Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by 19 June 2007:

The adequacy of Australia’s aviation safety regime, with particular reference to the performance by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of its functions under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, including its oversight of Lessbrook trading as Transair.

Let me say at the outset that this is the second occasion on which I have sought to refer matters pertaining to the administration of aviation safety and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, particularly with reference also to the Lockhart River tragedy in May 2005, to this Senate committee. I am informed that once again the government has decided not to support this referral.

Labor has been advocating a full inquiry into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for quite some time. I am particularly disappointed because I was hopeful that the new minister had not yet been, as Sir Humphrey Appleby would have said, house trained by his officials. That appears to have been an error on my part. The minister clearly is fully in the control of his officials in this regard. We are seeing this new minister cowed by his new responsibilities and unwilling to stand up to the overbearing advice of CASA officials—a minister who joins a long line of mediocre ministers that John Howard has appointed to the very important portfolio of transport, a minister who clearly does not take his responsibility for safety of the Australian people seriously. He is in fact the leader of a party that claims to represent rural and regional Australians but, when asked to, turns his back on and betrays the families of those killed in the Lockhart River disaster.

The tragic events of 7 May last year when 15 people died in the Lockhart River air disaster are one of the reasons Labor has advocated this inquiry—one reason, but not the only reason. In September this year, Minister Truss announced a number of changes, including that of the governance arrangements for CASA. The minister said at the time:

In 2003 the Government abolished the Board of CASA to make it more directly accountable to the Minister for its performance. CASA’s governance arrangements have since been reviewed against the recommended directions of the Uhrig template for administrative agencies. As a result of that review the Government has decided to further improve CASA’s accountability and performance by making it subject to the Public Service Act 1999 and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. This legislative framework recognises that CASA is a government regulator and not a commercial business.

This announcement by the previous minister is confirmation that the government is also concerned about the accountability of CASA. In fact, the government has been concerned about the accountability of CASA since before 2003. If the minister does not believe that CASA is sufficiently accountable, how can the parliament and all the travelling public be convinced that nothing is wrong and that no inquiry is necessary? In March, when I moved for an inquiry into CASA, I said:

The simple fact is that many Australians have lost confidence in Australia’s aviation safety regime. In particular, they have lost confidence in CASA ...

I stand by this remark. If anything, the information that flowed from estimates last week has not only reinforced but strengthened that belief. My office has been contacted time after time with issues regarding CASA administration—issues as diverse as complaints about the charges levied against general aviation and the effect this is having on the industry; complaints regarding CASA staff and the manner in which they conduct themselves; the interactions with the industry; lack of public consultation for changes; and even similar concerns about the closed-door consultation favoured by CASA which excludes groups who have traditionally been consulted because they have expertise in the relevant areas. I have had calls about staff being overwhelmed by the volume of work following downsizing and even calls regarding the technical expertise of staff being pressed into service as branch offices around the country are being gutted. Then there is the anguish of the families of those killed at Lockhart and their search for answers in relation to what may have been a preventable accident. I have to say my office has not received the bulk of those calls, and I will leave it to Senator McLucas to describe them.

It is of great concern to me, and should be of concern to every senator, that many of the calls made to my office are anonymous as callers are genuinely concerned about revenge action that CASA may take against them which potentially could harass them to the point of driving aviation companies out of business. It is clear that only a full Senate inquiry will give these people both the opportunity and the protection needed against the management structure within CASA, which clearly does not have the confidence of many in the industry.

Notwithstanding the fact that these callers feel the need to remain anonymous, I believe the information my colleagues and I have received paints a picture of an organisation in turmoil, and consequently an organisation that is failing in its primary role—that is, oversight and maintenance of aviation safety in this country. Where possible, these issues have been raised either in the Senate chamber itself or at estimates hearings. However, constraints such as time and lack of opportunity to call relevant witnesses mean that this is the second-best option to a full and proper Senate inquiry, where witnesses can appear under the protection of parliamentary privilege and where the committee can determine whether to take evidence in camera so that those who are concerned about what might occur if they say things in public can nevertheless say them to the Senate committee in private.

I do find the government’s position not to support an inquiry particularly contemptible because senators from both sides have taken up issues about CASA which question the competence and even-handedness of the organisation. I have had complaints raised with me by senators who sit opposite who themselves have raised issues with a minister—I will not say ‘the minister’, because it was with the previous minister—ultimately with no outcome. As I said, these issues have questioned the even-handedness of CASA. It seems to me that the fact that senators on both sides of this chamber have become aware of these problems means that they are widespread. I think it reflects the frustration felt by members of the public that so many of the senators in this place have been approached about problems in this area.

