Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to begin my remarks on the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 with a couple of general comments about the importance of the aviation sector. The aviation industry has a long and proud history in this country and has played a vital role in the development of our nation. The efforts of aviation pioneers like Charles Kingsford-Smith, Bert Hinkler and Reverend John Flynn, through his work with the Royal Flying Doctor Service, did a great deal to bring Australians closer to the world beyond our shores and to provide much-needed services, especially in regional Australia. Some of these great pioneers have been commemorated in the names of electorates of members of parliament. It recognises something of our proud aviation history.

Today I would like particularly to pay tribute to one of our remarkable aviation pioneers, Nancy Bird Walton, who passed away last month. Nancy was an extraordinary woman, an extraordinary pilot, an adventurer, a businesswoman and a humanitarian, and the nation is certainly the poorer for her passing. In her autobiography she writes that when she was 17 she had saved up £200 and told her father that she wanted to start flying lessons at Mascot. He disapproved very strongly, saying that he could not afford to waste money keeping a crippled daughter and that her mother would be very upset if she were to be injured. Nancy Bird Walton wrote: ‘Because I was one of six children I thought my parents could well afford to take the risk with one.’

Despite continuing arguments she held firm to her decision and, of course, she was taught by the legendary Charles Kingsford-Smith and created her own legend in becoming the youngest woman to gain a pilots licence and the first woman to have a commercial pilots licence. She obtained that commercial pilots licence essentially to set up a flying medical service. She was a pilot for the Royal Far West Children’s Health Scheme for a number of years and certainly brought health care to people in the outback where otherwise it would not have been provided.

She was successful in air races, trained other women pilots and was involved in charity work. It was fitting that in 1997 she was named an Australian National Treasure. She was a champion for Australian aviation and particularly for Qantas. She had very strong views on most issues and gave no quarter. She forcefully put those views whenever the opportunity arose. She regarded it as unthinkable that any Australian government would allow competition to Qantas—she had a great love of Qantas—and in particular held the view that there should be no competition for Qantas on international routes such as across the Pacific.

As a new transport minister I attended her 90th birthday party at Sydney airport. During a long and riveting speech she declared that there had never been a decent aviation minister in the history of Australia. I told her that I thought that was a pretty harsh judgment since I had been in the job for only two months. With all due respect to me and my successors as transport minister, I think she died with the same view. I was delighted to be present when Qantas named its first A380 aircraft in her honour and to fly with her on its naming flight. She was rightly very proud of the honour that Qantas had bestowed upon her and said publicly that when she learned of Qantas’s decision she was determined to stay alive long enough for this naming ceremony to occur. It is entirely appropriate that her name should adorn the biggest passenger aircraft flying the Australian flag.

Nancy Bird Walton founded the Australian Women Pilots Association in 1950 and was its president and patroness for decades. She took great pride in seeing the success and acceptance of women in aviation. Indeed, her biography is as much a chronicle of the history of the success of women in aviation as anything else. She was very proud of the achievements of women and the acceptance of women right through the full range of aviation careers, which takes me back to the title that she chose for her autobiography: My God, It’s a Woman. Those were the words of a well-known Queensland grazier, Charlie Russell, who made that exclamation when he discovered that the pilot who had been chartered to rescue him from floodwaters on a marooned property was, in fact, a female. Indeed it was a woman, a remarkable woman, a great Australian. The aviation sector is the less for losing this wonderful woman, who was really a pioneer for women in aviation in Australia.

I wrote to John Walton, Nancy’s son, at the time of her funeral. He wrote back to me and said:

… so many of the public in the streets, that stood and applauded and waved… we are a wonderful country, that love so much, that there are people like this, I think there is just no way to thank them all, possibly in a statement from you, in your situation you can use this.

So I take this opportunity today to acknowledge Nancy Bird Walton, her contribution to aviation and her family, who stood beside her and knew her as quite a remarkable woman.

I mentioned that I was at her 90th birthday party. I am told, although I cannot verify it, that after the party she spent the rest of the night at the nightclubs of Sydney. She was quite a remarkable woman. She gave me this copy of her autobiography when she came to my electorate to open a show. The early parts of her career were spent barnstorming around little country towns. Even though she was a city girl, she was very familiar with life in the most remote parts of Australia.

Since the early years of these aviation pioneers first flying beyond our shores, aviation has come to play an increasingly important role in bringing the world to Australia and bringing Australia to the world. Being an island, Australia is uniquely dependent upon aviation to maintain our transport links to the outside world. A century ago, the only way to arrive in Australia was by boat. How things have changed. In 2007-08 Australian airports saw international passenger traffic of over 23 million people. This represents a gain of five per cent over the previous years. A significant proportion of these passengers are international tourists. The over 5.6 million short-term international visitors represented a valuable contribution to the overall economy through the tourism sector. Additionally, the air cargo industry plays an important role in the economy. In 2007-08 international air freight traffic totalled over 780,000 tonnes. Both inbound and outbound air traffic have shown increases in recent years. Overall, aviation contributed over $6.3 billion to the Australian economy in 2007 and employed nearly 50,000 people directly. A significant proportion of that was in the regions.

With the challenging economic times confronting us, the aviation industry will find it difficult over the years ahead. In fact, it is one of the first to feel the impact of a downturn internationally. We can expect to see, and we are already noticing, a downturn in the arrivals of passengers, therefore reductions in flights and, inevitably, loss of employment in the industry. Ours is a big country with such long distances to cover and so few people that aviation fills a critical gap in places where road or rail transport is not available or the distances are too great. It would be impossible for this parliament to function as effectively as it does in this age without aviation—without the capacity of members to fly quickly and conveniently in and out of Canberra or wherever else we may need to be.

The aviation sector also makes a significant contribution to other industries, particularly in rural and regional areas. The tyranny of distance poses very significant and very real challenges that are not faced by those who live in the cities. Often the only way to get in and out of a country town or to make contact with the rest of the world or to travel for medical purposes is through the use of aviation. There are three million passenger movements and millions of shipments made by the air cargo industry in and out of the bush.

Aside from its role in supporting economic development in the regions, the aviation sector also plays an important role in delivering essential services in remote areas—services like the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which is a vital public good ensuring that communities most in need of medical services are not forgotten. In this day and age when country hospitals have been downgraded or closed to such an extent, we find that the most important facility in even the quite large regional hospitals is the helipad to fly people who are really sick to the nearest larger hospital or capital city. Aviation plays a vital role there. The RFDS performed nearly 36,000 aeromedical evacuations, attended to over 260,000 patients and flew over 23 million kilometres in the year to June 2008. Other aeromedical services like NRMA’s CareFlight, Angel Flight and others provide vital access to critical medical services for people, especially those in remote areas. So a robust aviation sector is vital to overcome the isolation felt in regional areas and to ensure a good quality of life in the bush.

