Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005 amends the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to put into effect an historic joint Australian and New Zealand commitment to mutually recognise each other’s aviation related safety certification.

The bill has been developed in close consultation with New Zealand. New Zealand’s corresponding legislation was introduced and passed by their parliament in March last year.

This bill and its associated regulations represent the first step in mutual recognition of aviation safety certificates between Australia and New Zealand. The bill permits the mutual recognition of air operators certificates for operation of aircraft of more than 30 seats or 15,000 kilograms, as issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in Australia and the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand.

Extension of mutual recognition of certificates beyond AOCs will be effected through amendments to legislation. This follows the recommendation made by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in June 2004.

This provides for a safe and measured introduction of the initiative that can gradually be extended, as both countries consider appropriate. This also provides parliament with a level of transparency that is fitting to such an important initiative.

AOCs permit a person or organisation to conduct commercial activities and are issued only if the aviation safety regulator is satisfied about the matters specified in the legislation.

On that basis, under the new mutual recognition arrangements, CASA will be able to approve an AOC for an Australian operator that will authorise operations in both Australia and New Zealand and will be accepted for use by New Zealand authorities. This particular AOC will be termed an Australian AOC with ANZA privileges, where ANZA means Australia and New Zealand Aviation.

The aviation authority that issues the AOC with ANZA privileges will be the one to regulate its use by the operator, whether its operations are in Australia or New Zealand. This means that Australian operators opting to hold an AOC with ANZA privileges issued by CASA will be subject to regulatory oversight by CASA even when operating in New Zealand, and vice versa.

It is important to note, however, that, although the operator will be overseen by the authority that issues the AOC, it will also be required to comply with the general laws and rules of the air applicable to operations in the country in which they are operating. For example, New Zealand operators conducting passenger services in Australia using an AOC with ANZA privileges issued by the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand will have to comply with Australian laws with respect to the environment, curfew, aviation security and the carrier’s liability.

The New Zealand legislation has a similar provision in relation to the ability of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand to issue an AOC with ANZA privileges to New Zealand operators that wish to operate in Australia as well as New Zealand.

There are three important aspects of this proposal.

The first and most important is that there will be no effect on the safety of aircraft operations in either Australia or New Zealand.

The second is that mutual recognition is expected to reduce administrative costs of airlines, because they will no longer have to hold and comply with dual certification issued in both countries. This in turn will remove a barrier to airlines taking up commercial opportunities available under trans-Tasman air services arrangements.

The third is the fact that this initiative is a major step forward in the integration of the trans-Tasman aviation market and marks an historic development in the aviation relationship between Australia and New Zealand.

With regard to safety, consideration has been given to the issue of whether safety would be compromised by the adoption of mutual recognition. It has been concluded that it will not, because it has been recognised and accepted that Australia and New Zealand have aviation safety standards that are consistent with the International Civil Aviation Organisation standards for airline operations using large capacity aircraft.

It is also important to note that mutual recognition is not about harmonisation of Australian and New Zealand safety standards. Australia and New Zealand recognise that there are differences between our two systems, including particular standards, but these can be accepted, as it is the overall safety outcome achieved by each system that is being recognised.

Notwithstanding this, by way of added guarantee, further measures have been built into this bill to ensure that safety is maintained at current high levels. One example is a provision that ensures that the regulator most effectively able to monitor the activities of the operator will be the one to issue the AOC with ANZA privileges. In nearly all cases this will, of course, be the operator’s home regulator as determined by a number of set criteria.

Another provision allows a regulator to issue a temporary stop notice to an operator holding an AOC with ANZA privileges issued by the other regulator who is normally responsible for regulating the safety of its operations. Temporary stop notices would only be issued if the safety regulator considered there was a serious risk to flying safety. The provision builds in a strong safeguard that may never be needed but is nevertheless available to both regulators. The temporary stop notice will be in force for a maximum period of seven days, during which time the regulator that issued the AOC will consider what action should be taken in relation to the operator in question.

Strong communication and cooperation between CASA and the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand will underpin mutual recognition and are provided for by the provisions of this bill. Indeed, mutual recognition has only been possible because of the joint understanding and commitment of the two regulatory agencies to continued safe practice.

An advantage of mutual recognition is the fact that operators will be able to use both Australian and New Zealand registered aircraft, regardless of which authority provides their AOC with ANZA privileges, providing the aircraft is included on the certificate. This will allow airlines to cross-utilise their aircraft and will provide increased flexibility for their operation.

These efficiencies are likely to have flow-on savings to the wider community through the airlines concerned, either by reduced fares or through greater choice as a result of competition.

Mutual recognition arrangements will, however, remain optional. An operator will therefore have the flexibility to continue to hold two separate AOCs if they wish.

This said, operators who do opt for an AOC with ANZA privileges from its home regulator will not be able to hold an AOC issued by the other. This is because it is important that all parties understand what AOC is in force and which regulator is ensuring compliance with it.

Mutual recognition is an undertaking by both governments that arose as a result of the Open Skies Air Services Agreement between Australia and New Zealand.

The Open Skies Agreement was itself an important step in the further development of closer economic relations with New Zealand, intended to promote competition and build upon the principles contained in the Australia-New Zealand single aviation market arrangements.

When the Open Skies Agreement was negotiated in November 2000, the overall value of the Australia-New Zealand single aviation market was estimated at $6.8 billion—NZ$8.7 billion. Mutual recognition will create opportunities for our airlines that will add further value to the relationship between our two countries.

It will help to ensure that the benefits of the integration of our two aviation markets continue, making it easier for Australian and New Zealand airlines to operate services in both countries, to integrate their fleets and achieve operating efficiencies.

Australia is committed to the implementation of this important initiative.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in the debate on the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005. Unlike the previous bill, the antifouling bill, the Labor Party does not support this one; we oppose it.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is so unwise.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it is not unwise. In fact, we oppose it for good reason. Labor’s position on this bill is very clear. We do oppose the measures being put forward and we believe that the introduction of a new aviation regulatory regime, in the absence of an assessment of the likely safety and economic outcomes, is not a sound approach to this area of critical public policy. The minister would be wise, I think, rather than criticising the Labor Party, to look at two critical issues: the issue of security and the issue of safety. Everything that is done in terms of civil aviation should be couched within that framework. That should be the basis and the starting point. That has not been the case in terms of this bill. The absence of that assessment which I referred to could have safety, economic and security outcomes. We certainly do not believe it is a sound approach for the government to be taking in this critical policy area.