In my opinion, many senators already suspect or know that CASA is an organisation that is not within the control of the minister. It is apparent that it is an organisation that takes a big stick to some operators and tragically, as it appears in the case of the Lockhart River disaster, regulates with a very light touch when it suits. I mentioned last week’s estimates hearings. Anybody who watched or listened to those hearings, or who has read the Hansard, would have been surprised that it took CASA so long to make the significant admission that the air operators certificate of Transair had been cancelled. In fact it took over 15 minutes of sustained questioning by senators to get to this fundamental point. This is an appalling example of an agency that at best is incompetent and at worst displays an attitude that borders on contempt for the parliament.

Another extraordinary admission from the head of CASA is that they are not going to do a safety case in relation to a significant change to the system of licensing of some commercial pilots. It is not only my opinion but also that of the parliament that safety is the No. 1 priority for CASA, and this is demonstrated in no less a document than the act under which CASA operates. At the very least, the conduct of a safety case in relation to changes in licensing arrangements should be mandatory. This is just another example of a complacent and arrogant organisation.

As I have said, there is an emerging pattern of incompetence within the organisation. Perhaps ‘emerging’ is not the correct term; I think it is out there for all to see. It is now on the public record that CASA knew in November 2001 that Transair, the airline whose aircraft was involved in the Lockhart River disaster, had—and I quote from the enforceable voluntary undertaking put in place by CASA in May this year—‘ongoing compliance and structural problems’. That is ongoing, not one-off, not here and there but ongoing. We know when problems were identified, and we even know that there were 14 separate safety breaches. What we do not know is why CASA did not act in November 2001, or in August 2004 when it audited again, or in February 2005 when it audited yet again. These audits all took place before the tragic events of May 2005. As I have already mentioned, only sustained Labor questioning forced CASA to reveal that it had secretly suspended Transair’s air operators certificate just the week before. The secrecy that CASA operates under is a major concern. A Senate inquiry would assist in lifting the rock that these unaccountable officials are cowering under and reveal the truth of what CASA knew and when they knew it, or what they did not know.

The Queensland coroner and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau will report on the accident; however, whether these reports will cover the apparent systemic failings of CASA prior to May 2005 is yet to be seen. A Senate inquiry could be set up and we could have answers to some of these questions in a matter of weeks—not months or years as will be the likely delay in those other proceedings. A Senate inquiry would provide the protection necessary to encourage those callers, who as I have said do not want to give their names, to come forward either to give evidence under parliamentary privilege in public or perhaps even to give evidence in camera in certain circumstances and as far as possible place on the public record their knowledge and concerns. It has come to my attention—in fact I have known for quite some time—that there are some pilots, for example, who were associated with Transair who would be prepared to appear before a Senate inquiry and detail what they told CASA about Transair well before the Lockhart River tragedy. But without the Senate inquiry it is doubtful that we will get that evidence.

I am told that the government’s view is that the committee would have placed before it, some time later this year or early next year, legislation regarding airspace reform and that a limited inquiry could be held then. I do not regard that as satisfactory. I do not regard an approach in which the committee would be limited by the boundaries of a proper inquiry into a bill which, as I understand it, would be about the transfer of the power to regulate airspace from Airservices Australia to CASA as a full inquiry into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. If that is all we get then perhaps it will be better than nothing, but it will not be much better.

With regard to the motion before the Senate, I know there are many senators here who, left to their own devices—and I mean those who sit on the other side of the chamber—would be voting for this motion and who believe it is time that there should be an inquiry into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. They believe it is time that we looked at some of the background into the Lockhart River tragedy and that it is time that we looked at the performance of CASA in Western Australia, where we have had adverse coronial comment about the role of the regulator in relation to deaths involving aviation.

It is time that we looked at the way that officers of CASA in Western Australia persecuted an operator from the northern part of that state. I will not name them now, but it is a matter that I have raised at estimates and it is a matter that has been raised with me and with the minister by one of the senators who sit opposite. It is about an operator that spent thousands and thousands of dollars to keep their aviation business afloat and their planes in the air against a persistent and hostile action by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, allegedly on the basis of safety but now with the operation having won its actions through the courts and flying only because the business had the resources to fight the legal fight for years.