Many regional communities are dependent upon air services to help their local economies and to relieve the pressures that geographic isolation can bring. Unfortunately, the aviation sector, particularly in regional areas, is now facing many challenges and that has become especially evident over recent weeks. Some communities have experienced a total loss of air services. Recently MacAir, a major supplier of services in regional Queensland, went into voluntary receivership, stranding passengers in particularly western Queensland and the Gulf of Carpentaria. Similarly, Rex Aviation recently announced that it would terminate smaller routes linking Dubbo to Bourke, Cobar, Coonamble, Lightning Ridge and Walgett and also the Mudgee to Sydney run, citing spiralling costs and ever-increasing regulatory requirements and also the government’s decision to terminate the en route navigation subsidy scheme. As a result, the short flight from Dubbo and Lightning Ridge is now a four-hour drive.

If road links were cut into a town, you could be assured that governments—state, federal and local—would take action to make sure they were kept open. For some isolated communities, air links are just as critical. In some states, such as Queensland, the state government does provide some subsidies to enable air services to be provided in remote communities. The federal government provides some support to enable mail services to go to remote areas, such as the Gulf of Carpentaria and Aboriginal communities. These services simply could not operate without that kind of support. Other state governments do nothing at all. There is no support to provide air services to these remote communities. I think it ought to be seen as an essential community service that there is some kind of basic capacity for people to travel from little remote towns to their cities for medical, education or other purposes.

So I appeal to the federal government and to the state governments to do what they can to make sure that the little country towns of Australia—which are sometimes 400, 500, 600, 1,000 or 2,000 kilometres from their capital cities—have some way of connecting promptly and efficiently with the rest of the world at a reasonable cost. It is important for us to ensure that the aviation sector can continue to contribute to the economic base of regional communities and reduce the isolation that those people face.

Since coming to office, the new government has imposed higher costs and cost burdens on the aviation sector and those who use its services. In his first budget, the Treasurer increased the passenger movement charge from $38 to $47 and at first went so far as to apply this tax hike retrospectively to tickets that had already been sold. That is an extra cost to airlines, travel agents, tourism operators and the flying public, and it hits the aviation industry at a time when it is already struggling with rising costs and an uncertain environment.

Now there is the looming threat of a strike by air traffic controllers. I certainly hope that nobody in this House wants to see the disruption and chaos that that sort of industrial action brings. The union that controls the workers in the air traffic control system is currently conducting a ballot on industrial action. It is demanding huge pay increases. Everybody knows that they have a responsible position and we expect them to be well paid and for their conditions to be reasonable, but some of the demands that are being made are way beyond what can be tolerated even in good economic times. They are certainly beyond the capacity of the sector to bear during difficult circumstances. Yet air traffic controllers are threatening to disrupt the aviation industry, perhaps as soon as a week or two away.

I would be happy to support any initiative by the minister if he has a sensible plan to avert the potential crisis facing the Australian aviation sector if it is essentially grounded as a result of this industrial action. In particular I urge him not to forget the plight of regional communities that depend so heavily upon the sector when he seeks to resolve the situation. If the Flying Doctor and other essential services are not able to access the capital cities, that will place a serious burden on the health services of the nation but it will also disrupt our economy. The government is spending billions of dollars in stimulus packages, but I can tell you that a nationwide air strike would be a serious deflation to our economy and would reduce its capacity to sustain itself or to recover. I appeal therefore to the workers in that sector to behave reasonably and for everybody involved to negotiate on a reasonable package. We need to ensure that there are no unnecessary interruptions to aviation services.

It is incumbent upon all of us also to ensure that the regulatory regime under which the sector operates is as effective and efficient as possible. There are things that can be done to make the industry work well. Sometimes it is difficult to make judgments about how much additional regulation needs to be imposed to ensure the safety and security of passengers who are using the system. One of the great attributes of Australian aviation is its safety record, particularly in the commercial passenger fleet. We want to ensure that continues because that is why people have confidence when flying around Australia. So it is absolutely essential that we maintain and hold on to that enviable safety and security record.

It will be a difficult judgment as to how much extra cost is imposed to pick up that last element of additional safety. No-one wants to compromise on safety. It is impossible to mount an argument in favour of any kinds of compromises on safety issues, but on the other hand we also have to keep our aviation system economically sustainable. Sometimes if you impose additional costs, it leads to shortcuts elsewhere and that compromises safety in different places. So we need to manage the safety regime in Australia vigorously, we need to be certain that our operators have a culture of safety, but we also need to work cooperatively with them to achieve this vision that Australian aviation will operate without incident day in, day out, year after year, so that passengers are able to reach their destination safely and on time.

With these kinds of general views in mind, I am more than happy to lend the support of the opposition to the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008. It contains a number of initiatives and the opposition is happy to support them all. Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the coalition in government undertook major new initiatives to improve aviation security in Australia. The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 involved the aviation industry participants in maintaining aviation security and required them to develop and comply with a transport security program. This legislation also strengthened the regulatory framework surrounding aviation security and provided the flexibility necessary to respond to a rapidly changing air security environment. Additionally, the coalition introduced the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 which required incidents related to transport safety to be reported and laid out a framework for the lodging of reports and the investigation of transport safety incidents.

Over the years, a wide array of actions by the previous government expanded the aviation security apparatus in Australia. Since September 2001 at least $1.2 billion has been spent to enhance aviation security. We expanded the screening of passengers and checked baggage to ensure consistent security screening treatment of all passengers and baggage carried on jet aircraft departing from anywhere in Australia. Additional funding was provided to improve security in the air cargo industry. The coalition also created the Air Security Officer Program in December 2001, which placed so-called ‘sky marshals’ on selected domestic and international flights. There is growing concern that the new government is winding back the sky marshals program. When I asked about this in February last year, Labor refused to provide any assurances that funding for this program would be maintained. Indeed, one government minister has been quoted as saying that the number of sky marshals is to be cut by one-third.

The sky marshals program is a valuable program and it is worth fully supporting. I call on the government to stop playing fast and loose with the lives of the flying public to save a few dollars in the name of economies. The reality is that this is a program about which not great details are known. I respect the fact that its capacity to work effectively is enhanced because passengers do not actually know for certain whether or not a sky marshal is on their plane. But any measures that the government is taking to reduce this program and to cut the number of operators I would view with grave alarm. I call on the government to make a public commitment to this program and to guarantee that there has been no winding back and that there will be no winding back of the number of sky marshals supporting the Australian aviation sector. Australian skies are undoubtedly much safer than they have ever been. This bill will continue the work that was started by those on this side of the House to ensure that we have a secure aviation sector in the years ahead.