Australians do expect and demand the most rigorous approach to aviation policy in terms of safety and security. That is very much a front-of-mind issue because of terrorism and activities around the world, and also because the government makes it a front-of-mind issue. That is okay with me, but if the government is going to do that then it must take the necessary steps and precautions, make assessments and make any changes to legislation in line with those proper assessments.

It seems that the Howard government does not do this. If it did, it would understand that the measures being proposed may have serious consequences for safety in our skies, and they may cost Australian jobs as well. As Labor’s shadow transport minister has said in the other place, Labor’s principal objection to this bill is that we believe it has the potential to undermine aviation safety standards in this country. This is not something that is done lightly. This is not something said lightly. This is something that is very important, and it should be something that the government looks at very carefully if it is serious about not just the rhetoric and facade of aviation security and safety but its practical implementation as well.

I will talk about this a little more in a moment, but I want to say right now that the government has a very poor track record on aviation security and safety. While it has talked about a lot of things since the events that occurred on 11 September 2001—and the anniversary of that tragic incident is only a few days away now—the government has done very little to act and has acted only very recently in addressing some of those concerns that were raised in late 2001 and early 2002 by members of the public as well as by members of parliament and other authorities.

This bill substantially replicates the provisions of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand and Other Matters) Bill 2003, which related to the mutual recognition of certain aviation related safety certifications. The proposed amendments will mean that the holder of an air operators certificate, 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, and vice versa.

This in itself should be enough to highlight the obvious gap in safety measures and sound alarm bells within the office of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services that this legislation is deficient. I do not think that in an ever-increasing environment of safety and security concerns and terrorism we should relax the measures and barriers to a point where it just becomes easier and easier for pilots to be able to access different regimes.

The Howard government first attempted to legislate for mutual recognition of AOCs through the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand and Other Matters) Bill 2003, which was introduced into the House in June 2003. As we now know, the introduction of this bill led to a Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry, and the committee’s final report was never responded to. I think it is a poor indictment of the minister and his office that that report was not either responded to or acted on.

The government has not responded to concerns raised in the course of the previous committee inquiry, with the exception of its decision to omit provisions providing for the extension of mutual recognition by regulation. Outstanding concerns related to this bill are many. They include such things as the absence of a comparative assessment of safety systems operating in Australia and New Zealand. I think making that assessment as to what can be transferred across and what cannot be would be an important starting point—what has a matching principle in Australia and New Zealand. I do not think it is acceptable that this bill does not do that and that the government has not looked at this. I assess that if the travelling public were to understand it they would have concerns. They would say, ‘Hang on, if we’ve got those rules here in Australia then why isn’t a proper assessment made between the Australian standards and the New Zealand standards?’ It seems obvious to me that this is an area that the government could move into to ensure that there is compliance between the two regimes.

The other area of concern, of course, is direct safety related to lower cabin crew ratios in New Zealand, which in fact is one cabin crew member per 50 seats compared to Australia’s one cabin crew member per 36 seats or passengers. Again, if Australia has a standard whereby it is determined that the proper safety cabin crew ratio ought to be one to 36 then it ought to be one to 36 as a standard. It should not be relegated to the lowest common denominator—that being the ratio used in New Zealand of one to 50.

Another area of concern is direct safety related to the prohibition of sky marshals on aircraft operating under a New Zealand AOC. This one is obviously something the government should look at. What I suspect will happen—and I have a couple more concerns—is that the government, after using its strength in numbers in both houses, will pass this legislation and then be forced to come back to the table and the parliament with further amendments and changes to make amends for the things that it has not done properly in the first instance, which is always a disappointment, given the length of time that the government takes to act on safety and security concerns in the civil aviation area, unlike the speed with which it acts in pushing through legislation in other areas.

Another area which concerns the ALP is the absence of a regulatory analysis of the two systems. Without question the government needs to look at the two regulatory environments. Just like a comparative assessment of safety systems, I think it is imperative that we look at where there may be some overlap, omissions or contradictions within the regulatory environments between the Australian and New Zealand systems. We are also concerned at the absence of a cost-benefit analysis, including the impact on the economy from a shift of airline operators, including through subsidiary operations from Australia to New Zealand. Our aviation industry is under a lot of pressure, as is our economy. It would be prudent for the government and for the department involved to do a cost-benefit analysis looking at the impact this will have on industry and the economy and then to report back to the parliament as to what that assessment is.

Understanding the history of the Howard government’s approach to aviation security reveals why there are so many deficiencies in this bill. This is not a reference to this bill, but there is this desire to rush bills through at the end when they have already been sitting on the table for years not being acted on. They may have had committee reports and inquiries where extensive efforts and work have been done by members and senators, only to be ignored. Years can go by and then there are these rushed bills which get rammed through this parliament in a less than sound manner without proper scrutiny or proper analysis.

We should also have a very close look at the issue of security at regional airports. I could not speak on a bill such as this without making a big issue of regional airport security. It is one of the greater concerns that I have in all of our airports in Australia. There are some 66,707 regional flights a year which go unchecked at regional airports right around the country. That is a lot of flights. That is a lot of air time, a lot of passengers, a lot of aircraft, a lot of different pilots and a lot of air movements.

In the five years—almost to the day, as I said—since the tragic incidents of September 11, 2001, the Howard government has refused to take airport security seriously. While we see in some cases even over-the-top security at Sydney, Brisbane or other major capital city airports, we hear very little about what is going on at regional airports. There has been a lot of talk from the government about airport security, but we have seen very little action. We have seen fridge magnets and PR campaigns but we have not seen the sort of action on the ground that the flying public deserve.