Those are issues that ought to be before a Senate inquiry. They are issues which ought to be pursued not on the basis of political interest but on the basis of public interest. There is no doubt that aviation safety is a matter which can be pursued without regard for anything other than the public interest. I urge senators, particularly senators opposite, when they consider how they vote on this motion to consider their duty to their constituents. It is not good enough for us to close our eyes and let things continue to happen as they have. It is not good enough to allow the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to hide behind the protection of an inadequate scrutiny regime—the Senate estimates—which does not give us the time to properly pursue these matters nor the opportunity to call witnesses other than officers of the department or of the authority to test the evidence that we are given.

The only way in which we can properly test this matter, assist the public and do our duty in relation to aviation safety is to have the inquiry that I propose. This is the sort of action which has been supported by the government in the past when they did not have a majority in their own right here. One can only assume that the only thing that has changed is that now the minister has the power to call the shots and to say no, and the government are saying no because they can. It is time for this inquiry to happen. I urge senators to support the motion.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien has put up a case this afternoon for an inquiry into CASA. The government opposes that inquiry. Although I have listened carefully to Senator O’Brien’s argument, I remain here to defend the government’s position on air safety. It is the case that we have one of the safest aviation industries in the world. However, there is no room for complacency. All of us in this chamber who fly as frequently as we do know that we need to get on to an aircraft knowing that we are going to be safe. The statistics show that we have a very safe industry in this country, and there is no room for complacency. CASA know it and all of the travellers in Australia know it. They can take confidence in knowing that.

Under the Director of Aviation Safety and Bruce Byron, CASA’s Chief Executive Officer, CASA has actually increased its surveillance in air safety over the last couple of years. There are 1,401 active permission holders in general aviation, and 97 per cent of them have been subject to CASA surveillance in just the last 14 months. One of those 1,401 permission holders is Transair. Senator O’Brien spoke quite extensively about Transair today. The initial draft ATSB report into Transair’s Lockhart River crash does not suggest there was a mechanical problem that led to the accident. In fact, CASA’s decision to revoke Transair’s air operators certificate late last month was not in any way related to the accident at Lockhart River. It was as a result of a series of maintenance management issues that could not be resolved by Transair. The final ATSB report has not been released. It is due for release around December this year, and the coronial inquest into the 15 deaths must also occur before any final conclusions can be drawn.

This is, of course, extremely difficult for the families of those who died in that tragic crash. Coming from South Australia, I remember very clearly the Whyalla Airlines disaster, in which eight people died. I remember the difficulties that came after that, the length of time that it took for ATSB and CASA to resolve those issues and the length of time it took for the coroner to report. It was a stressful time for those families, and all of us who were in this place then remember it very well and sympathise with those families, as we do with the families of the Lockhart River crash victims.

The cause of the Lockhart River disaster has not been determined, and it would therefore be quite premature for the Senate to inquire into CASA and its systems in association with the accident. Senator O’Brien mentioned that he had been speaking with pilots. Pilots have also contacted people on this side of the chamber. The pilots that have contacted us have indicated that they will give evidence to a coronial inquiry, and at this stage there is no suggestion that that opportunity will not be accepted by the coroner. I, for one, will be watching closely to ensure that those people do have the opportunity to present the evidence that they have and for the coroner to take that into account very carefully when he is determining the cause of this accident. The final report is due in December or January. We questioned closely at estimates and discovered from CASA and the ATSB that the report is now in its final stages, and we expect that it will be completed if not in December then by January next year. However, the coroner’s inquiry is unlikely to commence before March 2007.

There is no suggestion at all in the three ATSB interim reports on the Lockhart River crash that the accident was due to any failure by CASA. In fact, the ATSB report states that the aircraft was operating normally at the time of the accident, with no defect or malfunction evident.

More broadly, the investigation has been given a high priority by the ATSB and it has included an analysis of management, organisational and human performance issues; standard operating procedures; flight crew training and checking; regulatory oversight of the operator’s activities, including approvals and surveillance undertaken; and the design and chart presentation of the instrument approach that was used. So far, the ATSB has issued three absolutely factual reports on the accident, the most recent of them at the end of August this year.

In the course of the investigation, the ATSB has made three safety recommendations to CASA and one to the department. CASA has completed action on one of those three recommendations and the ATSB is monitoring CASA’s actions on the other two. In relation to the fourth recommendation, drafting instructions for the suggested legislative change are currently with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. So it is not true to say that nothing has been done or that too little has been done. As I say, the ATSB expects to release its final report very soon, and then the coroner will begin his inquiry.

