focus on safety has resulted in overregulation and associated financial cost burdens. The sector has pushed for the change that CASA, when formulating regulations, be required to consider not only safety but also the effect of any regulation on the viability of aviation businesses. Labor has worked in a bipartisan way with the government to ensure that they got the balance right. This bill amends the Civil Aviation Act to ensure that when CASA develops and promulgates aviation safety standards it must take into consideration the impacts and costs affecting the aviation sector. The bill incorporates existing regulatory practice in the legislation, making it clear that these issues cannot be overlooked.</p><p>The bill does not change CASA's primary objective, which is, and must always be, safety. Labor strongly supports aviation safety and the viability of the aviation sector. The opposition once again thanks the government for bringing this bill forward. I commend the bill to the Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>I rise to speak on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019. The Greens believe this is a dangerous bill. This is a bill that would put at risk our aviation safety regime and, consequently, be putting at risk the lives of Australians. The law currently sets out that, in exercising its powers and performing its functions, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration. What this bill does is change the remit of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority so that it must consider the economic and the cost impact on individuals, businesses and communities of CASA's standards, and take into account the differing risks associated with differing industry sectors.</p><p>Taking account of the economic and the social costs of safety standards is, in fact, something that does need to be done. But it should not be done by CASA. CASA's remit is to be making recommendations on the basis of safety. It is up to us in the parliament, if we feel that there are other economic or social considerations that need to be taken into account, to make the judgement as to how those regulations should change and how CASA's recommendations maybe should change because of those economic or social considerations. It should not be the remit of CASA to be making those political judgements. CASA needs to have its remit as a safety focused organisation preserved.</p><p>This just doesn't concern the Greens. These changes to CASA's remit concern the people who are directly accountable for the safety and operation of our aviation industry: the pilots' unions. Both the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and the Australian and International Pilots Association have raised serious issues with this legislation. The Australian Federation of Air Pilots have said that they have significant concerns that this amendment could also be a source for those seeking to stymie genuinely necessary safety reforms when there exists any cost impact on their interests. And the Australian and International Pilots Association is even stronger. They say that resistance by private interests cannot be allowed to control the system. The aviation safety regulator, they continue, 'has a difficult and narrow path to tread in ensuring that the public safety interest is met without unnecessary constraint on the public economic benefit and the participating private interests. The danger to the public safety interest comes from a safety regulator that gets role confusion and starts to act like an economic regulator.' The Australian and International Pilots Association then continues, 'In our view, CASA has already demonstrated a propensity to dilute the former role for a taste of the latter, particularly in the areas of fatigue management, airports and airspace protection.'</p><p>It should not be the job of CASA, a safety authority, to also assess, without the relevant expertise, the economic and social impacts of its proposed regulations. It's the job of parliament to balance those competing concerns—the competing concerns of safety, economics, accessibility and the public interest. That is parliament's job, not CASA's.</p><p>There are so many things that could go horribly wrong and that could have dire consequences as a result of this legislation. What happens, for example, if a major airline decides that it cannot meet the safety standards of its planes because it presents too much of an economic burden; or if companies decide they simply don't want to fit the bill? Would this be acceptable? If we let this happen, who would be responsible for a plane crash? You can see this scenario developing where you have airlines with ageing plane fleets serving rural and remote communities, who say, 'We just can't afford to keep our planes at the standard that they're currently at. If you're going to insist on this, CASA, then sorry, we're going to have to just stop flying, and rural and regional communities aren't going to be able to get the services they need.' It's up to parliament to decide how to deal with that dilemma. It's not up to CASA. It's not up to CASA to say, 'We reckon that, because we want these rural and regional communities to keep their air services, we are going to reduce the standards and we're going to allow this airline to fly with lower safety standards than what they've had up until now.' But this is what this change will allow. In fact, the explanatory memorandum says:</p><p class="italic">Whilst the amendments will ensure that CASA considers the particular circumstances of different participants when developing and promulgating aviation safety standards, the safety of air navigation will remain the most important consideration for CASA…</p><p>But that means nothing. What does 'will remain the most important consideration' mean when it is being offset by those economic and social concerns?