Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. I acknowledge, as Senator Hughes did, all those who participated in the inquiry. I particularly would like to thank the secretariat for their work on the inquiry. I was a full member of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee when the inquiry on the promulgation of the particular regulations we're talking about kicked off. Senator Patrick, Senator O'Sullivan—who has now left us—and I did have some concerns about those regulations. These concerns led us through the inquiry, which was very ably chaired by Senator McDonald, having done so as a relatively new senator. It was probably a difficult issue, and I acknowledge and thank her for her chairing of the inquiry hearings.

As Senator Patrick mentioned earlier today, I did have some concerns about the ATSB report. You cannot blame government agencies for the way that their reporting is sometimes sensationalised in the media—for example, talking about the flights of Angel Flight being seven times more dangerous. Unfortunately, it was made easy for the media to come up with those very inflammatory headlines, because of the report the ATSB produced. I still remain concerned with the fact that their principal conclusion was based on two data points, separated by six years, over a 10-year period. I find it very difficult to believe that you can draw statistically significant conclusions from such a dataset. It worries me when that information is then used by a large number of media outlets to paint a particular view of the risks, because these risks, as Senator Hughes and Senator McDonald have so ably outlined, are risks that are weighed up by people living in very remote parts of Australia.

If you live in Newdegate, in my home state, you've got a 1,800-kilometre round trip to Perth if you need to see a specialist, if you need any particularly invasive hospital care or regular treatments for things such as cancer. If you live in Cue, you've got a 1,300-kilometre round trip. But these are not on major highways; they are on country roads. Anyone who's driven on country roads or anyone who has even looked at the statistics for driving on country roads knows that there is a level of risk involved in taking those long trips on those country roads, of durations of sometimes 10 hours or more. Yes, there is risk involved in flying in light aircraft; there is no doubt about that. I think everyone in Australia, particularly everyone in the bush, knows that there are risks involved in flying in light aircraft. But to put the idea out there that somehow the statistics we use are an accurate portrait of what those risks are—I don't think that is fair or reasonable.

I didn't disagree with all the regulations. In fact—although I don't want to put words into the mouths of others—I believe that most of us on the committee actually supported the majority of the regulation that was put forward, in particular the requirements for pilots to have a certain level of experience, competence and time in the particular aircraft, and felt that they were sensible changes that would seem, on the face of it, to deliver a safety benefit. However, the one I found particularly difficult to accept—and this is the one that was highlighted in the committee's report—was the requirement for an additional level of aeroplane maintenance. If I'm the owner of a private aircraft and that aircraft is safe enough for me to take my friends up in, is safe enough for me to take my children up in, has met the requirements of being considered a safe aircraft for the purpose of general aviation in Australia, then I see no reason to add on to that a further maintenance requirement that risks more people leaving general aviation.

All of us in this place who have anything to do with the bush spend some time in light aircraft. All of us in this place who have an interest in rural and regional affairs spend some time in light aircraft, because there is just no other way of getting around rural and regional Australia. My experience, talking to GA operators and GA pilots throughout Western Australia, is that that part of the industry feels under significant pressure from regulations such as these. Additional maintenance requirements are not something to just be shrugged off. Pilots take them seriously—they have to be taken seriously. So, additional maintenance requirements beyond the requirements for any planes in the general aviation sector did not seem to me to be warranted. However, as I've already stated, I agreed with large parts of the regulation.

As such, I did not support Senator Patrick's disallowance. It's a very blunt instrument, a disallowance. Unfortunately, it means you knock out everything. You literally throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is something where I do have a great deal of concern both for the Angel Flight pilots—the community flight pilots—and for that sector. Giving rural and regional Australians access to those services is very important, and I will continue to monitor this area very closely and look to see whether the regulations as promulgated have a negative impact on that sector.