As Senator O’Brien knows, there have been numerous inquiries and reviews of CASA’s performance since it was formed in 1995 and none of them have found any serious deficiencies in aviation safety. The most recent of these was a Senate inquiry into regional aviation, which included an extensive examination of CASA’s interactions with industry and its approach to industry and safety regulation. Senator O’Brien, as he knows, was a member of that committee. The committee made some recommendations about CASA’s processes, but we were unable to identify any deficiencies that would impact on safety at the time. There have also been earlier reviews of CASA, including two by the Australian National Audit Office.

Australian air travellers have the right to feel safe in the sky, and CASA has the job of ensuring that standard of safety. They are the experts and they will determine whether safety action should be taken. Potential safety action might include a fine, the suspension of an AOC or the immediate grounding of aircraft. As well, CASA has the responsibility of drawing the line between safety and actually allowing flights to occur. Qantas, Virgin Blue, Rex and others need to be able to fly without unnecessary restrictions or red tape; regional centres like Dubbo, Coffs Harbour, Bundaberg and Bunbury need operators like Brindabella and Skywest to be able to continue operating without unnecessary compliance costs; and, importantly for all of us who take charter aircraft, small private operators deserve to be able to fly their planes without being grounded by unnecessary paperwork.

Politicians cannot draw that line between safety and allowing flights to occur. Only the safety regulator can draw that line. In order to meet these difficult challenges, CASA’s workforce is changing. It is hiring more quality people with relevant skill mixes to ensure aviation safety. The Director of Aviation Safety and his experts at CASA do not need another politically driven inquiry from the Labor Party. They need to be treated with the seriousness that they deserve as world-class air safety professionals. Let not any of us in this chamber hold ourselves up as better safety regulators than Australia’s CASA safety experts. The travelling public deserve no less.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion from Senator O’Brien to conduct an inquiry into the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in Australia. In doing so, I am speaking on behalf of the families of the 15 people who were tragically killed in May of last year in the accident known now as the Lockhart River disaster. Can I also say to Senator Ferris that I reject absolutely any allegation that this inquiry has a political motivation. The families of those people who were killed are desperate to understand what led to that disaster. It is part of the grieving process that an understanding of why an event occurred needs to be found in order to even start thinking of any sense of closure. I am actually quite annoyed, to the point of angered, that there would be a suggestion that an inquiry such as we are proposing would be a political inquiry, as she has suggested. It is an inquiry that is in the public interest, and it is in the interest of those 15 families.

Since the disaster in May 2005, a series of allegations about the operations of Transair and its sister company in Cairns have been made. Three separate former pilots of Transair came to us, and their allegations were aired in Senate estimates. They alleged serious mismanagement by this company and serious lack of maintenance of their aircraft prior to the disaster. These were serious allegations, and they were not allegations from an opposition operator; these were allegations from inside the company. We have had to take those allegations through the Senate estimates process to try to find out some answers on behalf of the families.

As I said, former pilots have made some serious allegations and other airline operators based in North Queensland have also made allegations. It has come down to using Senate estimates to try to get some understanding of whether or not these allegations have any basis in truth. Since the disaster last year, my colleagues and I have used every estimates to try to get CASA to explain what they knew and when they knew it about the operations of Transair. Basically, every time we have asked questions I have essentially been patted on the head and told that it is okay, that everything is fine. Our questions have been partially answered. I have to say that I believe CASA has been uncooperative and unhelpful in assisting to test the serious allegations that various people have made. In fact, in May of last year, Mr Gemmell from CASA was asked by a colleague of mine about another audit that had been conducted. The question was:

You did this safety audit on TransAir back in February-March. Media reports ... suggest that CASA gave TransAir a clean bill of health ...

Mr Gemmell said:

Clean bill of health stuff, I think I said last night ...

These are the sorts of answers that I have been receiving: ‘Everything is fine. Stop worrying about it, Senator McLucas. Everything is going on okay.’ But continually we are receiving more and more allegations of things that are not going right. So we turn up again at Senate estimates and continue to ask those questions.

We have had two ATSB interim factual reports, as I recall to this point. I do not think that they have given any comfort to the families about the operations of Transair and the operations of that flight that went from Bamaga to Lockhart River on that day. The first interim factual report indicated that the cockpit voice recorder was not functioning. So we do not have any information about the last minutes of that flight. We do not know what occurred. The report also indicated that there was no load sheet left at Bamaga, the port of departure. Further, this was normal practice from Transair. They did not bother leaving a load sheet so that someone could find out what the weight on the plane actually was.

