Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005 and to add my comments to those made by my colleagues in this House and in the other place. As has been made clear, the opposition opposes this bill. We oppose it because it will undermine Australian aviation safety standards. We oppose it because it will foster a reduction in cabin crew numbers on flights in Australia and it will lead to job losses.

The government, that lazy moribund lot opposite, will not even take the time to provide a proper assessment of the likely safety and economic outcomes. I pause for a second to consider what it will be like on long flights with the member for Forrest when there is an inadequate number of flight crew to look after the needs of the member on those sorts of trips. What the government should be doing is protecting Australian jobs and protecting the Australian travelling public. There are 500,000 people in regional Western Australia who take flights with unchecked baggage. Across the country, millions of passengers a year are flying on planes with unchecked baggage, and these flights are heading towards major cities.

Let me make it clear from the start that I hold serious reservations about CASA’s ability to adequately patrol Australia’s own aviation industry, let alone letting it regulate aircraft from another country. I have evidence that CASA has previously misled a Senate estimates committee, which places the integrity of the organisation in doubt, and I will refer more to this later.

This bill was considered by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. Indeed, many submissions to that committee expressed grave concerns about the measures in the bill. It provides, in a nutshell, for mutual recognition of certain air operator certificates, AOCs, issued by Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, and the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, CAANZ. The provisions in this bill mean that a holder of an AOC for operation of an aircraft of more than 30 seats or 15,000 kilograms issued in New Zealand will be able to conduct operations in Australia without having to obtain an equivalent AOC issued in Australia. Given the mutuality of this approach, obviously the provisions will apply in reverse.

The Labor Party has called on the government to justify the changes in this bill and to assess the impact on safety of the bill’s provisions. This is hardly unreasonable. As we know, the Labor and Democrat senators on the committee issued a dissenting report. They stated that they did not accept the government’s argument for change, due to a lack of research behind the main premise of comparable safety standards between Australia and New Zealand and the cost-benefit analysis of changes wrought by the bill. We on this side do not accept that the government has presented any evidence to support the premise that Australia and New Zealand present comparable safety outcomes. Indeed, no comparative study of the regulations and practices pertaining to Australia and New Zealand has been undertaken. Rather, the Australian government has relied on the fact that both Australia and New Zealand have met international audit conditions. However, research showing a clear correlation between higher crew ratios and more effective—that is, safer—aircraft evacuations has not been taken into account.

The safety review that the committee recommended should have been undertaken. As the dissenting report states:

It defies logic to undertake this basic research after the change has been made.

The government have told the opposition that our concerns are unfounded and that the provisions in this bill will not reduce safety standards. But they have not provided to the parliament any evidence to justify their position. Their position is based purely on assertion, not fact. The Labor Party have called on the government to undertake the necessary work to provide the evidence to the parliament, but our calls have been ignored. If the government are so confident that it is right then why not prove it to us? Again, that is not an unreasonable question. But, no. In typically arrogant and heavy-handed fashion, the minister will not direct his department to do the necessary work. It is another shameful episode in the way in which this lazy government handles aviation policy in this country.

I have raised these issues with regard to CASA before in this House. A constituent of mine, Mr Clark Butson, who owns and runs an aviation company called Polar Aviation, has been pursued mercilessly by CASA. In fact, when you consider the chronology of events in the Clark Butson-CASA saga, you would be forgiven for thinking that these events took place in Salem, Massachusetts, as they are redolent of a witch-hunt. I will put a few salient facts before the House.

The long-running dispute appears to have its genesis in May 2004. The result of this audit was the issuing of 14 requests for corrective action, or RCAs. Polar Aviation responded to these RCAs by the end of June 2004. On 9 July 2004 CASA rejected these responses to the RCAs, which resulted in a show cause notice being presented. In August, CASA refused a reasonable request for an extension of time for Polar Aviation to deal with the show cause notice. However, two weeks later CASA changed its mind and agreed to an extension. The maladministration shown by CASA in the first part of this saga indicates to me that there is something seriously wrong with the culture of CASA. This goes to the core of Labor’s opposition to this bill.

By the end of September, Polar Aviation had managed to respond to all but three of the RCAs. I remind the House that this is a small business and an enormous amount of work was undertaken to achieve this result. A meeting convened by CASA was called for 18 October 2004. It was thought that this meeting would sort out all the difficulties. In fact, that was the feeling that Polar Aviation had after 4½ hours. A further audit by CASA in November 2004 occurred, and on 18 January 2005 CASA cancelled Polar Aviation’s air operator’s certificate—the AOCs which we are talking about today—and the chief pilot’s and chief flying instructor’s accreditation. However, in keeping with the dual personality demonstrated by CASA, on 20 January CASA changed its mind and decided to renew the AOC, provided a new chief pilot and chief flying instructor were appointed.

When you look at how this occurred you could say, with respect to the way CASA reacted, ‘Yeah, they seem to have done the right thing; and, fair enough, when it went to court the operator agreed to pursue this path of pulling out of being the chief pilot,’ but when you delve further, you find that really he was blackmailed into it by CASA and it was absolutely outrageous for them then to claim that they actually had an agreement for this undertaking.