Amending the Aviation Transport Security Act to expand the range of information that the government department is able to collect is a reasonable next step in ensuring that aviation security is as effective and efficient as possible for all parties. In addition to monitoring compliance with the act, the department will be able to gather information that would enable them to make more informed decisions on security matters. As the challenges facing aviation security change, it is important that our response adapts and that we have the database and the information necessary to make informed decisions. Ensuring that the measures taken to ensure the safety of Australian skies are as effective as possible and do not impose undue costs on industry players is of paramount importance. Those on this side of the House are happy to do what we can to facilitate this course.

The key to these new powers, however, will be the scope of the information to be collected. The government has given an assurance that it will consult effectively with aviation industry participants before the supporting regulations are in fact promulgated. I want to assure the industry participants that we will also be subjecting these regulations to intense scrutiny to ensure that they are fair and reasonable.

The amendment permitting the secretary to the department to delegate his authority is also a sensible step towards ensuring that the government is able to respond to emergencies in a timely fashion. Thankfully Australia has had a relatively peaceful record when it comes to aviation security. This is due in no small part to the vigilance of those charged with ensuring a secure environment in the skies and the actions of past governments from both sides of politics over the years. Still, it would be imprudent to discount the possibility of an emergency situation arising in the future. If such an emergency were to occur, the demands on the secretary would be immense and, in a rapidly developing situation, action may be required without delay.

Current legislation allows the secretary to delegate his authority under the act to another officer within the department. This legislation would enable the secretary to delegate his authority to an officer in another department with national security responsibilities. Of course such a delegation would not be taken lightly. The secretary would still retain overall authority under the proposed legislation and could set restrictions on the delegation or withdraw it when the emergency passed. These amendments would ensure that if Australian skies faced a prolonged emergency, whether it were a preplanned situation or not, our aviation security apparatus would not be left in a position where decisions vital to the national economy and security could not be made.

The amendments allowing the copying of cockpit voice recorder information for testing and maintenance purposes are another move that will receive bipartisan support. This proposal is the result of a recommendation from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation into the tragic Lockhart River air crash in 2005. The cockpit voice recorder on that crashed aircraft was found to be faulty. As a result, no audio recovered from the recorder could be confirmed as having been recorded during the accident flight. The bill will clear up any doubt that the copying of cockpit voice recorder information for maintenance is permissible and enable these kinds of faults to be discovered and dealt with more easily. It is quite an interesting case study. Everyone believes it is important that the privacy of personal information on the cockpit voice recorders should be respected. But I think it was always taking the intent of the legislation too far to suggest that that meant it could not be copied for maintenance and other such purposes. It seems as though that excuse was being used and this legislation will ensure that that will not happen in the future.

Finally, the changes proposed to the reporting of aviation incidents and the penalties associated with the failure to report such incidents is another idea that we will support. Allowing the executive director of transport safety investigation to require further information after receiving a report on an immediately reportable matter or a routine reportable matter will ensure that the accident and incident database contains accurate and sufficient information on each IRM and RRM. The penalty for failing to report an IRM will be raised to 12 months imprisonment and as a result will bypass the statute of limitations and mean there is no limit to when a prosecution can be instigated. Currently under the Crimes Act prosecutions must occur within one year. It can take many years for unreported incidents to be discovered and as a result these breaches cannot be prosecuted. Additionally under the proposed legislation, failing to provide a full written report of an IRM or an RRM will attract a penalty of six months imprisonment and prosecution could begin at any time within six years of the offence. In the case of the Lockhart River air crash in 2005, the failure to report RRMs was not discovered until many years after the alleged commission of the offences. Failing to report IRMs and RRMs can be indicative of a culture that gives safety a low priority and it is important to deter such a culture. Increasing penalties for failing to report or provide full details regarding aviation incidents will maintain this deterrence.

Since 11 September 2001, aviation security in Australia has gone through drastic changes in a short time. These changes were necessary in order to secure Australian skies. Given Australia’s record in aviation security, we may conclude that the changes we made have been effective. I do appreciate that the legitimate demands of aviation security have at times imposed cost and inconvenience on both the industry and the flying public. We appreciate the understanding and cooperation that there has been. The legislation will build on the strong foundations left by the previous government and enables us to maintain a solid aviation security apparatus in an efficient and effective way.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this place to speak in support of the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. I would like to make a few comments in support of the government’s bill as it has direct relevance to the residents in the electorate that I represent, the electorate of Hindmarsh, in Adelaide.

Within the electorate of Hindmarsh we have Adelaide Airport, which operates multiple perpendicular runways. The airport caters largely for the larger passenger jets, but it does service smaller passenger and transport courier aircraft. Some distance away in the seat of Makin—it borders Makin and Port Adelaide—is Parafield Airport, which I would say has the bulk of the light aircraft traffic and training in Adelaide. Both of these airports receive small- to medium-sized aircraft that necessarily approach over built-up suburban Adelaide. In the case of Adelaide Airport, aircraft fly over the suburbs of West Beach, Brooklyn Park, Glenelg North, Lockleys, West Richmond, Richmond, Cowandilla, Mile End, Henley Beach and Torrensville—and that is just to name a few. So you can see that Adelaide Airport and anything to do with aviation have a direct effect not only on the aircraft that fly in the skies but also on the residents who live below the air routes.

As I said, it is not only the crew of and passengers on the aircraft who are the intended beneficiaries of this bill. It is potentially those who live and work under the flight path—families, schools, businesses, aged-care facility residents and the general community who populate the suburbs which I mentioned and many other similarly exposed suburbs. Approximately 25,000 people reside around the Adelaide Airport. It is in a built-up residential area, apart from a small stretch over West Beach on the western side. So you can see that it is a very populated area. Any tragedy that occurred in the sky would have an enormous effect on those residents below.

The Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 has safety as its main focus. It aims to improve the safety of all concerned and of all stakeholders in a number of very different scenarios. I would like to concentrate on the ordinary day-by-day safety element that could potentially affect any of us any month of the year as passengers or as people who live in close proximity to a flight path. I would like to do this by focusing on the tragic incident that has been used as a prime example by the speaker before me of why legislative change is required. It is an incident that has been described within the media as one of Australia’s worst air traffic disasters: the crash at Lockhart River.

On 7 May 2005 a Metro aircraft containing two pilots and 13 passengers was flying a regular public transport service from Bamaga to Cairns, Queensland, with an intermediate stop at Lockhart River. Approaching Lockhart River aerodrome, the aircraft proceeded to fly—almost certainly still in an airworthy condition—into the Iron Range National Park, where it impacted a heavily timbered ridge. The aircraft was destroyed by both the impact and the subsequent intense fuel-fed fire. All 13 passengers were killed. Neither of the crew members survived.