The third thing that we found in that first interim factual report was that human factor management training, which was mandated in the operations manual, was not complied with by pilots that were flying that plane. That sounds like a technical item that was identified in that factual report, but the thing that troubles me about that is that every time I ask CASA why they did not ensure that the pilot and the copilot of that plane had undertaken human factor management training, even though it was mandated in the operations manual, they tell me that they do not worry about making sure that everything that is mandated in the operations manual is actually complied with. I have to say I get pretty offended when Mr Gemmell tells me that they do not follow up everything that is in the operations manual because they put things in the operations manual like ‘you have to wear a long-sleeved white shirt and epaulets’ and they could not be bothered following that up. He then equates human factor management training with a white shirt and epaulets. I have to say that the people that I talk to in Far North Queensland find that mighty offensive.

The second interim factual report was also pretty revealing. Basically, it confirmed that the regulatory oversight of Transair—that is, the operation of CASA—was still a matter under investigation. The ATSB itself was looking at the way that CASA was providing regulation over Transair.

Those two interim factual reports raised more questions than answers in the minds of the families and more questions in my mind, and they were questions that needed to be answered. So, as usual, I turned up at Senate estimates last round, having indicated in advance to CASA that I was going to ask some questions about the enforceable voluntary undertaking that had been signed between Transair and CASA on, I think, 5 May this year. When I started asking questions about the EVU at Senate estimates I was pretty annoyed when Mr Byron essentially said: ‘We have not got that detail with us here. We’ll take that on notice.’ That has been his tactic right from the beginning—not to have the material with him and to say: ‘That’s fine. We’ll take that on notice. That’s very complex, Senator.’ I actually found his behaviour towards me quite patronising and offensive, so I said, ‘No, you will answer these questions tonight.’

It was only after really pushing him that he finally said, almost as an aside, ‘Oh, by the way, you probably need to know that we’ve withdrawn Transair’s air operating certificate.’ This is the company that operated the flight that killed 15 people in Far North Queensland—‘Oh, by the way, Senator, we’ve just taken away their AOC, something that might be of interest to you.’ I then had to extract from them bit by bit what the enforceable voluntary undertaking actually enumerated.

The act requires CASA, when it has made an undertaking with a company, to place ‘details’ of an EVU on its website. The ‘details’ of the EVU run to about 15 lines and give people no information of what that EVU entails. As Senator O’Brien has said, the EVU is alarming. The EVU points to an ongoing failing by CASA to maintain, in my view, any regulation of Transair since 2001. The third point of the EVU states:

The company was the subject of CASA audits in November 2001, August 2004, February 2005 and February 2006, which disclosed to CASA auditors that it had ongoing compliance and structural problems.

This is not something that happened after the accident; this has been ongoing since 2001. How do you think the families of those 15 people feel when they read that and know that CASA placed on its website not that document but a paltry—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Summary.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Senator O’Brien, but you cannot call it a summary. It is not a summary. It is misleading. Reading that document, you would think we are off and running and tidying up what perhaps is a little bit of a problem. I have asked Mr Byron to see whether he thinks CASA has complied with the act by putting these 15 lines up on its website, after finding out that the EVU enumerates there have been ongoing problems for over five years.

Since further publicity of that event has occurred, a further two allegations of improper activity by Transair have been made to me. One has been made anonymously and the other has been made by someone who does not want his name used. I can take those questions to the February estimates and ask them again in an attempt to get some answers out of Mr Gemmell and Mr Byron and then get another round of emails from the families involved and from people who read that transcript. They will say, ‘You poor thing, Jan’—that is what they say to me—‘he will not answer your questions.’ That consistently has been the situation and it is the situation we are in now. We have a group of people who are extremely frustrated. They see an organisation that is intentionally not answering questions and is telling us that Transair has a clean bill of health, when at the same time there are audits of this organisation that show ongoing structural and compliance problems.

It is no wonder that these people have no trust or faith in the system that regulates air safety in this country. It is no wonder that they also are calling on the government to agree to undertake the inquiry that Senator O’Brien’s motion today again calls for. They were furious when the government did not support such a reference earlier this year. If any government senator does not do the right thing and cross the floor today, again they will be furious—and for good reason.

The grief process requires information that will assist people to understand what has happened to the person they love, and this government is ensuring that they cannot access such information. We do not know why that plane went down, but we do know now that CASA knew more in the period leading up to it going down than it has told us. The fact that the government will not allow this inquiry to proceed adds to the frustration of these people and their feeling that their grief is not being accommodated.

