Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak on the Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020 and the Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020, I signal that the opposition are supporting them, but we will be moving a second reading amendment, which I'll talk about briefly. This package of legislation follows an extensive inquiry from the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee between 2016 and 2018. The committee made a number of recommendations, and Labor is pleased that the government has finally gotten around to actually acting on some of them.

We all know that the future of aviation will include a role for unmanned aircraft, colloquially known as drones. By 2026 it is predicted that drones will be an $11 billion industry globally, and right now there are thousands of drone operators in Australia plying their trade and carrying out essential work in a range of industries. Surveyors use drones to plan infrastructure. Photographers use them to find new angles. Filmmakers and news crews take advantage of their versatility. Farmers use them to check on crops and soil moisture levels. Emergency services personnel use them for a range of operations. In Canberra you can even have your morning coffee delivered by drone. Beyond operations, Australia is a growing hub for innovation and for technological advances, with operators taking advantage of our regulatory environment and wide open spaces to develop beyond-line-of-sight technologies and capabilities.

Drones have a great future, and it is essential that regulations keep up with this fast-moving industry. Drones are aircraft, albeit relatively small ones. Their operations must adhere to standards that uphold the safety of Australians. But it is equally important that this regulatory scheme, including the registration of remotely piloted aircraft, is simple and cost-effective and doesn't stifle this growing industry. We can't allow excessive and costly regulation and registration to strangle an industry that could provide jobs and greater services across the community. If the government were to impose excessive conditions, we would see fewer players getting involved in the industry, less innovation from Australian operators and even industry leaders moving away from Australia to more supportive and accepting jurisdictions overseas.

While registration and regulation is needed, there are risks inherent in that process. Labor wants to work with the government and with the industry to ensure that we get this right and that we both uphold the highest safety standards and maintain an innovative and exciting industry. It is clear that the industry is yet to be fully brought on board with these changes, and more engagement will be needed before the legislation itself comes into effect. For instance, the industry raises the fact that this bill allows registration costs of up to $300, when similar fees cost $16 in the UK, $7 in the US and $5 in Canada. If fees are so high in Australia, we will see fewer farmers, photographers and surveyors registering their aircraft, and research and development sent offshore. These problems are clearly not insurmountable; they can be easily fixed, and that is something Labor will be seeking to do in the Senate.

Just as further consultation will be needed to ensure that this legislation preserves a strong future for the unmanned sector of our aviation industry, the government also needs to listen to the traditional aviation sector to maintain their future. Of the many things that I expected and hoped to see us talking about in aviation in this chamber, drones probably wouldn't have been my first priority for the government to bring forward from a legislative mechanism, but that is what the government has decided to do. We know in this country, when it comes to the future of aviation—and particularly of Australian airlines and the jobs that they support—the government has done nowhere near enough. Since March the government has allowed Virgin to fall into administration, costing 3,000 jobs. It's denied JobKeeper to 5,000 Dnata workers and workers at council owned airports. It sat back while Qantas sacked 8½ thousand workers. We know that the CEOs of our two major airlines were here in Canberra this week and last week calling on the government to extend JobKeeper beyond March and, equally as important, to extend beyond December, just a short three weeks from now, the assistance that the government has got for some of the aviation sector, because they know that it is going to be a very, very bumpy return. Again I say to the government: you need to come and explain to the aviation sector and explain to all of those thousands of workers whether you're going to continue that support or whether you're going to pull that out come December.

What more will it take, frankly, for this government to finally come up with a plan for aviation? We can't wait for five years from now. We can't wait for a year from now. The government actually needs to articulate what it wants the industry to look like, what it thinks are in the best interests of Australians now and actually do something about that to make sure that that's the sector and the industry that we have. Aviation workers can't wait. The future of aviation in Australia will include drones, but it must also include our airlines, our airports and our aviation workers. I encourage the Morrison government to finally come to the table and to give the industry the help that it needs. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that unmanned aircraft are an important part of the aviation sector, offering exciting new business and service opportunities into the future;

(2) further notes that Australia's existing aviation sector has been significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic;

(3) criticises the Government's failure to take a sector-wide approach to supporting the aviation sector during the pandemic, putting the livelihoods of thousands of aviation workers at risk; and

(4) calls on the Government to develop a sector-wide aviation recovery plan to support the industry to recover from the impacts of COVID-19".

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

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

It is, and I will be speaking shortly.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form, 'That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.'

Julian Simmonds (Ryan, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will endeavour to be brief. I rise to speak in support of the government's move to better regulate and reinforce standards for the drone industry. This substantive legislation, the Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020 and the related bill, is crucial for retaining confidence in what is a very quickly growing industry. Given the rate at which unmanned aerial vehicles are being used, it is time measures were put in place to ensure safety and compliance so that stakeholders who utilise drones directly and those who are indirectly affected, like other pilots, can be assured that best practice is being observed. We know that unmanned aerial vehicles are being further utilised in commercial settings and things like search and rescue, environmental management and agriculture, to name just a few, but there are many and varied uses. In addition to those who own drones for recreational purposes, commercial drone traffic in our skies will only increase, which, if left unchecked, will add increasing potential for harm to the public and to infrastructure.

In conjunction with these regulations is a funding and registration proposal to help CASA keep up with the increasingly large drone sector created as a result of their popularity commercially and recreationally. As the regulatory body responsible, CASA has seen an increased number of aviation accidents, interference around airports and a blatant disregard for aviation rules by some drone operators, although of course we know that the majority are doing the right thing and will seek to do the right thing when this training and registration process is in place. Many of these incidents come down to what is basically a lack of education and training by those in control of drones, and this measure will help remedy that.