The coroner investigating the crash released his findings on 17 August 2007—in excess of two years after the event. The coroner was critical of pilot performance and the company’s safety management systems and training practices. CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, was included in the coroner’s deliberations, given its supervisory role with small operators and such companies’ practices. It goes without saying that all of us continue to encourage CASA in the fulfilment of its critical supervisory and safety role. I understand that it became apparent that the company itself, or its parent company, had failed to meet its obligations in reporting 25 safety incidents. It may seem that the company was creating evidence of itself being a risk or an unacceptably high risk for the safety of passengers and its staff, and yet, unreported, the risk was unable to be identified and mitigated by the authorities.

Where a company fails to meet its obligations, there must be appropriate and sufficient recourse for authorities. Without consequence, one can expect compliance to decrease. After the event and after investigations, there was speculation as to whether the Director of Public Prosecutions would become involved and lay charges for noncompliance within its aviation responsibilities. This ended up being a moot point. The current 12-month statute of limitation on prosecutions limited potential DPP action. Whereas prosecution by the DPP may have been a formality, none was possible. The federal minister stated his opinion that the 12-month statute of limitation is far too short a time to conduct proper investigations and have the option of pursuing further action. The then Premier of Queensland would have agreed with him.

I am sure that all of us in this place also agree that the statute of limitation needs to be increased from 12 months to give CASA, the Executive Director of Transport Safety Investigation and any responsible party including the DPP sufficient powers to request safety information, sufficient time to investigate events and sufficient time to prosecute those who put the safety of members of their own workforce, the public and customers at such high risk. I am sure all of us support this. I would fully expect the industry itself to support this amendment, be it passenger carriers or freight transport couriers.

It seems that within my electorate and perhaps elsewhere those interested in freight issues are somewhat at odds with the minister for transport and certainly me. Recently articles appeared in the media from different industry groups of aviation transport calling for the airport curfew in Adelaide to be dropped. There seems to be a campaign by the industry to convince itself that airport curfews are going to be watered down and ultimately made useless or unworkable. A constituent phoned my office saying that the freight company he works for and employees have stated quite categorically that the Adelaide Airport curfew will be scrapped. This is the rumour that is going around in the industry as a result of the industry’s plan to carry cargo on large passenger jets and presumably a subsequent campaign to focus on invented inconsistencies in curfew arrangements.

As I said, I fully expect the freight industry to support the bill currently before the House, but I really regret its lack of support for the Adelaide Airport curfew. I regret the disregard for the public who sleep under or in close proximity to Adelaide Airport’s flight path. I have been a resident of Mile End under the flight path all my life. Where I live, and in those other suburbs that I named, you can stand on the roof of your house and tickle the bellies of the planes as they go over. We know the pilots not by their names but by their faces because we look up and we can see them, and we wave to them. That is how close they are.

When you have an airport smack-bang near the CBD in a populated residential area, I think that is the price that you pay. The price that airports, transport companies, couriers and aircraft carriers pay is that they have a curfew. You need to have a good balance between the residents and business. While I expect that we and the industry agree on matters of aviation safety and the need for this bill to pass, we clearly disagree on matters of public interest—the public’s highly reasonable expectation of being able to sleep at night. This is not something that I take lightly, so I decided to write to the minister to clarify what the position is. I will quote from the minister, who wrote to me last year after this rumour began. In his letter to me the minister stated:

I believe the current curfew arrangements at Adelaide Airport are working well and I will continue to oppose any changes to the current arrangements.

That message has brought considerable confidence to residents with homes under Adelaide Airport’s flight path. Let me say here and now that there are no moves to water down the Adelaide Airport curfew. The minister opposes it and so do I.

Things are in the process of changing, though, in and around the aviation industry. Last year’s aviation white paper advances the concept of consultative committees with expertise useful in assisting the minister’s assessment of airports and draft master plans and consultative committees made up of airports and stakeholders, incorporating members of the community, carriers, state government departments and the airport itself—similar to the consultative committees in operation in Sydney and Adelaide. Both Sydney and Adelaide airports have had consultative committees in operations for years, and they have proven to offer great potential for frank communication and even collaborative effort.

The Adelaide experience has been a forum for people to voice their concerns and ask questions of the department, Airservices Australia and managerial units within the airport leaseholder itself. Such advances are to be encouraged wherever possible, as are those advances in the bill currently before the House. I encourage all members to support this bill.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we are debating the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008, I thought it would be opportune, given the events of yesterday and last night, to give some idea of what $42 billion means in aviation terms. In aviation terms, $42 billion could have funded the entire A380 program twice over. We could have gone from the initial design phase right through to the first flight of an aircraft for half the amount of money contained in the package put up last night.

Having said that, this bill relates specifically to aviation security. As is said, the price of security is eternal vigilance. We are all familiar with that saying, although its origins are subject to dispute. However, this message has stood the test of time, and it is on that basis that I commend this bill, which builds on the work that we did when in government to make Australia a safer and more secure country.

Central to this amendment bill is the extension of the authority to delegate powers from the Secretary to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to senior officials in his office and to heads of other agencies, who, in turn, may delegate to senior subordinates. I applaud this measure, which should ensure that Australia is never caught short of responsible decision makers to deal with any crisis in our skies. Key among these powers is the authority to order a plane to land at a specific airport with the objective of determining whether the aircraft remains under civil control or in fact has been hijacked.

There should be none among us today who cannot recall with chilling clarity the events of September 11 2001. Indeed, the fear of terrorists looms large over all air travellers. We have been fortunate in Australia not to fall victim to such cowardly attacks. Whether this has been by chance, by effective security measures or by a combination of both, we certainly cannot ever afford to become complacent. Several recent court cases have demonstrated that there are still some in our midst who would wish us harm and, given the opportunity, no doubt would like to mimic the savagery of the loathsome September 11 murderers. We should hold our security forces in the highest regard for their success in safeguarding Australia, but we must also accept that there will always be elements in our society who, like wild dogs, will seek to turn on us for reasons comprehended only by their diseased minds.