The Howard government’s failure to implement the expert recommendations of the Wheeler report in regional airports is leaving more than 3.9 million passengers a year at serious risk. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has admitted that no baggage screening—that is right, none whatsoever—was done at major regional airports such as Launceston, Townsville, Maroochydore and Alice Springs. It poses the question, certainly in my mind: is it the view of the minister that these airports are somehow less valued or less worthy or that the passengers who fly from these regional airports are less valued or less worthy than passengers from major airports around the country?

An even more serious question for the minister would be a very simple one about those who want to do harm to us. As security tightens up at our major airports, wouldn’t it be normal to make an assessment that people who want to do harm to us, people such as terrorists, will look at easy targets, easy pickings? You cannot find any easier than our regional airports. That is the unfortunate outcome of this. As we tighten up security ever more at Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne airports, we are finding our regional airports have got huge gaping vacuums of security, where people can literally walk in with anything they like. Their baggage is not checked at all.

If an aircraft takes off from Sydney and flies over Sydney, we know that the aircraft is clean, that it has been fully screened and checked, but an aircraft coming from a regional airport and flying into Sydney airport has not been screened. It is flying over the same city and could have some device or dangerous person on board. It could be the subject of a hijacking. The possibilities are there. If we are serious about airport and aviation safety and security then without doubt all of our airports must be included and not just our capital city airports.

Last year tens of thousands of passengers travelled from 11 regional airports around the country directly into Sydney with unscreened bags. This is not good enough. If planes are taking off from Sydney and they are fully screened because we believe that is the right thing to do for security—for the passengers on board, for the people on the ground, for safe skies—then surely a plane coming from a regional airport and landing in Sydney must have the same rules applied to it. It does not make sense that the government would have one rule for a major city airport and not apply it for a regional one.

I would be very happy to hear a full explanation from the minister—and I know he will be reading this—as to why he values the life of passengers on aircraft travelling from Sydney airport more than he does the life of passengers travelling to Sydney, because their bags are not screened. In fact, the people on board would not have any screening either. When Sir John Wheeler reviewed Australian airport security last year, he said:

Regional and smaller airports demand more attention.

They demand more attention because they are not getting any. There is no investment in their security from this government. I suspect—only a little bit, but I suspect—it is because they are not front of mind; they are back of mind. They are hidden away in regional Australia. They are almost insignificant. This is what the government must be thinking to itself. This is not part of its PR campaign to keep winning elections and keep people frightened.

Government members might not like to this, but I cannot find any other plausible reasons why the government would travel down this path. If these regional airports were somehow front of mind, in the media, right up there and were the very public face of this government’s electoral concerns, I think we would see a different scenario. If the government is serious about security—and it claims to be the great protector and all of these things—then why is it not doing something about regional security? The questions must be asked.

Government members must ask themselves the question: if somebody were going to do harm to an aircraft, to passengers on an aircraft or to a building—to do something with an aircraft—why would they choose to do it out of Sydney airport? Why would they not just choose to do it out of a regional airport? They could still target Sydney but do it on the way into Sydney, not on the way out of Sydney. It seems pretty obvious to me. I am not a security expert but I am sure security experts have looked at this, and they would be very concerned. I am sure that just as security experts would have looked at this, so would people who mean to do us harm.

The figures are evidence that the Prime Minister is misleading people in this arena when he claims that his government is doing everything it can to protect the travelling public. The figures do not bear that out; it is just not the truth. The truth is that we have security at major airports but we do not have security or screening at regional airports. At a whole range of major regional airports there is no baggage screening at all. I have personally travelled through regional airports—and I am sure other members of this House have—and I was frightened because I was not checked at all. It left me with an absolutely uneasy feeling that I managed to get on an aircraft with all of my hand luggage—no in-aircraft baggage, just hand luggage—without being screened, checked, asked a question or anything at all.

I checked in, I got on the aircraft and I could not help but think that in this current environment of terrorism and all those things that frighten all of us that that aircraft was heading into Sydney. If somebody had wanted to do harm on that aircraft, to the people on board, or to make a statement to people living in Sydney or to Sydney airport or whatever—a multitude of things could happen—then that would have been the perfect avenue to do it. I did not feel comfortable on that aircraft because of the potential that somebody else on that aircraft could have been carrying something that should not have been on there.

So when the Prime Minister talks about these issues, I think he has very little credibility. And when the minister talks about these issues, I think he has no credibility. If this government is serious about protecting the travelling public then it ought to get serious in practice rather than just in rhetoric. Millions of Australian citizens are moving around our country in aircraft that are carrying unscreened baggage. I think I have made this point clear, but I cannot stress it enough to the government. It is an extremely dangerous mistake for the government to make in the current climate, and one that a Labor government would immediately rectify. That is part of our policy and part of something that we believe should be at the forefront.

It may not be so attractive and it may not have all the bells and whistles and the PR campaigns that the Prime Minister might so desire in an election. Nonetheless, it is important if we are to be serious about national security. This shows that the Prime Minister cannot look Australians in the eye and tell them he is doing everything he can to protect them from terrorism. He is only doing some things he can to protect us from terrorism—those things which are the most electorally attractive.

Whenever I speak about this in public arenas or if I am ever asked about this, I say, ‘You do not have to go very far beyond just a fridge magnet to show you that it is all about PR and glossy pamphlets.’ With the fridge magnet and all the rest, you can throw good money after bad. I am sure the fridge magnets are still around on some fridges holding up kids’ school results. They have come to great use. I think that is what they do in my house. I cannot see them being of too much other use.

Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You still have one?

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Actually, I am not sure that I have. I think it was a very poor quality one and it fell off the fridge. What the ALP want to see, though, rather than fridge magnets and fancy campaigns—which, in the end, is all it boils down to—is baggage on domestic and international flights screened at every Australian airport. I think that it is sensible and would be a better use of taxpayers’ money. I would like to see government members disagree with that, just to see what their personal views are.

The ALP also wants every staff member at every Australian airport to have an ASIC with adequate background security checks—proper security checks. These are very important passes, and we need to make sure that everyone who has one of these passes is a person of the right character, a person who ought to have one of these, a person who is allowed to work in security sensitive areas. From time to time, there will be breaches and I am sure there will be mistakes, but it is important that the government does everything it can through legislation and through its will, through the minister and the department, to make these things happen—to actually use its strength in terms of ensuring that these security checks are done and that only the right people of the right character have an ASIC.