The allegations that have been made to me in the last few days go to the training and qualifications of pilots who have flown Transair planes over time. My correspondence states:

CASA is an organisation that accepts no blame for any of their failings—for example, the Seaview Air disaster and the Monarch Airlines fiasco, which are on record in the CASA files. For CASA to put the finger on Transair for the Lockhart crash would be an admission of their own failure to step in prior to the crash. This crash would never have occurred if CASA were conducting a proper surveillance of this operator with respect to crew training standards, which was the cause of the disaster.

I have considerable respect for the person who made this allegation, and that is his view, but it is a view that needs to be tested. I cannot evaluate that allegation. The coroner might do some work to evaluate that allegation but not necessarily, because it goes to the operations of the regulator, CASA. It is my view that the only way we can test this sort of allegation is to conduct a proper Senate inquiry.

The second set of allegations that have been made to me this week go to the cooperation—or, in fact, lack of cooperation—between CASA and ATSB. It concerns me—and this is not the first time I have heard this allegation—that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, in conducting its inquiry into the disaster, has not had full cooperation from CASA. But I cannot test this until we get to next February’s estimates, when I will ask Mr Gemmell again whether he has been helpful and cooperative with the ATSB, and he will assure me, I am sure, that he is doing everything he can. How do I test that? Then I have to turn up to the ATSB.

This requires a proper inquiry so we can get to the bottom of who is covering up what, or in fact if they are. Certainly, there are a lot of people in North Queensland who think that they are doing just that. Earlier this year, when we moved this reference, no-one from the government spoke; no-one took the opportunity to defend the fact that they were not going to support an inquiry that would have allowed these families some closure. But after that Senator Ian Macdonald came into the chamber and so did Senator Joyce.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where are they now?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct, Senator O’Brien: they are not here. But let me remind the chamber of what they said then. Senator Macdonald said:

I do not think we need the inquiry, but perhaps if they—

referring to matters that have been raised by me—

are not properly addressed in the future this is something that could well be considered.

I say to Senator Macdonald: now is the time. Now is the time that we need to consider what we should do. These matters have not been properly addressed, and the conduct of this inquiry is something that could well be considered. I invite him to stand up for the people of North Queensland and to come and sit with us when the vote is taken. Senator Joyce said:

Currently there is no evidence of a failure of the aviation safety regime, despite claims by some, and there is no clear public interest justification at this stage for an inquiry.

I did not agree with him then, but I certainly do not agree with him now. I believe that there is evidence of failure of the aviation safety regime. That is proved by the EVU and the fact that CASA has known since November 2001 that we have had a problem with this airline. There is a failing in the regulation of air safety now, and I also invite Senator Joyce to sit with us, to vote up this inquiry.

I think the final word in this discussion should go to Mr Shane Urquhart. Mr Urquhart’s daughter, Constable Sally Urquhart, was killed in the disaster, and I quote from last week’s Torres News:

Our main question is: now that the shonky, arrogant and shadowy operations of CASA have been exposed, will the federal government show some accountability to the people of Australia and invoke a Senate inquiry into CASA posthaste? We think that only then will the full story of this whole stinking episode in Australian aviation history be revealed.

I urge government senators to support this reference. It is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do by the 15 families who lost a family member. It is the right thing to do by general aviation more broadly. And it is the right thing to do to restore some of the travelling public’s confidence in our aviation safety. (Time expired)

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not in any way seek to suggest I have followed this issue as closely as the two opposition speakers certainly have, but I have endeavoured to at least keep an eye on the issue in amongst everything else. And certainly as a senator for Queensland I am very much aware that the tragedy of Lockhart River is still being very much felt today by many people who are affected by it.

Of course, tragedies happen in all sorts of circumstances and in all situations in life, but that is no reason to compound them—to compound the tragedy, to compound the hurt and drag it out—by the inadequate sort of response that we have had in relation to this issue and that circumstance in the more than a year since. And I know Senator McLucas, who is from the far north of Queensland, would be able to give—as she has just done—a much stronger and more direct indication of just how much of an effect this continues to have on those people. Senator O’Brien went more widely, and this is not solely about Lockhart River—there is a range of other issues here. I think he put a very strong case for why there are sufficient grounds for a comprehensive Senate committee inquiry.

Let us just remember that it is actually not that long ago—it might feel like it, but it is not that long ago—since the government did not control this place; it is less than 18 months. And in all of the period prior to that, for 23 years prior to that, we did have a continual recognition in this place that, when there was a solid case built for a Senate inquiry for proper examination of the issues—not the sort of revisiting it briefly every three or four months, in the way that is required through Senate estimates, as Senator McLucas has described, but actually having a good, thorough, solid look at the evidence—99 times out of 100 the Senate would agree.