Our government under John Howard made great strides in establishing systems and procedures to boost aviation security in Australia, and it is heartening to see the current government adopting so many of our initiatives. I trust that it will not stop at such protective measures and will instead step up the fight against the enemies of Australian democracy, whether within or outside our borders. The al-Qaeda breeding grounds of Pakistan and Afghanistan are still churning out militants, and the West’s military action there needs to be stepped up in the absence of a strong-willed regime in Kabul. Tension still simmers in the Middle East, and we would be derelict in our duties if we assumed that the relative calm in Iraq is necessarily here to stay. And, of course, there is always potential for home-grown malcontents to launch strikes against Australia, with aviation always being a prime target. While we must keep in mind the rights and freedoms of our citizens, it is essential that we never give an inch to our enemies and that we prepare for all possible scenarios. This bill is a step in ensuring that state of readiness is in place.

The bill also raises sensible measures to protect air passengers in other ways. State access to anonymous security-screening information from airlines for the purposes of planning and assessment is perfectly sensible. The key word here is ‘anonymous’. Security measures taken by airlines, both at airports and in the sky, are intended to protect us all. In fact, if we think the measures that we have in place in Australia are somewhat inconvenient, I am certainly reminded of a flight that I took with El Al to Israel and the security-screening procedures that they had in place. They have obviously learned from bitter experience just how vulnerable air transport can be. Certainly, I remember sitting there waiting for the security screening when one lady was called by one of the security people, who was pulling on the rubber gloves. That is the extent to which El Al goes in terms of security screening. I am not advocating that we go to that extent in Australia, but it is indicative of when circumstances are such that that level of security is necessary. That certainly does provide that security, particularly when one looks at the record of El Al since the events of the 1970s which necessitated those very stringent security procedures. Basically, they have had no incidents since then. As I have said, certainly the screening can be inconvenient, but most accept that this price is worth paying for some peace of mind. We would not be so accommodating if such measures were used to collate data about individuals for use by government. I trust the airlines also see that this is in the best interests of all concerned.

Similarly, the measure in this bill to allow the copying of recordings and the examination of cockpit voice recorders, primarily to ensure they are functioning effectively, makes complete sense. Indeed, the current practice is that the cockpit voice recorder has to be removed from the aircraft, taken to another facility, tested to see if it is working and then put back in the aircraft. This clearly is inefficient when it would be very easy simply to record the cockpit voice recorder to see whether the recording is, in fact, working. One wonders why the issue of recording of the cockpit voice recorder should even be an issue. When pilots and other crew are on duty, we would hope that they are concentrating on the job at hand rather than worrying about conversations that they might have had that might embarrass them later on.

Bus drivers and taxi drivers are subject to public scrutiny in the execution of their duties. There is no reason pilots should be treated differently, and perhaps every reason they should not. After all, we place our lives in their hands. Indeed, having worked in the air traffic control system in the early 1980s, I know that certainly everything that was said on air was recorded. The last point about placing our lives in pilots’ hands gets to the very point of this bill—that by its very nature the aviation sector assumes great responsibility and so must accept a high degree of accountability.

As with terrorism, Australia has never had a major jet disaster. Again, this could be due to luck, good safety procedures, maintenance and training or a combination of these factors. The latter seems most likely. It is in the interests of all parties, not least the travelling public, that this fine record continue. The bill makes provision for penalties for airlines and airline staff who fail to provide information, particularly regarding accidents or other safety incidents—and quite rightly so.

When Australians step onto a plane, as tens of millions do every year, they deserve to know that it has not been damaged, that it has been properly maintained and that the airline and regulatory authorities are confident it is safe to fly. In fact, the provision of jail terms for those who fail to provide such information would almost seem too light. The restriction on charges being brought within 12 months for lesser offences appears too short given the stated admission by the government that it can take years for evidence of failure to comply with regulations to emerge.

The standard of six years to bring charges which would apply to more serious offences attracting jail terms of more than six months seems far more appropriate for all such breaches. None of this is intended to malign airlines, pilots or any other employees involved in the maintenance or operation of aircraft. They, and particularly pilots, enjoy a position of great respect in our society. As with other positions commanding respect, they also enjoy our trust. There is no harm in returning the favour to the society which holds them in such esteem by operating transparently, if only to assuage the fears that are held about air travel.

Cooperation with regulatory authorities in this regard will also allow greater preparedness to deal with safety issues in the future and help maintain that fine safety record. In the 2006-07 financial year there were 67.4 million air passengers in Australia—22.1 million on international flights and 45.3 million on domestic routes including regional connections. These numbers are forecast to continue, particularly given the appearance of an increasing number of budget carriers and despite the financial crisis.

Last October set a new monthly record, with more than two million international passengers—up 1.3 per cent from the same month the previous year. It should also be noted that in the same period there was a decline in passenger loads, with planes flying with an average of 76.9 per cent load factor from 79.5 per cent in October 2007. This has been attributed to the increasing number of airlines operating in Australia, leading to stiff competition and increased pressure on profit margins.

In 2006-07 there were more than a million passenger flights in Australia, more than 130,000 of them on international routes. As the skies become more crowded in our vast country it is inevitable there will be aviation safety and security issues. This bill will help minimise such incidents and maintain a system designed to address problems and prevent their recurrence when they do occur. It is a step in the right direction and we must all remain vigilant for the sake of ourselves and our fellow citizens.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. The bill, if passed, will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.

The aviation industry is utterly critical to our nation and our nation’s economy. The Australian Bureau of Statistics records that the air and space industry in Australia employs 50,000 people. The value of the air and space industry to our country annually is $6.3 billion. If you include aviation support in that, you can probably double those numbers; indeed, Qantas alone employs 37,000 Australians.

Of course, jobs are very important at any point in time but, given the issues that we are dealing with at the moment and have been discussing in this parliament over the last few days, there is a certain national urgency about jobs and making sure that we who are involved in public policy have a focus on them.

In my electorate of Corio we have Avalon Airport, which is rapidly becoming the second gateway to Melbourne and the greater Port Phillip Bay area. The passenger traffic at Avalon Airport has built up to almost a million passengers in a year. There are well over 1,000 people currently employed at Avalon. Jetstar flies there as one of its two Melbourne destinations. It is home to a significant amount of Qantas maintenance work. Next month, Airshows Downunder, the single biggest air show in Australia and one of the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere, will be occurring at Avalon Airport. This will be an event that is attended by Australians in their hundreds of thousands.

I have spoken on a number of occasions in this place about the aspiration of Avalon Airport to become an international airport. With its new general manager, Justin Giddings, a lot of work is being done with the department of transport to ensure that all the regulatory hurdles are overcome so that Avalon Airport, in the not-too-distant future, can be an airport that deals with international traffic as well.

The growth of Avalon Airport perhaps represents the greatest potential for jobs growth in the Geelong region. Certainly, in a broader context of Geelong being a transport and logistics hub, not only for Victoria but nationally, with that all occurring around the northern side of Geelong where Avalon is located, the strategic importance for the Geelong economy and for Geelong employment is absolutely paramount. I think you can say more generally that airports in cities and particularly in regional communities are job centres. They are places of economic activity. Ensuring that they are supported and protected by legislative framework is a very important job that we in this place must do.

