Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will sum up on behalf of the government at this point and make the final speech here in the Main Committee. The Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005, as the previous speakers have outlined, will enable mutual recognition of aviation security certification between Australia and New Zealand. It does a number of things. It removes unnecessary administrative burdens currently imposed on aviation operators wishing to operate in both Australia and New Zealand. When implemented, the mutual recognition arrangements will mean that operators of aircraft of more than 30 seats or 15,000 kilograms may apply for an air operators certificate, with Australia and New Zealand aviation privileges. This AOC will allow operators to fly in both countries without the need for individual certificates issued by each country. Mutual recognition therefore has the potential to deliver significant savings to the Australian aviation industry and passengers alike and may also result in greater choice for air travellers in both Australia and New Zealand.

Airlines are currently able to set up organisations and operate in both Australia and New Zealand, something that Australian airlines have already done. Virgin, Pacific Blue and Qantas New Zealand domestic operation JetConnect are just some examples. This bill will reduce the cost of establishing such operations by removing the need to duplicate effort, resourcing and certification processes. However, airlines will not be able to shop around for the regulator that suits them commercially, because this bill ensures that the aviation authority which can most effectively provide safety oversight will be the one to issue the AOC with ANZA privileges. This is a matter not simply of where aircraft are registered but of where operations are principally being undertaken. The decision about which authority issues the AOC and therefore regulates an airline under mutual recognition is based on a range of factors, including where the airline’s supervision of safety systems is principally undertaken, where the related resources are located, where training and supervision of employees is principally undertaken and where the control of operations will be situated.

Australian aviation safety will not be compromised. Nothing in the bill requires Australia to water down its safety standards or to harmonise them with those of New Zealand. An examination of regulations was conducted by CASA and CAANZ and it was found that, although different in some respects, the safety regulatory systems in place in Australia and New Zealand achieve comparable safety outcomes with respect to large passenger aircraft. The standards in both Australia and New Zealand meet and, indeed, in some areas exceed international requirements set by the ICAO, and this has been verified through publicly available audits. A recent report by the ATSB examining fatal accidents has found that Australia’s fatal accident and fatality rates were mostly similar to those of the other countries examined, including New Zealand. Safety outcomes, of course, are the result of a number of inputs. Regulatory oversight, while indeed an important factor, is not the sole determinant of safety results. The ATSB report notes that other relevant factors include weather, geography and air traffic density, to name a few.

While criticism of this bill has focused on cabin crew ratios, it should be noted that foreign airlines, including those from New Zealand, already operate within Australia under their own cabin crew ratios, which are different from those applied through Australian regulation. This has been an accepted international practice for a number of years. There is no evidence that this has had a negative impact on aviation safety in Australia. CASA’s current practice of conducting routine surveillance of foreign aircraft will continue to apply to airlines operating in Australia under ANZA privileges.

This bill has been thoroughly considered twice by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The government accepted recommendations made in the majority reports from that committee and has addressed them. The bill includes measures to ensure that aviation safety in Australia is maintained, and the government has committed to tabling an independent, comparative assessment of operator safety records within 18 months of the operation of the arrangements. The bill will be supported by appropriate regulations which will give effect not only to the provisions of the bill but also to the high-level operational arrangements currently being concluded with New Zealand. The government has undertaken that these will all be in place to allow commencement within six months of proclamation.

Despite claims to the contrary, aviation security will not be affected by mutual recognition of aviation safety certification. New Zealand airlines operating to, from or within Australia using a New Zealand AOC with ANZA privileges will still have to comply with Australian aviation security legislation and have an approved Australian aviation security program. As is presently the case for Australian domestic airlines, if a New Zealand airline were to operate domestic services within Australia, it would need to fully comply with Australia’s aviation security regime, including carrying air safety officers if they are assessed as falling within the risk based aviation security officer allocation process.

Importantly, while Australia’s high standards of aviation safety and security are maintained, the implementation of mutual recognition as set out in the bill will: open up increased market opportunity for Australian airlines; facilitate the use of both Australian and New Zealand registered aircraft in either country, improve aircraft utilisation and return on assets; and alleviate the administrative burden currently placed on Australian airlines wishing to operate in New Zealand. The passage of this bill will be of clear benefit to Australian airlines and their customers.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

See this speech in context