Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

It is important to say at this early stage that the coalition will be supporting both the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009. The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill amends the Civil Aviation Act to create a board for Australia’s civil air regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which is referred to by anyone who has any involvement with them as CASA. The bill also makes some technical amendments to improve its enforcement powers. These include improving CASA’s capacity to oversight the safety of foreign carriers flying to and from Australia, amending the automatic stay arrangements for reviewable decisions and creating an additional offence of negligently carrying or consigning dangerous goods on an aircraft.

Senators will know that CASA is a statutory authority that was established in 1995 with the mandate to regulate Australia’s civil aviation sector to ensure its safe operation. Australia’s record of aviation safety is world class, and there is no doubt that CASA is entitled to take some credit for this admirable performance. Yet in many ways CASA has been a troubled regulator. Its task is not an easy one. It is dealing with a sector that is diverse and characterised by what some might call fractious elements and strong personalities. It has been subject to strident criticism, personality conflicts, industry complaints and any number of reviews over the years.

In addition to the reviews by various government appointed bodies and parliamentary committees, the report of the Queensland State Coroner into the 2005 Lockhart River air crash looked at CASA’s regulatory oversight in the context of that tragedy. CASA is a regulator that has experienced significant change, which has mainly arisen out of the decision by the previous coalition government to abolish the board in 2003. That decision placed the federal minister in more direct control of CASA. Following the passage of that legislation, CASA embarked on a prolonged period of reform. I might add that the Labor Party and most elements of the aviation industry supported the decision of the coalition government to abolish the board of CASA. In fact, the member for Batman, in his then capacity as shadow transport minister, said on 19 November:

For too long in terms of CASA we have had a board in place which was a bureaucratic layer that contributed nothing. In many ways we had a lot of do-gooders without a lot of aviation experience. Abolishing the CASA board effectively means that CASA is more accountable for aviation safety, so we all appreciate that the buck stops and starts with the minister.

I might say that in those wonderful days I was a minister in the government, representing in the Senate the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services. It was my lot to sit through estimates committees that seemed to go on and on and on so far as CASA was concerned. Senator O’Brien, who is not in the chamber, was one of the reasons why those committees went on and on. But there were always plenty of grounds for Senator O’Brien to question CASA.

As I mentioned earlier, CASA was an unusual organisation. It attracted a lot of criticism which, to my way of thinking, was never actually answered by CASA but was referred to the minister at the time, Mr John Anderson. I remember saying to Mr Anderson at one stage: ‘Whenever there is any problem with CASA the blame goes to you. You’re called upon to deal with it. You’re criticised for it and yet effectively you have no control over it. There is an independent board there.’ Because of the way CASA was operating at the time, there was a lot of complaint and criticism and it all ended up on Mr Anderson’s desk when he really had no ability to do much about it. So I said to him: ‘If you’re going to take the blame, you might as well run the show. At least then when the blame is directed it is properly directed.’ As I mentioned, the Labor Party agreed with that, and most of the aviation industry did as well. So we abolished the board. I think that since then it has all worked very well. There has been a lot of reform. Congratulations to all subsequent transport ministers for doing that and taking it further.

But the time has come, the coalition believes, to look at a board situation again. The whole situation is different. CASA is now operating in a much better way. I agree with the government that it is probably time to reintroduce the concept of a small, expert board of five members appointed by the minister. We agree with that. The government argues that CASA is a far different organisation from what it was back in 2003—we certainly agree with that—and, according to the government, CASA is therefore now ready for a board.

Whilst we do not usually take the assurances of government at face value, particularly regarding something as important as the state of Australia’s civil aviation regulator, I do turn to the findings of the last Senate inquiry into the administration of CASA. That inquiry took some 61 submissions from the aviation sector. It took evidence from a significant number of witnesses, many qualified to make informed observations about the effectiveness of CASA. The Senate inquiry established that CASA, under its Chief Executive Officer, Mr Bruce Byron, has made progress in its way of doing business. It has remodelled its structure to be more responsive to the industry and has made an effort to change its defensive culture. At the working level, some submissions noted this improved approach. CASA has also attempted to change its arrangements to enhance its approach to engaging with industry.

Nevertheless, the Senate inquiry expressed concern that some in the sector felt that CASA’s senior executives were not approachable enough. Some submissions expressed unease that CASA’s risk based safety philosophy was at the expense of a more prescriptive regulatory approach and that leaves too much responsibility with the airlines to ensure their own safety standards.

CASA has had an enormous staff turnover since 2003. Whilst that is characteristic of an organisation trying to change its culture and its way of doing business, the Senate inquiry did note that CASA appears to lack adequately trained technical staff and seems to lack a clear path for managing its training needs.

The Senate committee noted some good things and some bad things about the way CASA was operating. So, clearly, CASA faced a number of challenges. I note that the majority submission to the Senate inquiry, in contrast to what occurred prior to 2003, argued for reinstatement of the CASA board. Qantas suggested that the current governance structures are not delivering consistent policy and that the responsibilities of the CEO are too broad. That point was supported by the Australian and International Pilots Association, which stated that a board would improve the capacity of the CEO to make the tough decisions needed to regulate the industry. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association argued that a board would help CASA implement safety guidelines. So there was a lot of information there, and I think that has helped the parliament to come to its conclusion on the reintroduction of the board.