The case has been made. It is a valid issue, and we should examine it. We should have an opportunity for the public to raise some of those issues, for some of the facts that have come forward and some of the extra information that people are prepared to put into the public arena to be able to be properly examined in a consistent way. That is really one of the tragedies that has happened since the government got control of the Senate—that anything that a minister decides he or she does not want to happen just does not happen. Frankly, that is a tragedy in terms of this totally supportable, totally valid proposal from Senator O’Brien, which we all know many on the government benches recognise and would and should support.

Over the last couple of days we all had what is called a conscience vote. I do not suggest that we just have a free vote on every single issue, including committee references and procedural matters, but we really need to have much greater scope and recognition, particularly in the Senate—it is not the house of government; it does not determine who is in government or whether votes pass or fail—for coming to a decision based on the merits of the case.

With respect to missed opportunity—and this is a missed opportunity for the public—this is not just a missed opportunity whereby the Senate can say, ‘Hooray, we have a Senate inquiry,’ or Senator O’Brien can put out a press release and get some recognition for the work he has done. All of that is totally valid, but that is not the missed opportunity. The missed opportunity is to properly examine the issue, which we all know is a very important and substantive issue and that valid concerns have been raised.

I do not profess to put forward a position or express an opinion about some of those concerns. I have not followed the issues closely enough, but that is part of the point with Senate inquiries—that senators who have not followed the issues thoroughly, who have only a passing acquaintance with the issues, get the opportunity to see all the information together in one place, see public submissions and get a better understanding of issues that they need to know about. If we as a house of review are going to be serious, as we used to be for 23 years, then those are the sorts of things that we have to do.

I would urge, whether on this vote or future votes, as people are reflecting over the Christmas break, that government senators give more thought to exercising their independence in these sorts of matters, thereby enabling valid Senate inquiries to be established. It does not mean you have to support everything. The Democrats do not support every proposal that is put forward. There has to be a valid case made. We know the statistics of the massive increase in the number of inquiries and the proposals for inquiries that are being knocked back purely on the say-so of government senators and, in most cases, their actions are purely on the say-so of the relevant minister. So we have one minister in the ministerial wing of this parliament making decisions as to what the Senate does and does not do. That is not satisfactory. It has happened time and time again. The percentage of proposals for inquiries that have been knocked back has increased dramatically—monumentally—since the government gained control of the Senate.

I could name—I will not go through it all now—a number of cases where, collectively, every single member of the Senate committee, including government members, has agreed: ‘This is a good topic for inquiry; these are good terms of reference. We all agree the committee should do this.’ It goes back to the government party room and the minister says no. The coalition members of that committee are put in the impossible—or awkward, anyway—position of then having to vote against an action that they fully accepted just days before in the meeting of the relevant Senate committee.

That is a perversion of the process—and let me emphasise, again, that it is a lost opportunity. Inquiries are about providing opportunities for public concerns to be heard and for valid areas of concern to be examined. At least on this occasion, unlike the last occasion, we had a government senator come in here and put a case. I suppose that is a tiny increase in respect being shown for the Senate, the process and the people who have concerns about this issue, so I would, at least, welcome that. With all due respect to the relevant speaker, I do not think it was a terribly compelling case. Unlike the major parties, the Democrats do have a bit more flexibility to make up our minds on how we vote, based on the case that is put. As I said quite openly before, this is not an area I have huge expertise in. I am quite willing to hear the case for and against. It was not a very compelling case and, by contrast, I think the contributions of Senator O’Brien and Senator McLucas put the case very well.

This is not some politically motivated point-scoring exercise. Most people in the general community will not be changing their vote on the basis of the minutia of how CASA does its job. It is not that sort of inquiry that is being put forward. It is a legitimate policy inquiry, it is a legitimate area of public interest and it is a legitimate area of public administration, where legitimate concerns have been raised and where existing accountability mechanisms, such as the estimates process, have been found to be wanting. I think Senator McLucas detailed that quite well. It is not one of those situations where there is one problem, one incident, and people say, ‘Let’s have a Senate inquiry.’ Some people like to do that a lot. It is a good way to get a quick headline. Something happens and someone is concerned: ‘Just put out a media release, saying, “We’re going to call for a Senate inquiry. We won’t bother to tell anybody and the committee won’t bother to make a case. We’ll just put out the media release.”’ This is not one of those situations. Senator O’Brien and Senator McLucas, as we all know, have been fighting on this issue for a long time. They have pursued the mechanisms that are available to them, including the estimates process, which they have found to be inadequate for the task and the importance of the issue. Whether that is because of the attitude of CASA or whether that sort of piecemeal approach is just not sufficient, I will not pass judgement.

