Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do not know that they destroyed Ansett; I think Ansett’s own fairly opulent behaviour was what sunk Ansett in the end.

The essayist Dr Johnson once said that we should keep our friendships in good repair, a notion which is illustrated by the close bilateral relationship between Australia and New Zealand. That is reflected in many things, like CER. The bill before the House today is in no small way built on that relationship. The seeds of Australia and New Zealand’s economic relationship were sown many years ago, but it was not until 1996 that the two nations signed an arrangement establishing a single aviation market. That makes eminent sense.

The single aviation market arrangement allows Australian and New Zealand airlines to operate domestic services in the partner country and to fly without restriction across the Tasman, subject to safety and other operational regulatory requirements. Mutual recognition, which this bill addresses, is a natural progression from a single aviation market arrangement. The bill has a pivotal role to play in integrating and consolidating the trans-Tasman aviation market by putting into effect a memorandum of understanding on open skies signed by Australian and New Zealand transport ministers in November 2000.

The previous opposition member who spoke on this bill seems to think that we are not ready for this and that because we are going to have a joint working party to look at things—I imagine such things as transitional matters—that somehow indicates that this bill has not been thought through. If you look at the steps that have been taken since 1996, this is a natural progression. No-one says that when you try to harmonise things it might not be that one country will have regulations based on a financial year and another on a calendar year. There all sorts of minor things that need to be harmonised. That does not necessarily imply that there is a lack of preparedness.

At the time of the negotiations back in November 2000 the overall value of the Australian and New Zealand aviation market was estimated at about $7 billion. This piece of legislation is a key step in releasing some of the shackles attached to an increasingly valuable sector. It does so by providing for mutual recognition of aviation related certification—in particular, safety certification for New Zealand airline operators. I have been associated with Jabiru Aircraft. I will touch on that later in my speech, but they used to have the devil’s own job with certification. We did not even have the provisions in Australia to test one aircraft, and we used the British standard.

I do not doubt for a minute that for aircraft carrying above 30 passengers and travelling 15,000 kilometres there will be very strict rules in both countries. I cannot see any danger in them being harmonised. It will mean that New Zealand airlines no longer have to hold and comply with dual certification in both countries. While streamlining the administrative processes for eligible airlines, mutual recognition is also expected to deliver significant savings to both airlines in terms of operations.

In Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, is the relevant aviation regulator. The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand is charged with the same responsibility. As it stands, an airline wishing to operate services in both countries needs to hold an air operator certificate from both CASA and CAANZ and comply with both certificates according to where its operations are being conducted. But this piece of legislation negates such unnecessary duplication and means that airline operators will now need to hold only one air operator certificate from their home base regulator, be that CASA or CAANZ. The efficiencies are likely to flow on to the wider community, if they are passed on by the relevant airlines through either reduced fares or increased competition.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Before the suspension, I was speaking about the air operator certificate. Perhaps most importantly, there is no requirement for Australia to change its own regulatory standards. Air operator certificates, which allow an individual or organisation to operate aircraft, are issued only where the relevant aviation safety regulator determines that the operator has the ability to conduct its operations safely. In other words, neither the Australian nor the New Zealand regulator is likely to do that, so the airlines that do comply in Australia and New Zealand will be much of a muchness. The safety of Australian travellers will not be compromised by this bill, because Australia and New Zealand have systems in place which achieve an equivalent level of safety for high-capacity operators. Further on this point, amendments to this bill will see a post facto safety assessment carried out by CASA 12 months after the commencement of these arrangements. This assessment will involve consultation with New Zealand, including the appointment of an independent assessor. The results of this assessment will be tabled in parliament within 18 months.

Some concerns have been expressed about the different aircrew-passenger ratio which is currently in place under New Zealand’s regime. But this is only a minor consideration when looking at the bigger picture, including the critical factors of aircraft maintenance, training and safety procedures. The member for Wakefield covered this fairly thoroughly in his presentation. The numbers on the larger aircraft may vary slightly here and there, depending on which regime you are operating within; but, with the smaller sized aircraft that we operate in Australia, the Australian standard requires two attendants above 36 seats. So I do not think there would be an appreciable difference.

Interestingly, recent statistics indicate that the overall rate of accidents in New Zealand has reduced by 30 per cent in the last three years while, in the same time frame, the number of registered aircraft has increased by 13 per cent and the number of hours flown has increased by 23 per cent.

My chairmanship of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services has given me a particular insight and interest in the development of our aviation sector, whether it be our international carriers or our smaller regional operators. When I was speaking earlier, I pointed out that Jabiru Aircraft in Bundaberg had trouble getting an assessment on its aircraft when it wanted to enter the English market.

Australians have always led the way in aviation. We have produced such legends as Bert Hinkler, after whom my electorate is named, and Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith. We are the birthplace of the Royal Flying Doctor Service and we are the home of Qantas, a world-class airline. We have an unrivalled reputation for safety and we would not compromise that in any way, shape or form.

On a smaller scale, but most importantly for me at the local level, Bundaberg’s Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd is growing its investment in the Bundaberg region after receiving Commonwealth support for its type certification. The company has been able to proceed with certifying its own aircraft and engines thanks to a $480,000 grant under the Sustainable Regions Program in 2003. That funding has allowed Jabiru to cement its position in the international aviation industry with its renowned two-seater and four-seater aircraft and its 3,000 or so engines have also been developed in Bundaberg and are an international standard for light aircraft engines.

Since Jabiru made its first sale in 1991, it has produced countless spin-off benefits for Bundaberg and the Wide Bay regions—chiefly job creation, wealth building and a growing export market in these light aircraft and their parts. Jabiru’s ability to undertake type certification was a landmark achievement for the company, and this was a crucial step in keeping it at the forefront of light commercial and recreational aircraft. I have long been a supporter of the local aviation industry and its development, and a company like Jabiru, which has a demonstrated faith in the Bundaberg district, deserves encouragement.

The size of our nation and our relative isolation in the world makes flying a matter of course for most Australians. We are a nation which leads in many fields in aviation. We are people who embrace new opportunities, and the facts and figures back this up. There is a great logic behind the introduction of these measures with New Zealand, given that our two nations enjoy increasingly close links and strong trading partnerships.

We are also traditional allies, and New Zealand has been Australia’s No. 1 tourism source market since 1999. According to Avstats, the statistical branch of the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, the figure for international scheduled aircraft passenger traffic from Australia in April 2006 was 1.17 million compared with 1.6 million in April of 2005—an increase of 6.8 per cent. While these figures indicate the general public’s increased ability to access flights, they also show a more outward looking Australia—a nation which has embraced its position in the global community and is looking to engage more actively with foreign countries. The bill will allow us to do so.

In the past decade, airline passenger numbers between Australia and New Zealand have boomed—increasing by 77 per cent in that time. In that time frame, Australia has experienced an annual increase in inbound passengers from New Zealand of 5.8 per cent, and outbound passengers to New Zealand have increased 5.9 per cent.

Following through on this: in terms of international airline pairs—that is, the most frequent points of departure and destination—New Zealand cities feature twice within the top five international destinations. The routes between Sydney and Auckland and Brisbane and Auckland accounted for 10.5 per cent of passenger traffic in the last year.

So you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a great relationship with New Zealand. We have common goals and common objectives. We share a vibrant family, business and tourism market. We have been progressing over a number of years, firstly through the harmonisation of creating a single aviation market. We are now moving towards this landmark case of having the airline operator certificate recognised in each other’s country. It will be good for New Zealand, it will be good for Australia and it will be good for aviation. I commend the bill to the main chamber.

Debate (on motion by Ms Hall) adjourned.

See this speech in context