Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources) Share this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Vasta, I just wanted to alert you to something that's thrown me off a bit; it's not often that I agree with the member for Ryan, but I do! I never thought I'd say that in this chamber but there are elements of what he said that I completely agree with, with respect to CASA.

I do appreciate that in relation to this legislation, and generally, CASA are trying to do the best they can to maintain safety, given what's involved, and they've done a great job. Through a combination of their regulation plus the industry itself, fatalities in this sector are low. But in this space, particularly with respect to the legislation that's before us regarding drone technology, there have been some limitations. There have been some concerns about the pace of regulatory reform and there have also been some concerns that a result of the reforms is cost impacts on individual operators. I have been approached by some in this space who are using drone technology and who have been concerned about the approach that CASA has taken.

While this bill will advance a few things and, notably, will not necessarily put a cost impost on people utilising drones, there are some people who have been quite vocal and who have raised their concerns with me, particularly some who run microbusinesses. It's important to note that not every drone operator is a large operator. Small operators will invest in this technology and try to further a business idea that they have, but they also have to be mindful of the rules surrounding the use of drones. They've said to me they have found the rules surrounding them 'understandably complicated', but operators have criticised CASA for the 'difficulty in interpreting the regulations'. A Canberra based firm that, as I said, runs a microbusiness sent me an email saying: 'As someone who's worked in regulatory policy at both state and federal levels, I've taken the view that CASA are probably the most opaque regulator I've come across. We aren't all massive companies like Qantas, with lawyers to interpret and trawl through instruments. Use plain English and help us stay within the rules, as we clearly are trying to do.' So they have been saying that that is something that they are concerned about.

It has taken a bit of time to get to the point where we have a complete regulatory framework. In fact, I remember the member for Dawson bringing down a report in this space calling for a proper regulatory framework around drones back in 2014. Six years later, we are debating this legislation. It is, unfortunately, a very painful repetition of behaviour by this government, where it seems to take an incredible amount of time to get from issues being raised, particularly when it comes to technology, to then getting things done. Sure, when we're moving into new arenas it's difficult sometimes to bring that into place. But others seem to move way quicker. It is holding up innovation in this space.

The reason why I'm speaking in this debate is that I recognise the impact of technology, especially in the agriculture sector. More and more people in the agriculture sector—and this is a sector that has embraced technology over many years, with some of the greatest advances in automation occurring in the 1950s and 1960s—are looking to find smarter, more efficient ways to get things done. They will embrace technology that delivers that. Drone technology, for example, is an important part of being able to cover a large land mass quickly. Farmers can use drone technology to undertake the observation required, be it of cattle or other aspects of their farm businesses operating across a large land space or footprint. Drone technology's going to be important to them.

I suspect a lot of them would be concerned at the prospect of regulatory fees being put in place. Sure, they will understand why. Sure, they'll understand it'll be designed to recoup the costs of putting in some of these regulations. But they'll also want to make sure that it's not too imposing on their businesses, particularly given the pressures they've had to face in recent years, especially with respect to drought and what they're going through at the moment in relation to trade. Drone technology and ag tech generally, and the application of technology in this arena, will be very important. Any regulations with respect to drones are very critical.

It has been impressed upon us to keep our remarks brief, but I cannot talk in the House on the issue of drones without referring to the work of some terrific Australians in this space. I'll just use my time in the House to very quickly recognise the contribution of Dr Catherine Ball. Dr Ball is a much-sought-after voice in our tech sector here in Australia. She has worked a lot on the application of drone technology across remote communities, schools, industry and citizen science, and she's certainly led the cause around the ethics of spatial data and commercial drone operations. She also looks at the application of technology with a particular view of humanitarian elements, ranging from the use of drones for emergency response to recording cultural heritage and agricultural assessments, and she has travelled extensively here and overseas to give her support and assistance on technology and projects that combine science, entrepreneurship, empowerment, education and training. Dr Ball has also run the World of Drones conferences here in Australia. She's been a fantastic contributor to the sector, particularly to tech in Australia.

I think it is important on the floor of the House of Representatives to recognise talented Australians who are thinking creatively and laterally on the application of technology and championing its use across a wide range of other sectors. I want to salute Catherine for her work and thank her enormously for what she is doing and, importantly, for her belief in our fellow Australians coming up with new ways of using technology—not just from an economic perspective but also from a social one—to advance the way that we work. Thank you very much to her. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the bill.

See this speech in context