The funding agreement between CASA and the Commonwealth will facilitate this expanded role in managing the new requirements that will be put in place. The cost will be attributed to the consumer, ranging from zero to $300, depending on the drone and the circumstances. This registration will enforce training requirements that will facilitate best practice and procedure for the operators. This should in turn see the number of aviation incidents decrease as operators will be made aware of their responsibilities while operating drones. These responsibilities of course already exist; it's just a matter of education and training for those who are operating drones. I acknowledge the burdens that this new requirement will be for businesses and operators who utilise drones for their commercial functions. But we must mitigate the risk of incidents such as we saw at Gatwick Airport, which shut down in 2018, occurring at Australian airports.

All of that being said, there is a qualification that I want to offer. I unreservedly support this substantive legislation, but I do have reservations about our once-great recreational and general aviation sectors in Australia. I'm a passionate pilot, as no doubt you know, and I could talk flying all day, every day. I track planes from my back deck on the app, as many Australians do. I go to Brisbane Airport with my young son and watch, through the fence, the planes take off and land. And when I fly by myself in a Cessna 172 around Moreton Bay, I reckon that is just about the closest to peace that you can find on earth and in this life. So, put aside COVID for just a second. Australia has the stable weather of sun and blue skies, we have vast tracts of flat land suitable for take-off and landing, and we have vast distances. Australia should be a recreational or general aviation pilot's dream location in this world.

But as we discuss yet another piece of regulation in the sector—and don't get me wrong; again, I support the legislation we are discussing today and acknowledge its merits—I want to reflect on how recreational and general aviation are in danger of being lost like a needle in a haystack under a burden of ever-growing regulation. I know it isn't all CASA's fault. I get that; I get that there are a lot of factors at play. The world has changed since the glory years of flight, and pining for the good old days of aviation won't make it come about, won't make it so. But I know that young Australians are still passionate about aviation. They have that passion in them. It is just a matter of having the circumstances that allow that to be fostered.

I reflect on my own journey in learning to fly, and it leads me to have a lot of sympathy for those who say that CASA is quick to regulate and slow to consult. I have a lot of sympathy for those who say that CASA is bureaucratic when you seek advice, and that when you ask a question three times they're likely to give you three different answers. Of course, they have an important job to do and safety should be paramount, but a regulator also has to have some care and responsibility for fostering the success of the industry that it regulates. A balance must be achieved. Flight cannot be risk-free; it isn't inherently risk-free. All pilots accept this and all pilots—good pilots, as the vast, vast majority are—bear a personal responsibility for the safety of themselves, their passengers and the planes. Of course, they should have the tools, the training and the regulations in place to achieve safety, but it sometimes feels like CASA thinks it must mandate enough regulation that even an inattentive monkey could fly safely. I don't think that's actually their job. The reality of that approach is that flight schools, the general aviation sector and recreational pilots spend more time and money on fulfilling regulation than can ever be justified in the pursuit of flying as a passion, as opposed to commercial purposes.

I note also that the arrangements in this new legislation will start with a $0 fee in recognition of COVID. Prohibitive costs borne from complying with the ever-growing regulations are a real problem for the industry, particularly for recreational pilots. I think this no-cost approach, or low-cost approach, should not only be continued going forward but should be expanded to other aspects of CASA regulation.

I could go on, but I've been told to keep it brief and I will. I'll simply conclude with this: I love flying. I absolutely love it, as you can tell, but even for someone as passionate as I am, and with the means that I have at my disposal—which are not inconsiderable to the average Australian—it was amazingly bureaucratic, time consuming and enormously costly to become a recreational pilot. I want Australians of any age to find it easier and cheaper to embrace their love of flying. That's how recreational aviation and general aviation will survive, when we get Australians who are passionate about flying and we give them the ability to get involved in it. This legislation is good as far as regulation goes, and I am pleased to support it. But, more importantly, my sincere hope is that going forward we will find a way to reform CASA, to reduce regulation and costs, and to get Australia and Australians flying again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party, Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate on the Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020 and the Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020. The systems of remotely piloted aircraft—or RPAs, also known as drones—are rapidly developing and highly technical sectors of aviation. More and more RPAs are being flown across our skies, and RPAs are being used in a wide and growing range of applications, such as: delivering commercial packages, monitoring bushfires, search and rescue, infrastructure inspections and even the application of pesticides. Every day we are finding more and more users and opportunities to capitalise on the opportunities offered by this emerging technology.

These opportunities, however, also bring a range of challenges to the broader aviation industry. Australia's safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority—or CASA—who continues to provide regulatory functions to RPA users, faces more pressure to ensure the safe integration of drones into the Australian aviation system. Together, these bills enable CASA to continue delivering safe administration and regulation of RPAs into the future. This ensures that CASA has sufficient funding to continue providing safety regulatory functions for RPAs that are supported by users of the functions instead of by the general public. It will also support the introduction of RPA registration schemes which are set to begin from 30 September 2020 onwards. Given the impacts of COVID-19 on the aviation sector and the relative infancy of the RPA sector, I understand that introducing a cost-recovery scheme during this period could potentially stifle innovation and growth and negatively impact the opportunity for this sector to get back on its feet.

While the registration scheme will begin in September 2020, there'll be no cost on any users for the current financial year. Any consideration of costs imposed from the cost-recovery scheme will only be imposed from mid-2021 onwards. This will be considered as part of the overall funding arrangements for CASA and—once the government has developed a whole-of-government approach to regulation and service provision for the RPA sector—this levy will only apply to commercial RPA operators at this point and not to recreational RPA users. I would like to thank the honourable members for their constructive contributions to this debate and I commend the bills to the House.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.