Australia also needs a full-time Inspector of Transport Security. You cannot be serious about transport security if you have somebody who is a casual. It is like a lot of things in life—if the government wants to be serious, then it will pay, and pay for properly, for the right person to work full time to look after transport security. You cannot get somebody for whom it is their third or fourth job and they are doing it to fill in time, they have got more important, pressing things to do with other businesses or they are front-of-mind focused on things other than transport security. If we employ the right person, we may not have some of the problems that we currently have.

Tasks like regional airport security need to get full attention from the government and full attention from a full-time Inspector of Transport Security. Again, I do not know why I even need to explain this to the government. If you are serious about transport security, you need a serious full-time inspector. Somebody who is working part time or has other things to do or someone who may or may not get to work, depending on what is required, is not what I see as a commitment from the government on security issues. A Labor government’s department of homeland security would have the capacity to coordinate Australia’s security arrangements, including security at our regional airports—an important part of our national security. Regional airports are just as critical as our major airports.

In parliament recently, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services compared aviation security identification cards, ASICs, with Parliament House staff passes. I will not spend a lot of time on this except to say how ridiculous and how demeaning to himself it was that he would even compare the two. This is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card or some sort of joke. An ASIC is a very important aviation security pass checked by the Federal Police. It has a heap of high-level security checks. This is not something you can compare to thousands of Parliament House staff passes. The two are just not in the same ballpark. But I suppose for the minister it was something to try to get out of hot water on the day.

In the last sitting fortnight, the minister defended the one-day-a-week status of the Inspector of Transport Security and then compared 384 lost or stolen ASICs with misplaced Parliament House passes. Again, the minister was really digging deep, scratching at the bottom, to try and find any excuse to save his own bacon. Three hundred and eighty-four stolen or lost ASICs is a very serious issue and one that deserves the full attention of not only an Inspector of Transport Security but also the minister. I do not think I would be overly concerned about somebody losing their staff pass to get into this place, especially given that we have heard recently that we have a senator running around this place with a bone-handled knife he likes to keep in his wallet just in case he needs to use it on someone. I think a much important issue would be the types of people who have been issued with ASICs.

In contrast to aviation security card holders, holders of Parliament House identity cards do not undergo criminal history checks or detailed background checks conducted by the Federal Police or ASIO. In the end, I suppose all staff come under the auspice and the protection of the people who employ them here. We all take responsibility for the people we employ and we ensure that they are of good character. We all ensure that we have done our own checks and we know the types of people we employ, and in the end we would be responsible for their actions.

A lost ASIC pass is extremely dangerous in the hands of a terrorist or an organised criminal syndicate. We have heard over recent years many instances of organised criminality at our airports. Labor has called for a full Senate inquiry into the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority, CASA, and is motivated by the release of the second interim report into the May 2005 Lockhart River crash, which resulted in the death of all 15 people on board. The circumstances surrounding the tragic incident are under continuing investigation, but it is clear that there is a serious concern over CASA’s ability to ensure the safety of the Australian public, particularly with regard to the agency’s regulatory oversight. There needs to be a Senate inquiry to ensure that this is done properly.

In conclusion, I just want to make a couple of points. The Howard government’s approach to aviation policy replicates its approach to industrial relations, and it is not a good comparison. It is a race to the bottom with the consequence that the security and safety of the industry and ultimately the travelling public is being jeopardised. Consider the decision by Jetstar recently that flight attendants will be forced to supplement their salaries by selling sandwiches, pillows, drinks and other items on a commission basis to passengers. This is simply not good enough for either safety on aircraft or the way that people receive remuneration for the work they do. Labor has made the point that this is short-sighted and does not bode well for passengers or employment conditions in the aviation industry. Well-trained and dedicated flight crew are essential to the safety and comfort of all passengers.

Australian passengers want to see a safe, healthy, vibrant aviation industry. I think Australians actually like to fly around. We live in a really big country. The tyranny of distance—much spoken about in Australian folklore—is real, and that is why we fly so much. We love to fly—mostly up and down the east coast, but occasionally across to the west coast as well—but we expect good quality, high standards. We expect safe aircraft and good, well-trained aircraft personnel and crew, people who know what to do in case there is an emergency on board, people who have been given the right training and instruction, people who can speak English properly, people who understand safety instructions, people who know how to read the safety cards.

All of those are little things which go unsaid, but when you hop on board there is an expectation that the person giving you the instructions knows what they are doing because they have been properly trained. Time and money have been spent on that person to ensure they are looking after your best interests, looking after your safety, and that they know what to do if a red light comes on in the aircraft—not just the pilots but also the crew. It is a whole team. When I sit on an aircraft I still feel confident that the crew and the pilots are of the highest standard in the world, that they have been paid properly and that they are focused on their jobs. I do not want them to be focused on trying to sell me an extra can of soft drink or something like that when they should be doing something else; I want to feel secure into the future that those standards are still met and that the focus of aircrew is about safety first and comfort second, and ensuring that we all make it from point A to point B in the best possible condition.

That should also be the way that this government approaches the airline industry. That should be the front-of-mind issue for them. But I am concerned that not only in this legislation but also in recent years there has been a shift away, and now we are seeing some more shifting away from those most important issues to other issues. That will diminish the security and safety of our industry in Australia.

As I said at the outset, Labor opposes this bill and we cannot understand why the government continues to ignore our concerns and those of the public when it comes to maintaining our enviable record in the aviation industry. It is a record envied by the rest of the world, and it has not happened by accident. Our good safety and security records have come about through a lot of hard work from a lot of people in the industry who deserve a lot of commendation—the airlines themselves, the airports and everybody involved doing a really good job, but based around some sound legislation and principles, codes of ethics and regulation.

This government should be very careful about watering that down or diminishing that area. So Labor does oppose this bill. The principal aim of aviation policy is to deliver safe and secure air travel for the public. Unfortunately, this bill ignores those basic principles and the government should simply go back to the drawing board, do a proper job and come back to the House with a bill that does what it is meant to do.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During the member for Oxley’s remarks, the member for Oxley made a comment regarding a senator—that the senator was carrying a bone-handled knife just in case he wanted to use it on somebody. No objection was raised by the government—

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw that comment. It did not quite come out the way I wanted it to come out.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Member for Oxley.

