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

I rise to speak to the Airspace (Consequentials and Other Measures) Bill 2006, which contains a number of amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988, consequent to the Airspace Bill 2006. This bill amends the act to make sure that airspace regulation is clear and a separate function for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and that CASA acts consistently with the Australian Airspace Policy Statement, described in the Airspace Bill 2006. The bill also makes a number of technical amendments to the Air Services Act 1995 and the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to accommodate amendments made to the functions of Airservices Australia by the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Act 2003.

I would like to talk about some of the context of the bill, because aviation has been a vital and integral part of life in Australia since aviation started, from World War I and post that, to the development of mail services and Qantas and other names that we all know, such as the Flying Doctor Service. It remains an important part of the way we do business. Australia has been a world leader in aviation both technically and administratively over a number of years. Currently we manage and provide air traffic services to some 11 per cent of the earth’s surface, which, given our population, is a huge amount of airspace to look after.

In recent years there has been much contention about airspace, particularly since 2002, when the government instituted a process to look at the National Airspace System, which was designed to align Australia’s airspace classification system with that of the internationally recognised system of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO. A number of characteristics of NAS have been implemented: stage 1 and stages 2a, 2b and 2c, and an additional June 2005 stage. These include a number of things that affect different categories of aircraft: VFR, IFR, IFBT et cetera.

Ongoing change will be a feature of airspace management. In 2003 ICAO released a further document with a global air traffic management operational concept. They are looking to the future to see how we can better align and integrate airspace systems from a world perspective. A large driver of this is technology, particularly as we move from ground based systems, some of which had their origins in Australia but many of which date back some 50 years to space based systems, which increase accuracy as well as capacity. I talk of things such as the automatic dependent surveillance broadcast, ADS-B, system that has been in use in various parts of the world for a while now, but recently it has become a serious option for widespread use as a surveillance and traffic management tool.

Given these developments in technology overseas, it is appropriate that Australia has an ongoing process of reviewing and managing its airspace. Having been involved in the consultations post the 2002 decision, from the operational side, I am pleased to see that the government has been consulting closely with industry on airspace and that it has heard the clear message that industry has been sending: that there are very clear supporters for, and very clear detractors of, the National Airspace System. The government has chosen to continue with reform but has made sure that we have a robust method of consultation in place. I believe that is very important because the last thing we need in Australia is ongoing division and the distraction from the prime consideration of having a safe and effective airspace management system. Things like the date of 25 November 2004 just caused huge ructions in the aerospace industry, with people either pro or against going ahead with airspace changes on that date.

The consultations are important because there is a wide range of users in Australia, from the home-built and sport and recreational type categories through to warbirds and general aviation, which for many years has been the bedrock of aviation in Australia and remains one of the prime means of both doing business and having personal transport for people in rural and remote areas. There are also the charter and training type operations, the corporate and regular public transport and, importantly, Defence—not only the operational side of Defence but the training and the test and evaluation side, which does not get a lot of airplay in public but is of significant impact on airspace use in Australia. Other stakeholders are ICAO, obviously, and overseas users. From a systems perspective, we need to understand that airspace does not work in isolation and that we need to consider what other things are in place to support the rules and procedures that we put in place.

I hark back to my own experience of flying in the UK, where radar coverage was essentially universal—even at very low levels—across the country. That provides for a very different airspace environment in terms of what is possible compared to what we have in Australia, where we do not have that same kind of coverage. So the discussion of airspace alone is not sufficient. We need to consider who the users are, what outcomes they require and the other enabling elements that actually make the system as a whole safe and effective. I use the word ‘effective’ deliberately there. ‘Efficient’ is often the word that is used, but efficiency sometimes is to the detriment of safety and effectiveness. I believe that safety and effectiveness have to be the two elements that underpin any move in or development of our airspace system here in Australia.

As I said, Australia has been an early adapter of technology and innovation and whilst it is important that we look to align with ICAO, alignment does not imply a direct replica. It does not mean that we will look exactly the same as any other system in the world. We can still align whilst allowing for unique operational considerations in Australia and also allow the space for people to be innovative in the use and take-up of technology. That means that the consultation process needs to be open and accountable. Many of the critics of the developments since 2002 point to the fact that, at some of the consultations, people spoke but there was a question as to whether those various groups were heard. The saying about babies and bathwater is often applied to some of the decisions that appeared to have been taken at the end of some of those consultation processes.

I believe it is important that future consultations involve the stakeholders at an operational level and not be satisfied to just look at the executive summary, if I can use that example. For example, the NAS has been described as very effective in the United States and the military there think it is fine; therefore it reads across that the military here should be happy with it. Having worked with the US military in the aviation sector, I am aware that there are many elements of the NAS that they consistently look for workarounds for because they find it does not actually suit their purposes, but they cannot change it and so they find these workarounds. It is important that the consultation process does go below the executive summary level and actually finds out what the operators from each of the various stakeholder groups need so that they can have outcomes that are both safe and effective for their operations. What I am really looking for is a balance in that consultation process so that the realities of the operational environment are captured in our regulation.

Another example where the concept is good but the reality is different is in the United Kingdom where CAP 723, issued by their Civil Aviation Authority in collaboration with the Ministry of Defence, defines something called purple airspace which is airspace that is declared for royal and VIP flights. It is fantastic if you are flying there in a military environment. They will advise you when a purple airspace corridor is declared and you adjust your flying program for the day accordingly to make sure there is an adequate protective bubble for those VIP or royal aircraft. Where that falls down is that whilst you are evacuating that piece of airspace, a civilian VFR aircraft could blunder straight on through and could even formate off one of the royal helicopters if it wanted to. The safety outcome intended is not delivered because of the realities on the ground of how people operate. I think it is important that when we put together a system here we align it with ICAO and make sure that we are compatible, but also that we take account of the operational realities for aviation operations in Australia. I am thinking particularly here of taking account of how people operate outside controlled airspace in rural and remote areas.

In conclusion, I am happy to support this bill. I think the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is the appropriate agency because I believe airspace, at the end of the day, is about safe and effective operations. I believe that the transfer from Airservices Australia to CASA, with that reporting direct to the minister, is appropriate. What we are talking about here is a system that will use an Australian risk management framework and give some certainty to industry and because CASA has a regulatory function, rather than a corporate function, I believe that in terms of governance it is a better place for that. The Office of Airspace Regulation will have decision-making powers for regulating airspace around Australia and I believe that CASA is the appropriate place to have that oversight. I support the bill.

See this speech in context