Core to airports being economic centres and job centres—and therefore core to Avalon being those—is public confidence in aviation. The bedrock of that is a fundamental belief by the public that it is safe to fly. Indeed, the tremendous expansion of the aviation industry over the 20th century has been founded on a fundamental premise that it is safe to fly. That is why the bills before the House are so important. They go to the very issue of security and safety in aviation, which is the bedrock of an industry that is providing so much employment and economic activity in our nation at a time when we need every bit of that that we can possibly find.

These bills provide additional safety and security measures for our aviation system in four ways. The first measure is to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act to increase the amount of aviation security information that can be collected by the secretary to the department of transport. Currently, the definition of aviation security information in the Aviation Transport Security Act is quite narrow, which means that the kind of information that can be collected by the secretary to the department of transport is correspondingly narrow. It is defined as being security compliance information—that is, information relevant to a person or a body complying with the Aviation Transport Security Act. But there is quite a lot of information out there which may not be directly relevant to a strict compliance with the act but which may be very relevant to security and safety within the aviation industry. It is that kind of information which this amendment will allow to be collected by the secretary of the department of transport. An often quoted example of that is statistics around the screening of baggage or passengers.

The second measure contained in this bill is an amendment to the Aviation Transport Security Act in relation to widening the delegation of functions and responsibilities held by the secretary of the department of transport under the Aviation Transport Security Act. Currently, those functions and responsibilities can be delegated within the department of transport. But in an emergency there may be cause for the powers that are normally exercised by the secretary of the department of transport to be exercised by someone else.

An example which is often quoted in relation to this is the power to direct a plane to land. In an emergency situation, it is utterly essential that there is somebody on deck who has the legal authority to exercise that power and carry out those responsibilities. In a circumstance where the secretary to the department of transport finds himself or herself unable to exercise those functions and responsibilities and there is no-one within the department of transport who would be in a position to exercise those functions and responsibilities, then a situation may arise where an emergency occurs and there is actually nobody who is in a position to exercise the powers that need to be exercised.

To deal with that contingency, this measure will widen the pool of people who can receive a delegation from the secretary to the department of transport in relation to those functions and responsibilities. That pool is widened to secretaries to other departments that are involved in national security and, indeed, other agencies with heads of like standing to the secretary to a department. That in effect widens the pool of potential delegates in an emergency situation so that if there is an emergency and there are a number of people, for one reason or another, not in a position to exercise those powers, a person can ultimately be found who can exercise the powers under the act—an important contingency to be provided through this amendment to the act.

The third measure is an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act in relation to information contained on cockpit voice recorders. Information contained on cockpit voice recorders is strictly confidential. It is appropriate that it be strictly confidential. The people who are engaging in the conversations which form the recordings on cockpit voice recorders need to be able to have whatever conversations they have to have in the complete knowledge that they are acting in a confidential environment. Cockpit voice recorders, like every other piece of equipment, need to be tested and maintained. That obviously means that information may need to be copied or to the person who is doing the testing and the maintenance. This amendment to the Civil Aviation Act provides for an exception to that confidentiality rule within the act to allow for the proper and regular maintenance and testing of cockpit voice recorders.

That may seem like a very detailed and small issue, but in May 2005, after the very tragic air accident that occurred at Lockhart River, with the resultant deaths of 15 people, the cockpit voice recorder that was recovered from that plane in fact had no usable data. This added to the tragedy of that event because it meant the investigation into what occurred was necessarily limited by the absence of that information. So, as detailed and specific as this provision may appear, it is indeed very important.

The final measure contained in this bill is an amendment to the Transport Safety Investigation Act. Firstly, the amendment to this act will stiffen the reporting requirements on accidents and incidents and will also increase the ability of the executive director of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to gather more information around incidents and accidents, which in turn is important to enable the proper research and analysis of those incidents and accidents. This measure will also seek to stiffen the penalty regime for failing to report incidents and accidents and failing to provide information being sought by the executive director of the ATSB. Currently there is a statute of limitations contained in the act for prosecutions by the ATSB for failure to provide information. In some cases that statute of limitations is as short as 12 months. There may well be circumstances where it would be impossible to properly carry out a prosecution within that period of time and so prosecutions are not occurring. This amendment will provide that for serious offences—that is, offences which carry a custodial term of more than six months—there will be no statute of limitations, as indeed there is not in other criminal prosecutions, and for smaller offences there will be a statute of limitations of six years.

Each of these measures seeks to improve the safety and security of our aviation industry. Our aviation industry, as I said, is very critical to our economy. In a nation which Geoffrey Blainey once described as being characterised by the tyranny of distance, aviation is fundamental to the way Australia works. It is fundamental to our way of life. Everybody in this chamber and in this parliament absolutely understands that by virtue of the number of hours that we spend on planes. The aviation industry has, in fact, gone a very long way to overcoming the tyranny of distance which characterised Australia in the past. It is very important to our economy. It is very important to our jobs base. At the heart of our aviation industry is safety. There needs to be public confidence in the industry and people need to know that they can get to where they are going safely. At the heart of this bill is making the security and safety regime of our industry more robust. For that reason I support the bill.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008, introduced during the last week of parliamentary sittings in December 2008. I have every confidence that Australian aviation safety and security are and should be of the utmost priority for both sides of government and should always be the subject of continual review to implement industry improvements. This was certainly brought fairly and squarely into focus for us all following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The coalition took action to improve aviation security in Australia to protect Australian and international travellers and our Australian skies.

The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 involved aviation industry participants in maintaining aviation security and required the development of and compliance with a transport security program. This legislation also strengthened the regulatory framework surrounding aviation security and provided the flexibility necessary to respond to a rapidly changing air security environment. Additionally, the coalition introduced the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, which required incidents related to transport safety to be reported. It also laid out a framework for the lodging of reports on the investigation of transport safety incidents.

As the challenges facing aviation security change, it is important that our response adjusts to this change. Since September 11, aviation security in Australia, by absolute necessity, has gone through drastic changes in a very short time. These changes were necessary in order to manage the terrorist threat and ensure air travel safety, with $1.2 billion spent to improve security, which, of course, included sky marshals. Given Australia’s record in aviation security, we may conclude that the changes we made have been effective because of the diligence and vigilance of those charged with ensuring this secure environment in the skies. Because we cannot take this security for granted, I ask the government to support continued aviation security, including sky marshals.