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

I also rise to address the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005. I note with interest that the member for Oxley said that the Australian Labor Party will be opposing this bill but then proceeded to spend the vast majority of his time talking about other issues not at all associated with this bill. The comments he made about why the bill should not be supported were not well developed and not based on fact. I look forward to addressing some of those comments as I speak.

This bill is looking to achieve a number of outcomes to do with reducing red tape and making it easier for airlines to operate safely, effectively and efficiently in both Australia and New Zealand. I will quickly run through the outcomes before giving a little history of the bill and particularly addressing some of the issues that have been raised as areas of concern.

One outcome of this legislation will be to see operators based in either Australia or New Zealand—who, currently, if they wish to operate in both countries, are required to have two air operator certificates—being able to operate on the basis of their home approving authority’s certificate, whether that be CASA or CAA New Zealand. That home regulator will be determined as who is best placed to have safety oversight of the operations. There will also be powers for the host regulator to, essentially, issue a red card or a temporary stop notice if they believe that aspects of an operation are unsafe. So there is a check and balance there already in terms of outcomes.

There are also obligations on CASA to consult with New Zealand, and a reciprocal obligation, before developing new parts of regulations that would affect the ANZA activities and the ability for the disclosure of information for any purposes associated with the mutual recognition. That is an important step. Importantly, also as part of this process there has been a deal of consultation to check that the outcomes of this legislation will not adversely affect operators.

In June 2003 this bill was introduced into parliament for the purpose of mutual recognition. The principle underlying this—the recognition of aviation related safety certification—is the same principle that was behind the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 and the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. One of the important things to recognise here is that we are talking about mutual recognition and not harmonisation. In the aviation world, there have been a number of attempts within Europe, between Europe and the United States and between the United States and other parts of the world to achieve harmonisation in certain areas. Harmonisation is where various parties come together and agree that they will have exactly the same requirements and regulations for each of their aviation operations.

Mutual recognition, however, recognises that the actual wording or, indeed, sometimes the process or some requirements in isolation may differ between authorities but the outcomes, particularly with respect to safety, are comparable. So it is really looking at a whole-of-system approach to the outcomes achieved by a given set of regulations. Mutual recognition is really about having a look at how we can achieve an understanding of each other’s systems and asking: are we happy that the outcomes are equivalent in terms of safety; and, obviously, from a cost-benefit perspective will they deliver a benefit to operators and to the travelling public? This process is taking forward the principle of the single aviation market, which was established in 1996 and in some ways even goes back to building on some of the air services agreements which date back to the 1960s.

In terms of standards, the member for Oxley’s comment that tried to underpin why the ALP were opposing this bill was that he was concerned, on the basis of safety, that there had not been a review and a comparison of the regulations. One of the things he overlooks is that both CASA and the CAA New Zealand operate and have done for many years in accordance with ICAO and their requirements for air operations, particularly international air operations. ICAO not only set out standards and guidelines but, importantly, they also do safety oversight audits. The last two audits of Australia and New Zealand were undertaken in August 1999, with follow-ups in September 2001.

What has been done as part of this process, given that both countries already operate within the general framework laid out by ICAO, is to try to drill down and find out where there are differences between the rules of the air and the rules of operation. A detailed review has in fact been conducted where there is an interaction between these two areas. That detailed review looked at where the equipment facilities were required to operate in each piece of air space—things like ground proximity warning systems et cetera were reviewed. The review covered Australian rules, making sure there was going to be no conflict by the application of Australian rules within New Zealand air space. It also reviewed the past experience of the interaction between the two regulatory authorities to make sure that a mutual recognition agreement would be workable in both establishment and ongoing support. Following the review, it was found that only minor adjustments to respective rule sets were required. There was acknowledgement on the part of CA New Zealand of some mandatory equipment, which in fact ICAO had due in 2004. The two sets of regulations, whilst differing in detail, would then both be compliant with ICAO and bring out comparable safety outcomes for the operation of large capacity airline aircraft.

One of the concerns raised by the member for Oxley was that of safety. He made a number of comments about trusting this other set of regulations to deliver a safe operation. I believe it is worth having a look at the fact that not only ICAO audit countries around the world but also the FAA, in particular, do their own assessment on a country’s ability. So they are not looking at the individual airline but looking at a country’s ability to adhere to international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance. They give New Zealand exactly the same rating as they do here in Australia.

A number of other bodies around the world accept New Zealand’s input in the same manner as they accept the input from countries in the European Union, including the United Kingdom, and from Australia. The European Confidential Aviation Safety Reporting System, for example, is based in Europe, and it is looking particularly at the human factor issues of aviation operations, liaising with both the regulator and airlines—and they cite New Zealand as one of its collaborative partners.

The Royal Aeronautical Society, which are well renowned around the world for their expertise on aviation systems and aviation safety, wrote in June of this year of their support for the civil aviation safety system which exists in New Zealand. They highlight in some of their letters of support the fact that the US Federal Aviation Administration have demonstrated their confidence in the New Zealand system by accepting New Zealand design and certified repair schemes on part 25 aircraft, which is a transport category. As well, they accept New Zealand’s supplemental type certificates for transport aircraft. That is significant because only two other countries in the world—Canada and Germany—have currently been recognised in this way by the FAA, according to the Royal Aeronautical Society. That demonstrates that a third party who is renowned around the world for having a high level of expertise in the regulation and certification of aircraft operations recognises the New Zealand authorities.

We can also look at some of the things the New Zealand authorities do and compare them with our own. For example, their Transport Accident Investigation Commission is structured and operates in a broadly similar manner to our own ATSB. It is interesting going through some of its reports to identify that it has a very similar approach to its level of reporting and its kind of follow-up to aviation incidents that may occur. It is also worth noting that within the ICAO structure, in the management of aviation safety, New Zealand has been recognised as one of the first countries to implement a safety regulatory approach based on effective safety management.