Can I say in passing that it is the belief of our shadow minister, and I am sure most senators, that the CEO, Mr Bruce Byron, made an outstanding contribution as CASA’s boss over the past five years. His was a thankless and difficult task yet he made significant progress in placing CASA on the path to being a world-class regulator that can work with the industry in a rigorous, responsive and effective way. He was well regarded across the sector, an honour that I might say is achieved by few in the aviation business. Indeed, the shadow minister quite rightly says that the job is not completed, but certainly Mr Byron has made a very creditable contribution and CASA is better than it has ever been. We on this side certainly wish Mr Byron good health and happiness. We also want to welcome Mr John McCormick, the new CEO of CASA. His extensive background in aviation will serve him well as he continues the challenges of regulating a key industry.

The bill improves the enforcement powers of CASA. One such change is improving CASA’s oversight of foreign carriers. This bill inserts a new section in the Civil Aviation Act to enable CASA to consider the effectiveness of air operators and relevant foreign regulatory authorities when assessing applications authorising the operation of foreign registered aircraft flying to Australia. This is consistent with what occurs in Europe and the United States and it does seem to us to be a sensible way to improve aviation safety, because it is a regrettable truth that some foreign regulatory authorities are not as rigorous as ours. So that amendment has the support of the opposition.

The second significant technical change contained in the bill is to amend the automatic stay provisions of any decision by CASA to suspend, change or cancel various types of certificates and permissions in circumstances short of ‘serious and imminent risk to air safety’. I will not go through that provision in detail—it will be in the second reading speech—but suffice to say that it is shortening the stay provisions of the bill for people served with a show-cause notice who in the past could apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for more than a 90-day suspension of the cancellation of the licence, and this amendment deals with that by shortening the time allowed for conducting further investigations into the reason for the show-cause notice. As I mentioned, the coalition will be supporting that aspect of the package before us in the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2009.

In relation to Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009, this is designed to enhance the independence of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which I will refer to by its common acronym, ATSB. It enhances the independence of the ATSB and the safety of Australian transport. I think the ATSB is well regarded in Australian transport. It is staffed with people of considerable experience. It was created in 1999 by the then coalition government and its creation was part of a push to separate the responsibilities involving maintaining transport safety apparatus with those of ensuring that safety investigations were carried out by a body that was independent.

Transport in Australia has an enviable safety record and this is due in no small part to the vigilance of the industry participants and the regulatory and investigative regimes. A review of the relationship between CASA and the ATSB was conducted by Mr Russell Miller AM back in 2007. This review came in response to concerns raised during the investigation of the Lockhart River air crash and it was designed to identify potential improvements to Australia’s safety regime.

The review reported that the Transport Safety Investigation Act provides that the executive director is not subject to directions from the minister or secretary in respect of the exercise of executive director’s powers under the act. It further went on to say that the powers of the executive director and departmental officers assigned to the ATSB are effectively autonomous, not only in relation to the undertaking of investigations and the resultant reports but also in relation to the broader range of powers and responsibilities under the act.

Given all that, it seems clear that the ATSB is seen as being autonomous in the execution of its duties. At the same time, despite the autonomy granted to and exercised by the ATSB, it does remain a division of the department. As a result, the theoretical possibility remains for that independence to be compromised in the future. Among the recommendations of the Miller review was a proposal that an alternate governance of the ATSB would move it out of the minister’s portfolio and enhance its administrative independence. This bill is a result of some of the recommendations contained in the Miller review and it will establish the ATSB as a statutory authority in its own right rather than keeping it as a division of the department. This will make the ATSB visibly separate from the department. Aside from being more independent on an organisational level, becoming a statutory authority will mean that ATSB will have direct control of its own budget and its own personnel matters under the Financial Management and Accountability Act. The bill provides for that new structure.

Under the legislation, the internal structure of the ATSB will be that of a commission headed by one full-time chief commissioner, who will also be the CEO of the agency and whose role will be analogous to that of the current executive director. The chief commissioner will be supported by two part-time commissioners with the prospect of more commissioners being appointed should the need arise. All appointees will be required to have a high level of expertise in some area relevant to the ATSB’s function.

The minister, as I understand it, will appoint the commissioners. We on this side would of course urge, and will be ensuring, that those appointed are appropriate to the job and are independent. The bill gives the ATSB the capacity to delegate its powers under the act. It also authorises the ATSB to require individuals, organisations and government agencies to provide written responses within 90 days.

We need a robust transport sector in Australia. Aviation, road, rail and maritime transport have all done a great deal to contribute to the economic and social development of Australia. They continue to play an important role, especially in regional areas, in bringing Australians together and reducing the tyranny of distance and isolation. The coalition believes that this bill will enhance the transport safety regime that has been steadily built up over the years by all governments, going back a long time. For those reasons, the coalition is happy to support the two bills before us.