Going back to the story: as requested on 29 January, Polar Aviation complied and appointed a new chief pilot and chief flying instructor. The chief pilot and instructor, Clark Butson, has probably more flying and instructing hours than anyone else in Western Australia. He has an impeccable safety record. So for this action to occur in itself is outrageous.

Yet again, CASA decided to shift the goalposts and then demanded that Polar Aviation withdraw the AAT action and agree to some extremely onerous and enforceable voluntary undertakings. Let us put it into perspective here. What they have done is to say: ‘Look, we know that you’ve been unhappy with the fact that we’re demanding you do these things and you’ve actually taken up an Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing to look at some of the ways that we’ve been dealing with you. But I’ll tell you what: if you withdraw the action, we’ll back off.’ To me, it is out and out blackmail by a government department over a small business operator, and I find it absolutely outrageous.

Polar Aviation objected to this, as they should. So, on 1 February 2005, a counter-offer was made by CASA, now offering general undertakings. On 2 February, even this was changed, with CASA refusing to renew the AOC. Within the space of about two weeks, we have had various CASA positions. Again, on 11 February, after action in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, CASA was required by the court to issue an AOC pending the full hearing of the case.

The whole thing smacks of a Monty Python out-take and would probably be amusing if it were not for the fact that CASA is charged with administering air safety. The AAT hearing held in August resulted in CASA being required to issue an AOC and ordered CASA to use its best endeavours to assist Polar Aviation. You would think that this would be the end of the matter, but no; the saga continues, with CASA appealing to the Federal Court and losing. Imagine the cost to a small business operator of having to go to the Federal Court and defend itself against a federal organisation with unlimited money. They know they have got unlimited money and they think that they can drive these poor little guys out of business by continuing to go to court and making them spend enormous amounts of money defending themselves. Again, this is outrageous. CASA’s recalcitrance and animosity towards Polar Aviation continues to this day, with the most recent AAT hearing in March this year resulting in conditions placed on Polar Aviation being varied, against CASA’s wishes.

I would contrast the action of CASA in relation to Polar Aviation, a company that has had no serious incidents or injuries in its nearly 25 years of operation, to that of CASA’s treatment of Transair. Transair, of course, was the company that was involved in the tragic accident and loss of 15 lives at Lockhart River last year. In May this year, after nearly 12 months, CASA moved to put in place, for a mere six months, an enforceable voluntary undertaking dealing with what appears to be systemic problems that should have been obvious for a number of years.

Labor supports a safe aviation industry and there is no place for petty vendettas or incompetence by the regulator. The facts that I have outlined prove that CASA has acted inappropriately and in a spiteful and vindictive manner towards my constituent. These actions by CASA have ramifications for the provision of aviation services to regional Australia. I would have thought that the minister, given his background, and his department might have had a little empathy with the needs of regional Australia. After all, they are both ostensibly responsible for regional Australia. But no; they allowed CASA to pursue Mr Butson with no grounds, and in doing so they have jeopardised the provision of aviation services to the Port Hedland area.

Around the traps of the aviation world it is well known that the government has had its own issues with CASA. CASA has become a power unto itself and effectively gives the Department of Transport and Regional Services the one-fingered salute when the department tries to impose policies on it. It has been widely speculated that in government circles patience with CASA is wearing a little thin and that there has even been mention of returning CASA’s functions to the department. There were good reasons for the creation of CASA in its current form but unfortunately CASA’s own behaviour is making it entirely possible that the previous structure will be reintroduced. CASA’s autonomy, far from making aviation safety stronger in this country, is actually threatening the integrity of aviation operations’ efficiency, as the saga of Mr Butson demonstrates.

As I have said before, my reading of the tea leaves leads me to the conclusion that what we have here is a personality dispute. CASA do not like this particular company and they are trying to drive them out of business, no matter what. For a government or semigovernment authority to deal with things in this way, I find absolutely outrageous.  It needs to stop. Government authorities must be above reproach and they must be above trying these sorts of dirty, disgusting little tactics against the little guy who has no way of actually defending himself other than in court and when his money runs out he is finished. When you deal with these sorts of situations and government departments treating people like this, it is just outrageous.

I call on the government to review CASA’s treatment of Mr Butson. Although the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has expressed good intentions in the past through his apparent willingness to investigate these matters, on this issue the minister has been fobbed off by CASA. The minister should not allow himself to be fobbed off again and he should insist on answers from CASA about how they have behaved.

I mentioned earlier about the recent Senate estimates committee hearing where CASA presented evidence. CASA’s evidence was, to some degree, accurate but when you look further they were providing minimalist answers to complex questions and, in fact, they were misleading the Senate. I have a document that demonstrates that, which will be going to people in the Senate next time CASA appears before them so that CASA can answer some of these questions. I also call on the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to supply members of this House with the hard evidence we need to assure us that, should this particular bill be passed, aviation security and safety will be in no way reduced. Unless and until such evidence is supplied, we will have no alternative but to oppose this bill.

See this speech in context