Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Within the speed limit, Senator Macdonald, and within the fatigue management regime, which in Western Australia was a case of everything was legal and you just kept going. Fortunately, that has now changed.

Qantas’s first scheduled flight, which went from Longreach to Cloncurry in Queensland, did not commence until November 1922. Air passenger transport in Australia has obviously come a long way since 1921. However, one thing that has not changed is the pre-eminence of the requirement to maintain the highest possible safety standards. By early 1921 the federal government had already established regulations with regard to aeroplanes, pilots, mechanics, aerodromes and flying practices. This was made possible by the passing of the Air Navigation Act 1920, regulating civil aviation in Australia, on 11 November 1920 by the Commonwealth parliament. It is interesting to note that this action by the Commonwealth parliament was possible as a result of Australia’s agreement to the 1919 Paris convention which, as a consequence, enabled the Commonwealth to use the external affairs power to regulate civil aviation.

The Paris convention of 1919 defined the status of international airspace and gave authority to the commander of an aircraft to act in accordance with the law of the state of registration. Hence, we see very early in the history of civil aviation that its regulation had become a national issue. The Australian community very early decided that the federal government should be accountable for civil aviation safety standards and their enforcement.

The Rudd Labor government takes this aviation safety commitment extremely seriously and it is the government’s primary objective when it comes to air travel. As stated in the government’s 2008 national aviation policy green paper, safety must underpin everything else in aviation and must be maintained in the face of costs and other pressures in the industry. The safety of passenger-carrying operations remains the top priority.

In Australia three agencies are involved in ensuring aviation safety: the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which we term as CASA; the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, ATSB; and, of course, Airservices Australia. CASA is an independent statutory authority established in 1995 under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to regulate aviation safety in Australia and the safety of Australian aircraft overseas. Its primary role is safety regulation of civil aviation. CASA’s regulatory responsibilities include overseeing the activities of over 42,000 licensed industry personnel including pilots, licensed aircraft maintenance engineers and air traffic controllers, and over 13,000 registered aircraft. CASA also provides safety education and training programs and in recent years has acquired responsibilities for airspace regulation and some environmental issues. CASA has a staff of over 600 people. The chief executive officer also holds the statutory position of Director of Aviation Safety. It is to be acknowledged that CASA has a large and complicated role, being required to work constructively day to day with the industry it regulates but also needing to take firm regulatory action against industry when necessary to ensure safety.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is responsible for the independent investigation of accidents and incidents involving civil aircraft in Australia. All accidents and incidents related to flight safety in Australia or by Australian registered aircraft overseas must be reported to the ATSB. Airservices Australia provides air traffic control management over an area that covers 11 per cent of the earth’s surface, which includes international airspace over the Pacific and Indian oceans. Australia is recognised as having one of the safest and most efficient air traffic management systems in the world, and that is something that we should be very, very proud of. Airservices Australia also provides aviation rescue and firefighting services at 19 of Australia’s busiest airports. In 2008 Airservices Australia received the 34th annual Aviation Technology Achievement Award. The Airline Industry Achievement Awards are considered to be the ‘Oscars’ of the international airline industry.

The effective function of Australia’s aviation safety regime depends on close working relations between these three agencies. This is assisted by formal memorandums of understanding between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and between ATSB and Airservices Australia. As well, Australia is a member of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, known as ICAO, which is made up of no fewer than 190 states or countries, and has frequently assisted with international investigations.

Even though the number of aviation accidents and aviation fatalities in Australia is very low, there is still on average, sadly, one aviation fatality every 10 days. Also while aviation passenger transport in Australia has a safety record amongst the best in the world, fatal crashes occur of aircraft engaged in passenger transport almost every year. In 2005 a low-capacity aircraft on a scheduled passenger flight in North Queensland crashed killing 13 passengers and two crew—which I mentioned earlier and which we refer to as the Lockhart River accident. Over the past 11 years there has only been one year when there has not been a fatal crash of a charter passenger aircraft. In 2008 there were three fatal charter passenger aircraft crashes, killing six people—and the more I read on, the less I want to fly. But, as I say, we have the best safety record and we should be proud of it. But it can always get better. In this regard, I am reminded of the thousands of people who work in the mining towns in the north and east of Western Australia and who rely on chartered aircraft to get them to and from work regularly throughout the year. They are the ones referred to as the ‘fly-in fly-out’ people.

