David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to address the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005. I note with interest that the member for Oxley said that the Australian Labor Party will be opposing this bill but then proceeded to spend the vast majority of his time talking about other issues not at all associated with this bill. The comments he made about why the bill should not be supported were not well developed and not based on fact. I look forward to addressing some of those comments as I speak.

This bill is looking to achieve a number of outcomes to do with reducing red tape and making it easier for airlines to operate safely, effectively and efficiently in both Australia and New Zealand. I will quickly run through the outcomes before giving a little history of the bill and particularly addressing some of the issues that have been raised as areas of concern.

One outcome of this legislation will be to see operators based in either Australia or New Zealand—who, currently, if they wish to operate in both countries, are required to have two air operator certificates—being able to operate on the basis of their home approving authority’s certificate, whether that be CASA or CAA New Zealand. That home regulator will be determined as who is best placed to have safety oversight of the operations. There will also be powers for the host regulator to, essentially, issue a red card or a temporary stop notice if they believe that aspects of an operation are unsafe. So there is a check and balance there already in terms of outcomes.

There are also obligations on CASA to consult with New Zealand, and a reciprocal obligation, before developing new parts of regulations that would affect the ANZA activities and the ability for the disclosure of information for any purposes associated with the mutual recognition. That is an important step. Importantly, also as part of this process there has been a deal of consultation to check that the outcomes of this legislation will not adversely affect operators.

In June 2003 this bill was introduced into parliament for the purpose of mutual recognition. The principle underlying this—the recognition of aviation related safety certification—is the same principle that was behind the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 and the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. One of the important things to recognise here is that we are talking about mutual recognition and not harmonisation. In the aviation world, there have been a number of attempts within Europe, between Europe and the United States and between the United States and other parts of the world to achieve harmonisation in certain areas. Harmonisation is where various parties come together and agree that they will have exactly the same requirements and regulations for each of their aviation operations.

Mutual recognition, however, recognises that the actual wording or, indeed, sometimes the process or some requirements in isolation may differ between authorities but the outcomes, particularly with respect to safety, are comparable. So it is really looking at a whole-of-system approach to the outcomes achieved by a given set of regulations. Mutual recognition is really about having a look at how we can achieve an understanding of each other’s systems and asking: are we happy that the outcomes are equivalent in terms of safety; and, obviously, from a cost-benefit perspective will they deliver a benefit to operators and to the travelling public? This process is taking forward the principle of the single aviation market, which was established in 1996 and in some ways even goes back to building on some of the air services agreements which date back to the 1960s.

In terms of standards, the member for Oxley’s comment that tried to underpin why the ALP were opposing this bill was that he was concerned, on the basis of safety, that there had not been a review and a comparison of the regulations. One of the things he overlooks is that both CASA and the CAA New Zealand operate and have done for many years in accordance with ICAO and their requirements for air operations, particularly international air operations. ICAO not only set out standards and guidelines but, importantly, they also do safety oversight audits. The last two audits of Australia and New Zealand were undertaken in August 1999, with follow-ups in September 2001.

What has been done as part of this process, given that both countries already operate within the general framework laid out by ICAO, is to try to drill down and find out where there are differences between the rules of the air and the rules of operation. A detailed review has in fact been conducted where there is an interaction between these two areas. That detailed review looked at where the equipment facilities were required to operate in each piece of air space—things like ground proximity warning systems et cetera were reviewed. The review covered Australian rules, making sure there was going to be no conflict by the application of Australian rules within New Zealand air space. It also reviewed the past experience of the interaction between the two regulatory authorities to make sure that a mutual recognition agreement would be workable in both establishment and ongoing support. Following the review, it was found that only minor adjustments to respective rule sets were required. There was acknowledgement on the part of CA New Zealand of some mandatory equipment, which in fact ICAO had due in 2004. The two sets of regulations, whilst differing in detail, would then both be compliant with ICAO and bring out comparable safety outcomes for the operation of large capacity airline aircraft.

One of the concerns raised by the member for Oxley was that of safety. He made a number of comments about trusting this other set of regulations to deliver a safe operation. I believe it is worth having a look at the fact that not only ICAO audit countries around the world but also the FAA, in particular, do their own assessment on a country’s ability. So they are not looking at the individual airline but looking at a country’s ability to adhere to international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance. They give New Zealand exactly the same rating as they do here in Australia.

A number of other bodies around the world accept New Zealand’s input in the same manner as they accept the input from countries in the European Union, including the United Kingdom, and from Australia. The European Confidential Aviation Safety Reporting System, for example, is based in Europe, and it is looking particularly at the human factor issues of aviation operations, liaising with both the regulator and airlines—and they cite New Zealand as one of its collaborative partners.

The Royal Aeronautical Society, which are well renowned around the world for their expertise on aviation systems and aviation safety, wrote in June of this year of their support for the civil aviation safety system which exists in New Zealand. They highlight in some of their letters of support the fact that the US Federal Aviation Administration have demonstrated their confidence in the New Zealand system by accepting New Zealand design and certified repair schemes on part 25 aircraft, which is a transport category. As well, they accept New Zealand’s supplemental type certificates for transport aircraft. That is significant because only two other countries in the world—Canada and Germany—have currently been recognised in this way by the FAA, according to the Royal Aeronautical Society. That demonstrates that a third party who is renowned around the world for having a high level of expertise in the regulation and certification of aircraft operations recognises the New Zealand authorities.

