Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019. The Greens believe this is a dangerous bill. This is a bill that would put at risk our aviation safety regime and, consequently, be putting at risk the lives of Australians. The law currently sets out that, in exercising its powers and performing its functions, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration. What this bill does is change the remit of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority so that it must consider the economic and the cost impact on individuals, businesses and communities of CASA's standards, and take into account the differing risks associated with differing industry sectors.

Taking account of the economic and the social costs of safety standards is, in fact, something that does need to be done. But it should not be done by CASA. CASA's remit is to be making recommendations on the basis of safety. It is up to us in the parliament, if we feel that there are other economic or social considerations that need to be taken into account, to make the judgement as to how those regulations should change and how CASA's recommendations maybe should change because of those economic or social considerations. It should not be the remit of CASA to be making those political judgements. CASA needs to have its remit as a safety focused organisation preserved.

This doesn't concern just the Greens. These changes to CASA's remit concern the people who are directly accountable for the safety and operation of our aviation industry: the pilots' unions. Both the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and the Australian and International Pilots Association have raised serious issues with this legislation. The Australian Federation of Air Pilots have said that they have significant concerns that this amendment could also be a source for those seeking to stymie genuinely necessary safety reforms when there exists any cost impact on their interests. The Australian and International Pilots Association's concern is even stronger. It says that resistance by private interests cannot be allowed to control the system. 'The aviation safety regulator', it continues, 'has a difficult and narrow path to tread in ensuring that the public safety interest is met without unnecessary constraint on the public economic benefit and the participating private interests. The danger to the public safety interest comes from a safety regulator that gets role confusion and starts to act like an economic regulator.' The Australian and International Pilots Association then continues: 'In our view, CASA has already demonstrated a propensity to dilute the former role for a taste of the latter, particularly in the areas of fatigue management, airports and airspace protection.'

It should not be the job of CASA, a safety authority, to assess, without the relevant expertise, the economic and social impacts of its proposed regulations. It's the job of parliament to balance those competing concerns—the competing concerns of safety, economics, accessibility and the public interest. That is parliament's job, not CASA's.

There are so many things that could go horribly wrong and that could have dire consequences as a result of this legislation. What would happen, for example, if a major airline decided that it could not meet the safety standards of its planes because that presented too much of an economic burden or if companies decided they simply didn't want to foot the bill? Would that be acceptable? If we let that happen, who would be responsible for a plane crash? You can see this scenario developing where you have airlines with ageing plane fleets serving rural and remote communities, who say, 'We just can't afford to keep our planes at the standard that they're currently at. If you're going to insist on this, CASA, then, sorry, we're going to have to just stop flying, and rural and regional communities aren't going to be able to get the services they need.' It's up to parliament to decide how to deal with that dilemma. It's not up to CASA. It's not up to CASA to say, 'We reckon that because we want these rural and regional communities to keep their air services we're going to reduce the standards and we're going to allow this airline to fly with lower safety standards than what they've had up until now.' But this is what this change will allow. In fact, the explanatory memorandum says:

Whilst the amendments will ensure that CASA considers the particular circumstances of different participants when developing and promulgating aviation safety standards, the safety of air navigation will remain the most important consideration for CASA…

But that means nothing. What does 'will remain the most important consideration' mean when it is being offset by those economic and social concerns? It means that safety is not just the prime consideration that CASA will be taking into account.

What I can see happening if this legislation goes through is that we'll quite likely be beholden to the business models of the big airlines, who don't want to compromise their bottom lines. And we know that big for-profit companies will do anything to trim budgets and expand their profit margins. All they're going to need to say is, 'We're just not going to be able to keep flying if you, CASA, insist that we have to maintain these standards.'

This bill has not been through sufficient scrutiny. These are very legitimate concerns and they need a robust hearing. It's not just the Greens and the pilots. What's the department's justification for this bill? How does CASA itself think that this bill will change how it functions? What do the independent aviation safety experts in academia and the private sector think will happen as a result of these changes? I would certainly like to know the answers to these questions, and the Senate should know the answers to these questions. So I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

", and the bill be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 September 2019."

We should be having an inquiry into this bill. This bill has got far-reaching and potentially dangerous consequences. I call on the Senate to support my amendment. I call on the Senate to be concerned with maintaining the safety of our air services, which we are so justly proud of in Australia today. I hope that the Senate will support that inquiry. But, if it doesn't go to an inquiry, then this bill, as it stands, is too dangerous. We need to know more information. We don't have justification. We have such serious concerns from the pilots and other safety standards, and there is far too much uncertainty to support this bill today.