</p><p>It means that safety is not just the prime consideration that CASA will be taking into account.</p><p>What I can see happening if this legislation goes through is that we'll quite likely be beholden to the business models of the big airlines, who don't want to compromise their bottom lines. And we know that big for-profit companies will do anything to trim budgets and expand their profit margins. All they're going to need to say is, 'We're just not going to be able to keep flying if you, CASA, insist that we have to maintain these standards.'</p><p>This bill has not been through sufficient scrutiny. These are very legitimate concerns and they need a robust hearing. It's not just the Greens and the pilots. What's the department's justification for this bill? How does CASA itself think that this bill will change how it functions? What do the independent aviation safety experts in academia and the private sector think will happen as a result of these changes? I would certainly like to know the answers to these questions, and the Senate should know the answers to these questions. So I move:</p><p class="italic">At the end of the motion, add:</p><p class="italic">", and the bill be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 September 2019."</p><p>We should be having an inquiry into this bill. This bill has got far-reaching and potentially dangerous consequences. I call on the Senate to support my amendment. I call on the Senate to be concerned with maintaining the safety of our air services, which we are so justly proud of in Australia today. I hope that the Senate will support that inquiry. But, if it doesn't go to an inquiry, then this bill, as it stands, is too dangerous. We need to know more information. We don't have justification. We have such serious concerns from the pilots and other safety standards, and there is far too much uncertainty to support this bill today.</p> <p class="speaker">David Fawcett</p><p>I wasn't planning to speak on this bill but, having heard some of the concerns just raised by Senator Rice, I want to make a very brief contribution. Back when David Forsyth ran the inquiry into Australia's safety regulation for aviation, I worked with former Minister Truss, travelling much of Australia, speaking at many of the same forums and getting feedback from people. One of the issues that was raised consistently was that there were multiple occurrences where the requirements of CASA were bureaucratically correct but didn't actually have a safety outcome. In some cases, advice was given by CASA to industry which they didn't follow through because they basically didn't care about the economic impact. For example, if somebody wished to bring an aircraft into the country that was not the first of type, they would approach CASA and do all their due diligence about how long it would take them to bring the aircraft in and get it cleared and they would debt fund the aircraft when it arrived, but it would then sit on the tarmac for months because they didn't get the paperwork cleared by CASA as there was no regard for the economic impact of a lack of action on behalf of the regulator. Then there were things like check-in training. I know from my own aviation background—23-odd years both in the military and flying in the civil sector—that there are very sensible economies that can be had for things like check-in training. For example, as a pilot flying multiple types of aircrafts that are in a similar category—a twin-engine aircraft that's rated to fly in instruments—you can do an instrument rating on one complex aircraft and it very comfortably translates to another aircraft of the same category even if it's a different brand, if you like, of aircraft. Yet I'm hearing from the industry great concerns that CASA are now requiring them to do multiple tests every year on different aircraft types even though they're in the same category. So there are things that are not really economically viable for an individual pilot or company and that don't actually contribute to safety in a large way. I speak from experience.</p><p>So I hear the concerns, but the origin of this amendment goes back a number of years to when there was very extensive consultation with operators and pilots and aircraft mechanics—the LAMEs—into how CASA approached their regulation. The desire is not to provide an avenue for someone to say, 'We think that's going to lose us some profits, so we're not going to do it,' but for them to actually say, 'Can we achieve the same safety standard and take account of the economics for a small business?' That was the intent that came out of the Forsyth review and the associated discussions, and has bounced around now for a number of years. I'm very pleased to see that the opposition has been able to work with the government to come up with a form of words that makes sure that we keep companies viable, because I've got to say: a safe company is a viable company. A company that's scraping to make ends meet is far more likely to also end up taking shortcuts. I commend the bill to the Senate.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|