So there are a number of endorsements of their system which give the lie to the claim that the New Zealand system is somehow inferior to ours and that the public has any cause to be fearful. The other thing that I think is worth mentioning is that we like to look at our own aviation industry and to say that our safety record has come about because of the people and the quality of training et cetera. I believe it is really important that a number of these people who facilitate the ongoing development of Australia’s safety record have very strong links with New Zealand.

The Aviation Safety Forum, something which operates here in Australia, has members like Mr John Bartlett, who is currently head of the safety systems of Virgin Blue. For three years he was general manager of airlines for the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority. Prior to that he worked for some 15 years with Ansett New Zealand, including in the role of flight operations manager. Mr Owen Batchelor is also on the Aviation Safety Forum. He was general manager of Pearl Aviation. Incidentally, I have flown their aircraft under their AOC and have a high regard for their attention to detail and their safety processes. He had 25 years with the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority. At one stage he was in fact the acting director at civil aviation.

Mr Rob Graham, retired director of safety investigation at the ATSB, came from the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, where he was the general manager of aviation services. Mr Ken Keech, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Airports Association, previously worked for both Ansett and Air New Zealand. Mr James Kimpton, one time deputy chairman of the CASA board, received the OAM for services to aviation, including editing briefs for the law associations of both Australia and New Zealand. So you can see that there is a broad range of areas where we can point to the fact that the New Zealand system of regulation is in every way comparable to the Australian system in terms of the outcomes with aviation safety.

The other issue that has been raised both during the inquiry and by the member for Oxley is looking at a potential safety issue of cabin crew to passenger ratio. The two countries do have different ratios. The base ratio they talk about is one to 36 under the CASA system, which is specified in Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3.6.1(b), versus the New Zealand ratio, which is one in 50. But that simple statistic is quite misleading. If you go into the annexes from both civil aviation safety authorities and look at how they work out their numbers, you see that they have a sliding scale. We base our ratio per passenger and they base theirs per seats. For example, for your typical domestic type airline, the outcome is broadly comparable with six flight attendants required for around 200 passengers in New Zealand and six flight attendants for around 200 passengers in Australia.

The interesting part is that the one in 36 and one in 50 are minimum requirements. Back in 2002 when Qantas were criticised for looking at requesting a move to align Australia with international standards—which, by the way, includes Cathay Pacific, Malaysia Airlines, Singapore Airlines and British Airways as well as Air New Zealand—they highlighted the fact that they were looking to meet the safety standards but had increased the number of flight attendants required as a function of the level of service they wished to provide. They actually work on a ratio of one to 25. They do not anticipate this changing because part of them winning business and providing service is having those staff on board. I think the combination of the reality of those sliding scales and what is done in practice gives the lie to the fearmongering that we will suddenly see a great drop-off in standards.

The other thing that is worth pointing out is that the ATSB has done a number of reviews and has issued reports around the whole issue of flight attendants and their training. What they highlight, which is similar to the ICAO, is that the outcome in terms of the safety and effectiveness of the role of flight attendants is a result of a combination of factors, including the technology of the aircraft, the number of flight attendants and, in large part, the quality and frequency of training for flight attendants.

It is interesting to note that Australia’s one in 36 requirement—which is basically where you get to the end of the sliding scale for numbers of passengers—comes from quite an old technology base in terms of aircraft whereas many of the other standards are based on newer technology. If you look at that interaction, you can see that it is not necessarily a dangerous thing depending on (a) which aircraft you are operating in, (b) the design and technology of the aircraft and (c) the level of training provided. Having said all that, I go back to the point that Qantas highlighted in some of their statements, in 2002, that they actually operate on a ratio of one to 25.

Lastly, looking at the impact on industry, there was a large consultation period and one of the key things that came out of that is that the smaller operators were concerned that there be no extension to this mutual recognition, except via legislation. The larger operators, both main airlines, were at the roundtable that was done as part of the consultation and they recognised that the main savings to them would be administrative, not operational, and they do expect cost savings through it. The smaller operators were concerned that this may not apply to them and they may face additional competition, so they were concerned to make sure that there could be no extension of this to smaller operators, either by weight or capacity of aircraft, and this has been implemented as a result of the recommendations of that committee.

It is interesting to note that operators at a number of levels have identified significant savings if mutual recognition increases in the future to things related to airworthiness certification from both a technical and an operational perspective. My own consultation with a number of operators, from the major airlines down to regionals and charter or specialist operations, indicates that they have no concerns with the bill. They believe that safeguards, particularly the no extension via legislation, are absolutely fine. Given that we have demonstrated that New Zealand has a system of air regulation and safety which is equal to ours in world terms, there should be absolutely no reason for the travelling public to have any concern about the safety of these operations.

If we can remove some red tape to make operations more effective and efficient—which will, in the end, benefit the industry, those who work in it and the travelling public—then I believe that the ALP should reverse their position, since they have been unable to substantiate the basis of their concerns around the safety of New Zealand’s airworthiness and air regulations. They should support the bill.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have here the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand and Other Matters) Bill 2003, but we are not discussing that, because that got the flick. It did not get through the previous parliament. Although it was initiated, it was discussed, there were two inquiries into it and there were some different provisions, the key different provision here is that there could be changes to the regime in terms of the interaction of the safety regimes between Australia and New Zealand on the basis not of legislation—which is what we are dealing with now—but of regulation.

It took two inquiries, and it took the Labor Party and the other parties in the Senate pinging the government, but the government blithely said: ‘Don’t worry about it; you’ll all be safe. There’s some difference, but we’re not actually going to do all the analysis that we need here. It is unnecessary. You should not worry about it.’ They did make one change in the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005. They said, ‘We won’t do it by regulation now; we’ll do it by legislation and there is a protection in that.’

The two inquiries in the Senate helped to determine Labor’s position. We did not just come to this position from an a priori approach. Who did we listen to? We listened to flight attendants and pilots in Australia. Some of their concerns do not really have any foundation. The mutual recognition proposed in this bill covers a broad range of areas. In the two Senate inquiries Labor came to the point of view that we would, as we did last parliament and as we are doing here, be in opposition to this bill. The fundamental fact is that the government has not taken the necessary steps to ensure not only that safety standards will be met but also that there is a complete confluence so that mutual recognition is not a mutual recognition of differences, such as in the differential approach in the number of staff to seats—one to 36 versus one to 50.