With this bill the government has identified four amendments that aim to further strengthen aviation transport security and safety by amending the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. I note that part 2 of schedule 1, relating to the proposed amendment to allow copying and disclosure of aircraft cockpit voice recorder information for maintenance purposes, and part 3, relating to the amendment to the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 to change penalties for offences and allow the gathering of information, are proposed to commence on 1 July 2009.

The proposed amendment widens the scope of information that can be requested by the secretary to the department under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, allowing the secretary the power to collect other information which currently falls outside the scope of that definition and not limiting the kinds of information that may be prescribed by regulation to be collected. Such information would include the screening of passengers, baggage, cargo or airport zones. This will provide greater transparency in the effectiveness and efficiency of screening and security procedures as the challenges to aviation security change and the sophistication of the threat changes as well.

However, by adding the words ‘and aviation security information’ after the words ‘security compliance information’ it certainly broadens the scope of information able to be collected and disclosed. It would not only be information relating to the screening statistics of passengers and baggage, clearance activities and different security zones but it could also encompass the collection and disclosure of personal information on airline passengers. As the broader collection of information may well allow for personal information and individuals to be reported, I strongly believe the regulation must contain the same set of privacy principles set out in the Privacy Act 1988, which all Commonwealth agencies as well as private industry must comply with when collecting personal information from or about individuals. As stated in the bill, the government intends that the department will consult widely on the scope of aviation security information that may be collected and disclosed before the regulations are finalised. This consultation needs to be thorough and deal with the issue I have raised. However, as regulations are not subject to full parliamentary debate, I will be very interested in the results of the consultative process.

Part 2 of the bill proposes amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to allow for the copying and disclosure of aircraft cockpit voice recorder information for the purpose of testing its functioning and reliability. And, as the previous member said, we know that is why that is so important. This bill will clear any doubt that the copying of cockpit voice recorder information for maintenance is permissible and enable those kinds of faults to be discovered and dealt with more easily. These amendments were first proposed when the coalition was in government and we certainly support them now. I believe this is a logical amendment, as the current confidentiality requirements could be interpreted as making it unlawful to copy or disclose cockpit voice recorder information for legitimate maintenance purposes and will continue to ensure the availability of voice recorder information in the future for accident investigations. This amendment can only enhance the safety of regular public transport aircraft. As stated in the government’s national aviation policy green paper on page 23:

The aviation industry is a key driver of broader economic prosperity and a strategic approach … is required to secure the industry’s future and promote the best interests of the travelling public and businesses that rely on the aviation sector.

Declining regional populations was identified as a key challenge facing the aviation industry. I note that in an article in the Australian on 30 January the Regional Aviation Association of Australia was quoted as saying:

The RAAA is unhappy that the green paper was ‘virtually silent’ about a strategy for regional Australia.

RAAA chief executive, Paul Tyrrell, is quoted as saying:

There was a ‘fair bit of passion’ among RAAA members about increasing growth from the regional ports to the main cities and re-establishing routes between regional centres.

‘If we look on aviation the same as education, health and telecommunications, these are the services that build regional Australia,’ he said. ‘We’d like the government, state and federal but federal particularly, to see aviation as one of those essential services.’

The article also said:

The RAAA also believes the Government should look more closely at areas such as research and development as well as aircraft and component manufacturing in regional areas.

I would support this view, given the growth and opportunity for aviation in my electorate of Forrest. With the population growth in the south-west of Western Australia, the anticipated increase in demand for air travel to service our fly-in, fly-out workers, tourism and the plans to attract more short, long stay and potentially international visitors and tourists to the region, as well as physically connecting the localities of Bunbury, Collie, Busselton, Augusta, Nannup, Margaret River and Manjimup with Perth and potentially in the future with interstate or overseas airports, has been a strategy that the relevant shire and city councils have been working on.

There are many private charter aircraft and aviation enthusiasts operating within the region. Of course any expansion of aviation legislation and improvement to security and safety will only benefit the forward planning that shires or the Bunbury City Council have in place for the development of their own regional airports, aerodromes and airstrips. Currently, checked baggage and passenger screening is only required for jet aircraft but not for turboprop driven aircraft providing regular public transport services. Requirements for hardened cockpit doors only apply to 30-seat and above aircraft used for regular public transport and not to cargo aircraft.

Security at regional airports and local airstrips has expanded over recent years to implement parking restrictions on aprons, tie-down areas and yoke yards. However, funding for the development, expansion and construction of regional airport infrastructure in my electorate of Forrest cannot go ahead without assistance from the Australian government as well as state and local governments, in much the same way as the Australian and state governments collaboratively assist with funding for regional roads, rail and ports. Future increased security measures at expanded regional airports in Forrest will require government funding as the costs would be spread over a lower regional passenger base compared with Perth and other city airports.

The Australian government’s confirmation to continue with flexible support for local governments through untied financial assistance grants and through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program is required for the upgrading and expansion of airports in the south-west. Investment from federal, state and local governments will ensure a coordinated approach to improving airport safety, and I anticipate that this will extend to regional airports and not just remote airstrips. The WA government has its own Regional Airports Development Scheme that has played a significant role in helping develop airport infrastructure in regional Western Australia. WA was the first state to provide funding for airport infrastructure in regional areas and it works in partnership with airport owners to meet access needs and contributes to regional economic growth. Following the 2007-08 funding round allocation, the program has injected approximately $12.3 million to approximately 137 projects since 2001 including recipients in my electorate in Busselton and Manjimup. In addition to this, the funds spent on projects in regional airports in Forrest under the Regional Airports Development Scheme amounted to over $7 million. Augusta, the City of Bunbury, Busselton, Manjimup, Collie, Margaret River and Nannup all received funding.

It is estimated that the average number of aircraft using the Busselton Regional Airport on a daily basis is between seven and 10 aircraft, resulting in between 15 and 20 daily aircraft movements—often charter flights for fly-in, fly-out mining operational staff but also tourism flights. Currently the shires of Busselton and Augusta-Margaret River, in association with the department of tourism, are conducting a feasibility study on the possible benefits of establishing a regular passenger service to the south-west cape region. The population of the Shire of Busselton increased by over 7,000 people from 17,419 in 1996 to 25,000 in 2006—an increase of 43 per cent. Over the same period the state population grew by 15 per cent. That highlights the rapid population growth the Shire of Busselton has experienced over the past decade. Its urban growth strategy has prepared a growth plan to cater for an additional 11,000 to 12,000 people over the next 15 to 20 years. Therefore the need to consider expanding airport operations and services is a relatively urgent one for the area, and all matters of security; safety; noise abatement; airport services such as hangers, refuelling, firefighting, air traffic control; as well as bird hazards, access roads, water and power supply, sewerage and terminal facilities are diligently being investigated and plans developed to expand airport facilities to cater for that expected growth.