We can also look at some of the things the New Zealand authorities do and compare them with our own. For example, their Transport Accident Investigation Commission is structured and operates in a broadly similar manner to our own ATSB. It is interesting going through some of its reports to identify that it has a very similar approach to its level of reporting and its kind of follow-up to aviation incidents that may occur. It is also worth noting that within the ICAO structure, in the management of aviation safety, New Zealand has been recognised as one of the first countries to implement a safety regulatory approach based on effective safety management.

So there are a number of endorsements of their system which give the lie to the claim that the New Zealand system is somehow inferior to ours and that the public has any cause to be fearful. The other thing that I think is worth mentioning is that we like to look at our own aviation industry and to say that our safety record has come about because of the people and the quality of training et cetera. I believe it is really important that a number of these people who facilitate the ongoing development of Australia’s safety record have very strong links with New Zealand.

The Aviation Safety Forum, something which operates here in Australia, has members like Mr John Bartlett, who is currently head of the safety systems of Virgin Blue. For three years he was general manager of airlines for the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority. Prior to that he worked for some 15 years with Ansett New Zealand, including in the role of flight operations manager. Mr Owen Batchelor is also on the Aviation Safety Forum. He was general manager of Pearl Aviation. Incidentally, I have flown their aircraft under their AOC and have a high regard for their attention to detail and their safety processes. He had 25 years with the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority. At one stage he was in fact the acting director at civil aviation.

Mr Rob Graham, retired director of safety investigation at the ATSB, came from the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, where he was the general manager of aviation services. Mr Ken Keech, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Airports Association, previously worked for both Ansett and Air New Zealand. Mr James Kimpton, one time deputy chairman of the CASA board, received the OAM for services to aviation, including editing briefs for the law associations of both Australia and New Zealand. So you can see that there is a broad range of areas where we can point to the fact that the New Zealand system of regulation is in every way comparable to the Australian system in terms of the outcomes with aviation safety.

The other issue that has been raised both during the inquiry and by the member for Oxley is looking at a potential safety issue of cabin crew to passenger ratio. The two countries do have different ratios. The base ratio they talk about is one to 36 under the CASA system, which is specified in Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3.6.1(b), versus the New Zealand ratio, which is one in 50. But that simple statistic is quite misleading. If you go into the annexes from both civil aviation safety authorities and look at how they work out their numbers, you see that they have a sliding scale. We base our ratio per passenger and they base theirs per seats. For example, for your typical domestic type airline, the outcome is broadly comparable with six flight attendants required for around 200 passengers in New Zealand and six flight attendants for around 200 passengers in Australia.

The interesting part is that the one in 36 and one in 50 are minimum requirements. Back in 2002 when Qantas were criticised for looking at requesting a move to align Australia with international standards—which, by the way, includes Cathay Pacific, Malaysia Airlines, Singapore Airlines and British Airways as well as Air New Zealand—they highlighted the fact that they were looking to meet the safety standards but had increased the number of flight attendants required as a function of the level of service they wished to provide. They actually work on a ratio of one to 25. They do not anticipate this changing because part of them winning business and providing service is having those staff on board. I think the combination of the reality of those sliding scales and what is done in practice gives the lie to the fearmongering that we will suddenly see a great drop-off in standards.

The other thing that is worth pointing out is that the ATSB has done a number of reviews and has issued reports around the whole issue of flight attendants and their training. What they highlight, which is similar to the ICAO, is that the outcome in terms of the safety and effectiveness of the role of flight attendants is a result of a combination of factors, including the technology of the aircraft, the number of flight attendants and, in large part, the quality and frequency of training for flight attendants.

It is interesting to note that Australia’s one in 36 requirement—which is basically where you get to the end of the sliding scale for numbers of passengers—comes from quite an old technology base in terms of aircraft whereas many of the other standards are based on newer technology. If you look at that interaction, you can see that it is not necessarily a dangerous thing depending on (a) which aircraft you are operating in, (b) the design and technology of the aircraft and (c) the level of training provided. Having said all that, I go back to the point that Qantas highlighted in some of their statements, in 2002, that they actually operate on a ratio of one to 25.

Lastly, looking at the impact on industry, there was a large consultation period and one of the key things that came out of that is that the smaller operators were concerned that there be no extension to this mutual recognition, except via legislation. The larger operators, both main airlines, were at the roundtable that was done as part of the consultation and they recognised that the main savings to them would be administrative, not operational, and they do expect cost savings through it. The smaller operators were concerned that this may not apply to them and they may face additional competition, so they were concerned to make sure that there could be no extension of this to smaller operators, either by weight or capacity of aircraft, and this has been implemented as a result of the recommendations of that committee.

It is interesting to note that operators at a number of levels have identified significant savings if mutual recognition increases in the future to things related to airworthiness certification from both a technical and an operational perspective. My own consultation with a number of operators, from the major airlines down to regionals and charter or specialist operations, indicates that they have no concerns with the bill. They believe that safeguards, particularly the no extension via legislation, are absolutely fine. Given that we have demonstrated that New Zealand has a system of air regulation and safety which is equal to ours in world terms, there should be absolutely no reason for the travelling public to have any concern about the safety of these operations.

If we can remove some red tape to make operations more effective and efficient—which will, in the end, benefit the industry, those who work in it and the travelling public—then I believe that the ALP should reverse their position, since they have been unable to substantiate the basis of their concerns around the safety of New Zealand’s airworthiness and air regulations. They should support the bill.

See this speech in context