The member for Wakefield pointed out that can be a sliding scale. I wonder whether his in practice example of one to 25 applies to JetConnect, Qantas’s operation in New Zealand; to Jetstar, Qantas’s operation here; to Jetstar Asia; and to their competitors, such as Tiger Airways in Singapore. I wonder if it applies to award conditions, because that is another part of this and was a concern expressed by pilots and flight attendants. If you look at the comparability of how they are dealt with between Australia and New Zealand, you see that the Australian people are on an award at this moment in time and they have the protections of that award. But under the Workplace Relations Act we know that, as that award comes up for renewal, the foot will be pressed to the floor to change that to either a contractual basis or under Australian workplace agreements. That would then put these employees on exactly the same footing as the people in New Zealand, who are on single contracts.

Their concern is not just a question of safety; it is a question of the industrial relations implications of this approach. If you look at the history of what has happened with Qantas, its staffing and its approach to the future of the airline industry in Australia and its place in it, what you get is a concentration on cutting costs, paring back and arguing that it needs protection by the government within Australia, domestic protection of the Pacific route and other areas where it argues things are tilted and weighted against it. Over a number of years now I have been to briefings with Geoff Dixon when it was a question of Qantas versus Ansett; there were differences between the two and Qantas was having a difficult time. We know that in the end Ansett was managed by a number of people from New Zealand and Ansett bit the dust. Since that happened, the fundamental structures in Australia’s domestic airline industry have changed, despite the introduction of Virgin Blue. If you look at where it has gone, you see that we have people on awards with certain conditions including certain existing safety provisions and manning capacities in Qantas aircraft in Australia.

It is not the same with Qantas aircraft in New Zealand. There is a different standard. If those aircraft are registered in New Zealand, as are Qantas’s JetConnect aircraft, they operate under New Zealand circumstances. Part of the concern here is the impact of the acceptance of this regime and the fact that there is an enticement for people if they want to cut their costs or change the way in which they deal with it to register in New Zealand rather than registering in Australia. The majority report of the government last time they looked at this—when they blithely said: ‘Don’t worry about it, everything will be okay. All of that will be fixed up later’—proposed a review 12 months down the track. If you go to page 8 of the explanatory memorandum, on the implementation of this bill, you get the guts of what the fundamental problem is here. It is tucked away in the explanatory memorandum—that is, ‘a further agreement will need to allow practical implementation of the aims of the bill.’

What is Labor’s fundamental problem with this? It is that the practical steps with regard to the different safety regimes in both countries, and the safety and economic implications, have not been taken into account, despite the fact that we had the 2003 bill in train for two years or so, from 2001 to 2003—and it is about five years now. We have had plenty of time to undertake that comparison. Instead of that, we have a bill that the government want, one they are going to run through with. When they get to the practical implication—in another bill that we will deal with later, maybe after the 12-month review—what do we get? A new overarching intergovernmental agreement on aviation mutual recognition is under development—that is nice—which, when completed, will set out the principles, objectives and joint understandings between Australia and New Zealand in relation to the mutual recognition of aviation related safety certification. Annexed to the new agreement will be an operational agreement between the two aviation safety regulators, CASA and CAANZ, which will establish working arrangements between the two. Only those Australian and New Zealand operators covered by the air services agreement will be eligible for mutual recognition. This is a case of putting the cart before the horse. Here we have the legislation, and we have not had the investigation of what the impact will be, despite the length of time it has been available. We also do not have the full plan and preparation for the practical implementation of what is in the bill. So why is the bill before us now? We have not had the prior work; we have not had the post work. What is the agenda here in sticking to this approach?

If you go back to the Senate committee inquiry—and it was one of the benefits in the past, before the government controlled the numbers in the Senate, that a Senate inquiry could look at this independently and come up with a different point of view—and look at their concerns and what they were saying, you see that they outlined that the evidence they took indicated there was a complete difference between CAANZ, the New Zealand regulator, and CASA, in terms of their interpretation of mutual recognition. CASA say that Australian standards are still going to be maintained absolutely: ‘We will rigidly stick to those. If you primarily operate in Australia, then you will stick to all of those safety provisions.’ What do the New Zealand regulators say? ‘No, it is not going to work like that. What we are going to do is to harmonise.’ The shadow minister, Senator Kerry O’Brien, said in the Senate on 10 May:

… the committee established that Australian and New Zealand regulators have entirely contradictory views on the impact of mutual recognition. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority of New Zealand gave evidence that mutual recognition would lead to the harmonisation of safety standards; the Department of Transport and Regional Services firmly repudiated that view. This left the committee questioning, not unreasonably, the inconsistency between Australia and New Zealand on this critical issue.

This is critical and entirely central to a determination of what this is about. If you have the two safety regulators completely at odds in terms of what this means, it is obvious that the work has not properly been done previously—unless the New Zealanders are really onto something, unless this is really about harmonisation, unless this is really not just about safety but about cutting costs, cutting wages and cutting conditions and utilising this mutual recognition package to run an industrial relations agenda.

This is John Howard, the Prime Minister, writ large. This is what he has been about since 1974. This is what he is doing in the Workplace Relations Act. Day after day, when questioned about it, his response is: ‘Oh, people will get jobs. They’ll have jobs. Isn’t that terrific? They’ll have jobs.’ There will be lower wages and conditions for the majority of people—not in the booming mining areas of Western Australia, not in the parts of the economy that are ripping on, but in New South Wales, in Victoria and in other parts of the economy that do not have that engine serving them. What is in it for the majority of normal punters out in the electorate? The cutting of their provisions.

In the Prime Minister’s mind is the ‘Thailandisation’ of Australia’s workforce. Why is that the case? I know he has had that idea since 1974, but he also has had a bit of experience. This bloke has got form in terms of the problems he experienced as Australia’s federal Treasurer—in my experience, the worst—when on, I think, 10 January 2003, he reached a position where he actually achieved the trifecta: double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment and double-digit interest rates. If you think about what the conditions were of the 1982-83 recession—the member for Bennelong’s recession; the one where he was Treasurer of Australia and responsible for those conditions—you see that that recession arose because of a wages breakout on an expectation of $29 billion worth of expansion in the minerals sector which did not happen. There was a 20 per cent to 30 per cent wage increase demanded by the ‘metallies’. These are the things that conditioned the Prime Minister.

