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

Thank you for protecting me, Madam Acting Deputy President. I know that Senator Sterle is very concerned about this, coming from Western Australia as he does. He can read the polls. On the last poll in Western Australia there would not be a Labor Party member left in Western Australia. If Senator Sterle is unfortunate enough to be on the Senate ticket this time, he might not even get there. We have two Western Australian senators in the chamber—Senator Sterle and Senator Evans—defending the great big new tax on mining that will destroy Western Australia. We all know that Mr Rudd will do one of his famous backflips and try and pretend that he has solved the issue. But everyone will be able to see through that and understand that Mr Rudd has again thought more of his own personal political future than the country’s future.

The motion before the chamber is related to airline safety. I come from Northern Queensland where air safety is particularly important. In Cape York we use small aeroplanes and large aeroplanes all the time. The impact of safety regulations on those of us who live in the remoter parts of Australia is always important—as is the Queensland Labor government’s awful wild rivers legislation, which this Senate is trying to overturn with a private member’s bill that is before the chamber at the moment. I had desperately hoped that I, Senator Barnett, Senator Boswell and others would have been able to talk to a report that was tabled that clearly shows just how awful that wild rivers legislation is for the Indigenous people living in Cape York. Unfortunately, we were prevented from talking to that report before the Senate, but that does not in any way stop the very good dissenting report by the coalition senators, drafted by Senator Guy Barnett, that clearly shows that the interests of the Indigenous people in Cape York are severely and badly impacted upon by the Queensland government’s wild rivers legislation. Hopefully later tonight we will have the opportunity of discussing in this chamber, albeit very briefly, that overturned wild rivers bill. And hopefully we will pass a bill which will effectively overturn the Queensland government’s wild rivers legislation which is so destructive to Indigenous people—providing, of course, that it is passed by the other place.

The people of Cape York have a difficult time now with small aircraft around—and we have to use them. The people who live in Cape York deserve every opportunity to get ahead. But what is the Labor Party in Queensland doing? It is preventing these people from the proper, adequate and free use of their own land. Through its declaration on wild rivers in Cape York the Queensland Labor government has simply locked up rivers and made it impossible for Indigenous people to get full value from their land. This deprives them of the opportunity for wealth and full-time work, and the dignity that goes with that, and condemns them yet again to a life of welfare dependency. This is something that their leaders are desperately trying to get them out of but they find it impossible.

I only mention Cape York in relation to the motion before the chamber, which deals with aircraft matters. I am conscious that we have to finish with the disallowance motion by 6.50 pm. I guess that Senator Milne might like to speak on this motion and that someone from the government might like to speak on it, and I know that Senator Back is very interested in a making a brief contribution as well. But let me quickly reiterate why the coalition will be supporting Senator Xenophon’s disallowance motion. There was never any genuine consultation with the group that looks after the airline pilots. That is typical of this government—no effective consultation whatsoever.

I have mentioned that the coalition was very concerned about the strict liability issues of the proposed legislation. These new regulations do not address the concerns that were expressed by the coalition previously and, as I have mentioned, they differ little from the previous regulations. The only significant difference is that they have deleted an employee of the aircraft operator from the list of people able to enter the cockpit. Hence, the new regulation makes the class of persons able to enter the flight deck even more limited. The coalition has always had concerns that it is sometimes in the interests of safety of the aircraft and all on board if an off-duty pilot is able to sit in the jump seat. The government has said to us that they have addressed some of those issues; but, if they have addressed them, why not amend the regulations to make absolutely clear the issues they were talking to us about?

There are some other, almost cosmetic, differences to the regulations, which are referred to in the explanatory statement, but again they do not address the real issue. It would have been so easy for the government to fix this matter, and had they done it properly I am quite sure that neither Senator Xenophon nor the coalition would have been moving to disallow this regulation. Mr Albanese will be going wild in the other place tomorrow, accusing the coalition and Senator Xenophon of not having any regard for aeroplane safety. We expect that from Mr Albanese. He is well known for his over-the-top hyperbole. The actual situation here is that if this is a problem it could easily have been fixed by the government negotiating with the pilots and talking more seriously with the opposition. We retain our concerns about the inability of other pilots to use the jump seat. Evidence, experience and example show that a third pilot in the jump seat has on occasions been a particular boost to airline and aircraft safety. The other issue of the strict liability I have briefly referred to.

There are some other things I would have liked to have said, but I am conscious of the time constraints and that others may wish to speak. There are many things I could have said about legal advice given, but again the government has simply drafted clumsy and draconian regulations. It is again an example of an inexperienced government that has not learnt humility nor the fact that good law-making takes place only after thorough and considered consultation. Clumsy, ham-fisted laws are not the way to do business. For those and all the other reasons that I and Senator Xenophon have mentioned, we will be supporting the disallowance of the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1).