Margaret River, the wine region that I am sure members all know about, has terminal facilities of a transfer station available to the essential Flying Doctor service patients only. There is no aircraft refuelling service and no air traffic control. The Shire of Augusta-Margaret River put together its aerodrome plan in June 2007 to develop the airport infrastructure in preparation for increased demand for regular public transport and charter services driven by population and business growth. The Bunbury City Council has also undertaken an analysis study on its airport to ascertain best use of the current location with upgrades to expand its infrastructure for future growth and in fact investigated the possibility of relocating the airport to an alternative site. I applaud the foresight of the shires and city councils in Forrest in recognising the need to upgrade infrastructure to cater for the demands that future growth in the region will bring.

My other concern with the government’s green paper in relation to domestic aviation and the carbon pollution reduction scheme is that the government intends to achieve set targets through this economy-wide scheme for capping and trading emissions to be implemented in 2010. The aviation sector will be included with the whole-of-government approach to climate change. With the expanding capacity at regional airports, this may make it harder for new competition to enter the industry to establish regular public transport domestic air services if the scheme is being capped and the cost and availability of permits are beyond the reach of these new, emerging regional airport operations. Other amendments proposed in this bill will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to enable the secretary of the department to delegate his authority under the Aviation Transport Security Act to other agencies. The secretary would still retain overall authority and could set restrictions on the kinds of actions the delegate could take or withdraw the delegation, as the situation warranted. This change will ensure that the government could act in preplanned or prolonged situations where time is critical and resources are limited, or the secretary is unavailable.

Finally, the bill amends the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 to strengthen the powers of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to require further information after a report on an aviation incident, to increase penalties and to allow the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to prosecute for failure to report an aviation incident up to six years after the commission of the offence. This would replace the current 12-month limit on prosecutions, as it can sometimes take years for such an offence to be discovered. This legislation will build on the existing legislation, enabling us to maintain solid aviation security in an efficient and effective way. Overall, the legislation seeks to strengthen the security regime created by the coalition to make Australia’s skies safer. I support the bill, but I assure the House and the aviation industry that I will scrutinise the supporting regulations.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. With the time limited today I will not talk at length about the amendments and what they mean, but I want to bring to the attention of this chamber a significant event that happened in the electorate of Forde in 1937. It was one of the very earliest aviation crashes or disasters and is better known as the Stinson crash, which gained worldwide notoriety because of the actions that led up to that crash. This happened just prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, so aviation as an industry and Australia’s role in aviation were more limited than what they became as part of our war effort. The Stinson crash was well known for a range of reasons. Certainly it was a significant air crash and there was the fact that it just went missing. The coronial inquiry and the inquest raised a number of points, and I am going to read the final outcome of that coronial inquiry and the suggestions that came out of that particular document—points not unlike, in a modern form, some of the discussion we have had today about the amendments to try to improve not only security but also safety measures in terms of airline travel, aircraft and the aviation industry generally.

In those days the Stinson aircraft was on a regular air route between Brisbane and Sydney, and of course it was fairly expensive to travel at that time. The coroner’s outcome talks about the modern form of travel, given that the airline industry globally was probably only around 30 years old. At that time major advances had occurred in terms of the comfort and design of the aircraft. In terms of safety, the aviation industry has always been very safe, especially because of incidences like this that occurred in 1937. The story is that the plane disappeared somewhere between Brisbane and Sydney, and eyewitnesses on the ground during a rain event—a storm—heard the plane, as they did on many occasions. In fact, they used to almost set their watches by the sound of the aircraft coming over. These days we hear aircraft or see aircraft and it does not take much of our attention, but in 1937 something like an aircraft flying over was quite an event. For the farmers in the Beaudesert district towards the border ranges, in that rural part of my electorate, it became a regular event. On this particular day the plane engines were heard in one locality but certainly not further south and it was believed that this crash had occurred somewhere in the McPherson—the border—Ranges.

If members know the story, for about nine days there was no knowledge of what had happened to this aircraft. However, one man thought he knew—that is, Bernard O’Reilly from the now famous O’Reilly’s guesthouse on Green Mountain. The O’Reilly family were an Irish migrant family of dairy farmers farming the area—and one has to wonder why anyone would farm on top of a mountain with all of the difficulties that that would pose. Today, the famous O’Reilly’s guesthouse is a place that people regularly attend. Being a good mountaineer, Bernard O’Reilly believed that he knew what had happened to the Stinson and went off in search of it. From the top of one mountain he looked across into the valley and saw a small burnt-out patch and realised that that was probably where the aircraft was located. As I said, it was a world event; it made world news. Of course, everyone converged on the area, with Beaudesert set up as the site from where they would go to find out what had happened to the aircraft.

Ultimately, Bernard O’Reilly climbed up to the crash site and came across the only two survivors out of the seven on board. They informed him that a fellow called James Westray had gone seeking help. He was a mountaineer from Scotland who decided to very cleverly travel down to the bottom of the valley and along the river. However, he had not come out the other side so Bernard O’Reilly went looking for Westray and found him dead on the side of the river. He had had a fall, broken his ankle and must have had other internal injuries. It was a sad tragedy which resulted in a better understanding of the need for more safety controls in aircraft. It was a major catalyst, in fact, in getting proper radio control within aircraft.

In closing, I want to very briefly read from the coroner’s final report:

The inquest is closed. The Coroners Act does not empower me to make any findings. I think, however, that this inquest, the importance of which is emphasised by the serious loss of life which created the need for holding it, can scarcely be allowed to end on such a formal decision. Without, I hope, exceeding the bounds of my coronial limitations, I express the opinion that the evidence which has been given in open court—if studied by the authorities closely concerned with ensuring the safety of aerial passenger traffic and by the public, or perhaps, to be exact, by that section of it interested in such means of modern transport—will be found to furnish material from which it should be possible to draw sound and base conclusions pointing to the pressing need for improved methods of ground organisation, centralised control and supervision at the aerodrome of pilots and their duties, the supply of up-to-minute weather reports on air routes, the establishment of reporting stations and the utilisation to the fullest extent of radio aids. Tragic fatalities should not be awaited to provide generating reasons for the institution of improvements to the safeguard of human life. Incidentally, it is just that I should mention that evidence tendered in summary of the achievement of the company which carries on the service in which the crash occurred indicates that, under existing flying conditions, it has a very good, comforting record.

That is signed on 16 April 1937 by the coroner. That is a very interesting document, and the evidence that was collected through that inquiry is largely why today we have safety measures in place and why we as a government are now making amendments to ensure that we continually look after the aviation industry.

Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.