The reason this is all material is very simple. There is an agenda here that goes beyond safety and safety standards. It is an agenda to actually change the structure of Australia’s aviation industry. We had Dick Smith, when he was put in a position of significant power in CASA, dramatically changing the safety standards for the whole of Australia for light aircraft, just pursuing his wont. But the agenda here is very clear. It is determined by the condition of the Prime Minister’s approach to this is and what drives the Workplace Relations Act. For me, it explains why this kind of bill can get up without proper reference and without the fundamental problems being looked at.

The key is given in terms of harmonisation. Next week—I think on Monday—we will be dealing with the Independent Contractors Bill. The Independent Contractors Bill will actually have a provision where people currently on awards in New South Wales and Victoria will have a 12-month period of grace. They will keep the conditions they have at the moment, but then there will be a national review. For people on contracts in other states that do not have award provisions, guess what is going to happen. Harmonisation is going to happen. The government will move to where it wants to go: to have one nationally harmonised approach. That is fundamentally what we are going to get here.

This is approach is not about closer economic relations; this is about utilising a situation where you have got a confluence between the New Zealand and the Australian systems—not to make sure that the thing really works to the advantage of everyone but to run an industrial relations agenda. When the unions, flight attendants and pilots gave evidence about other parts of the legislation where they are affected—not just on the safety stuff, even though they primarily concentrated on that—they properly said that they were fundamentally concerned about the impact of this on them and on their industry. They said it would be understandable that the New Zealand conditions could be used as a wedge.

That is not without background when you consider what has happened with Qantas. The member for Wakefield told us at some length that Qantas had a better ratio in terms of staff, that Qantas would up their number of staff in order to please their clients and that sort of stuff. Anyone flying on Qantas—as every member and senator here has done since Ansett plummeted into oblivion—knows of Qantas’s tremendous reputation. The regard that I and others had for Qantas plummeted because they did not deliver to the customers in the way that they had before Ansett plummeted and they took advantage of that situation to dramatically cut their costs.

There was also an associated safety problem. It was an amazingly stupid approach to take, but there are plenty of precedents—name every state government across Australia; name this federal government. Are people interested in maintenance issues? Are they interested in investing in keeping things running properly? The answer will be found if you look at Qantas’s broader operations and Qantas’s safety concerns. They decided to save a lot of dough and they moved their engineering facilities—or the bulk of them—to new facilities in Brisbane and in Melbourne. They moved a hell of a lot to Melbourne. It just so happened that, in the provision of that service, not one of the people going through and checking all the parts and doing all the work on them was safety certified.

So what happened? They had to send all the work, after they had completed it in this new facility, back to Sydney for the Sydney engineers to have a look at. If those Sydney engineers had not been concerned about the fact that they could be up on manslaughter charges if there was a failing within an individual part, they could have simply signed off on that—as people could sign off on this bill—and said: ‘The AOC is involved here. New Zealand’s a little bit different to us; Australia is slightly different, but we’ll just tick it, say it’s okay and just believe that everything will work out right.’

The people in the maintenance facilities in Sydney did not do that because their careers, their reputations and the lives of passengers were at risk. The result of that was pretty simple: a hell of a lot more money was spent on maintenance, and the cost savings that Qantas expected to make were not made. I know this because my nephew has spent close to 20 years as a Qantas maintenance engineer and he is now out working in the mines because, throughout Qantas, with those moves to Melbourne and to Sydney, they would not give him a redundancy package because he was too good an employee. But he and the others could see the writing on the wall.

The stupidity of this approach to put safety at risk because you are trying to make economic savings! In the broader picture, if you look at the transition from Qantas and the kind of service they had through to Jetstar, Jetstar Asia and JetConnect, what is driving it at the bottom is to make the savings, bring their costs down but still demand that, as a government, we support them as much as we can. That is part of what is driving this as well. The dynamics of the Australian industry are changing and I predict they will change in the future. It will be the ‘Jetstarisation’ of Qantas’s operations in Australia.

The stupidity of not reinvesting in yourselves is probably outlined by the fact that Singapore Airlines, which Qantas has held out of the Pacific route, is now looking at doing its maintenance work on its A380 aircraft—guess where? In Australia. Why? The airport is not big enough and they cannot get enough sand out of Malaysia. It is harder to extend it, but they know there is quality engineering. So Qantas has been trying to reshuffle stuff over to New Zealand and to Singapore, where they have in fact got Jetstar Asia registered in Singapore. The question is, as David Jull pointed out to the committee yesterday: what kind of airline is it? Is it a Singaporean airline or an Australian one? While they have stripped away our capacity to deal with our situation, the Singaporeans are saying that more can be done. The Singaporeans know that our safety standards are good. But, in terms of this mutual recognition thing, if the government had been utterly determined to do this in the proper way, they would have had all of the investigation before and that impractical implementation would have been organised and done now—not at the end of a 12-month review, not at the finish of the thing. But the explanation for this, I think, resides not just within the parameters of this bill but within the industrial relations agenda of the government. (Time expired)

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

The Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005 heralds a new era for aviation arrangements between Australia and New Zealand. It gives effect to a joint commitment between Australia and New Zealand for mutual recognition of air operator certificates, AOCs, for aircraft with more than 30 seats or weighing more than 15,000 kilograms. It also fulfils a joint commitment made under the 2002 Australia-New Zealand open skies agreement. In a nutshell, this bill nullifies the requirement for airline operators to hold an airline operator certificate in both Australia and New Zealand if they want to operate services in both countries. To my way of thinking, that makes eminent sense. I am a bit perplexed at why the opposition is so concerned about it. Australia and New Zealand have long enjoyed a shared history, a shared sense of values and a shared commitment to a future partnership, and that has a lot to do with trade—

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And they destroyed Ansett.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to 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.