ATSB statistics show that issues affecting aviation safety are a daily occurrence. In 2008 there were over 8,000 safety issue occurrences reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The number of occurrences reported to the bureau has increased substantially over the past 10 years. This is not in itself necessarily an indicator of declining safety standards. In fact it could equally be an indicator of improved awareness of potential safety issues that need to be looked into. However, it is also relevant to note that there were 180 aviation accidents in 2008. This was the highest number of aircraft accidents since 2001. It is not a proud record. In addition there were 64 serious incidents in 2008 on top of the 180 accidents. This was substantially higher than the previous year and substantially higher than the annual average of the previous five years. The fact is that there has been an almost 45 per cent increase in the number of annually reported aviation safety occurrences over the past 10 years. Alongside that is the fact that the total number of accidents and serious incidents reported in 2008 was 26 per cent higher than the number reported in 2007 and almost double the number reported in 2006. These are not trends we would want to see continue. These are the sorts of figures that concern me as Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, as I am sure they do other members of the committee, none more so than my esteemed colleague who is in the chamber, Senator O’Brien, with his long history with this committee.

Equally of concern were some of the findings of the ATSB with regard to the Lockhart River accident in 2005. In its investigation ATSB found that CASA processes were contributory factors in the cause of the accident. Firstly, the ATSB found:

CASA did not provide sufficient guidance to its inspectors to enable them to effectively and consistently evaluate several key aspects of operator management systems.

Secondly:

CASA did not require operators to conduct structured and/or comprehensive risk assessments, or conduct such assessments itself, when evaluating applications for the initial issue or subsequent variation of an Air Operators Certificate.

By any reckoning these are serious findings, though I should also say that CASA has contested these contributory factor findings by ATSB. We are left, therefore, to draw our own conclusions. But it is also interesting to note that CASA has instituted changes to its processes and inspectorial staff since the Lockhart River accident. The fact is that issues concerning CASA’s processes that had possible aviation safety regime implications were not new in 2005 at the time of the Lockhart River accident.

For years previously, and right up to the present time, there have been recurring themes with respect to CASA. There has been a cycle of externally initiated reviews of CASA’s processes because of broadly based and persistent disquiet about CASA’s performance. Despite various initiatives by CASA to improve its systems and procedures, an ongoing pattern of problems seem to suggest fairly deep-seated difficulties within the agency have reduced its capacity to undertake effective long-lasting reform. It has been noticeable that, very often when a particular problem is raised with CASA management, the immediate response is that CASA is already aware of the matter and action to rectify has been completed or is well advanced. Nonetheless, within a relatively short period other concerns with CASA’s processes reappear. For example, the CASA performance audit conducted by the Australian National Audit Office in 1999 found in regard to CASA’s regulatory regime:

… the potential exists for this regime to be improved and strengthened with consequential increased confidence of all stakeholders.

Then in 2002 ANAO’s follow-up review on progress since its 1999 performance audit reported:

The safety systems approach and CASA’s system-based auditing, when fully implemented, will enable CASA to better monitor operators’ compliance with the Act and Civil Aviation Regulations. However, considerable work remains to be done to refine their implementation, otherwise there is a risk that CASA’s agenda of aviation safety reform may falter.

Five years on in 2008 the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, having become so concerned and dissatisfied with the quality of many of CASA’s responses to the committee’s requests for information about the performance of the agency, initiated an inquiry into the administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and other matters. The Senate committee’s inquiry report had this to say:

… the committee notes that one of the recurring themes in the evidence received during this inquiry is that CASA is aware of the problems raised and has initiated steps to address them. Without wanting to appear unduly cynical, this is a response that this committee is all too familiar with, particularly through its Senate estimates hearings.

The Senate committee inquiry confirmed that there is still significant scope to improve CASA’s processes as well as the need to bring the regulatory reform program to a conclusion as quickly as possible to provide certainty to industry and to ensure CASA and industry are ready to address future safety challenges.

The outcome of the inquiry vindicated the concerns of the Senate committee and reinforced the need for government to take action to improve the governance of the authority. It is very important nonetheless to stress that the problems identified by the Senate committee should not be interpreted as a denigration of the organisation as a whole. Australia’s excellent aviation safety record is in no small part due to the excellence of the work and professionalism of the individual men and women who work on the front line of CASA’s services.

This bill will create a five-member CASA board, one of whom will be appointed chair of the board. The CASA director of aviation safety will be an ex-officio member of the board. It is intended that the board be an expert board and will not be a board representing sectional interests. The board and its members will be required to provide CASA with the governance that will ensure that the functions of CASA are totally directed to overall safety of the Australian community.

The primary duties of the board will include deciding on the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA; ensuring CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner; and, ensuring CASA complies with certain directions given by the minister. As is appropriate for a board of governance, the board will not be directly involved in the day-to-day running activities of the authority. Board members will be appointed for terms of three years.

In 2003 when the decision was taken to abolish the CASA board it was done no doubt with all good intentions and may have seemed the most appropriate way to go at that time. However, experience since then and the changed circumstances in the aviation sector have reinforced the need to provide CASA with much greater strength and depth with respect to its strategic oversight of aviation safety and with respect to the governance of CASA itself. On that, I commend both the bills to the Senate.