Again, I repeat, a case has been made. To conclude, specifically in my own position as a senator for Queensland, I know the ongoing frustration, anger and pain resulting from the Lockhart River tragedy and the way the matter has been handled and mishandled since then. Sadly, some of that is often due to people feeling as though they are not getting the facts—not getting a straight story. While Senate committee inquiries are not perfect, they do at least provide some mechanism—a greater opportunity, a greater prospect—for more of the facts to get out into the open. People can get an idea of what the story is, and at least there can be some greater recognition and acknowledgement shown towards their very valid concerns. I hope that on this occasion we do get an opportunity to enable the Senate committee process to perform that valuable task.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This tragedy is something that affected all of us in North Queensland. It is a tragedy, and anything anyone can do to make sure that it is not at some time in the future repeated is something we should all accept and strive for. I fly a lot in North Queensland in this particular area. It is incidents like this that make one wonder if one’s commitment to serving outlying areas is worth the effort if there is not a possibility of flying safely in the remoter parts of Queensland.

Unfortunately I have been busy today and have not been able to hear the full debate so I am unaware really of what has been said apart from what was said by the previous speaker. I have also been approached by the father of the policewoman who was killed in the accident, although I have not as yet had the opportunity to speak with him. Suffice to say that it is an area that concerns me and concerns most people in North Queensland, who are more intimately aware of the incident and the problems that may have occurred—certainly they are more intimately aware of the results of the accident. I understand that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the ATSB, has already inquired into the incident a couple of times and that a further report is coming in the very near future. I suspect that this attempt by Senator O’Brien—well-meaning though it perhaps may be—is again a little premature. I think the Senate would be well advised to leave this particular inquiry at this stage and see what the further report of the ATSB does elucidate.

Some people have made the comment that, since the government got a majority in the Senate, the Senate is just a rubber stamp. That is quite clearly not true. I think it needs to be emphasised that government members in the Senate discharge their duties appropriately and accept that they have a greater obligation, now that the government does have a majority in the Senate, to more carefully peruse government legislation and decisions. I think that has been demonstrated fairly clearly in relation to the migration debate earlier on and in relation to the communications package in the previous month. There is also an ongoing inquiry into the amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. I think all of that demonstrates that government senators participate in the process perhaps, I might say, more seriously than opposition senators. Opposition senators very often—I am not saying it is the case in this particular instance—enter into an issue to try to score political points and to try to oppose for opposition’s sake and not always with the approach of trying to do what we are really charged with doing in this Senate.

I have a view that government senators have a greater responsibility now that we do have a majority. As I say, I think you will find that the evidence in the last six months or so clearly demonstrates that government senators are accepting that responsibility and discharging it appropriately. Those who might have suggested that our opposition to this motion is another whitewash because the minister picked up the phone should not be under that misapprehension any more than the minister might be under that misapprehension—because there are many of us in this Senate who do intend to do what is right in the interests of the government, and that means in the interests of what is right for Australia.

Our government is a government that has shown that its real commitment is to Australia and what is in Australia’s best interest, but it does not always get that right. Sometimes issues are so complex that ministers themselves cannot be intimately aware of all the details. The public servants who advise ministers do so very ably, very honestly, very fairly and very competently, but they are not the source of all wisdom either. I think senators—from their wide experience in meeting with the people out there, understanding what is happening out there and having wide discussions with people out there—at times can contribute to the debate in a way that public servants living in this city, no matter how competent, honest and able they are, cannot quite appreciate. That is why I think that there are many issues where the Senate can add value to the process for the purposes of adding value to the process—not for the purposes of scoring a political point and not for the purposes of opposing for opposition’s sake but for the purposes of ensuring that government decisions and government legislation enhance the government’s goals and outlooks and get a better result for what the government is trying to achieve.

I will not be supporting this particular motion today, notwithstanding the fact that I understand the sentiments of it are genuine and perhaps appropriate. I think we are a tad early in setting up a completely new inquiry into this. I understand that the government is concerned about this, as are many members of parliament, particularly those of us who come from North Queensland, where the accident had greater impact. It is not an issue that is going to go away quickly; it is an issue that we will try to get to the bottom of. But I do not think we should be doing anything that interferes with the processes that are in place at this time to get to that result. So I am hopeful, if not confident, that the processes will get to the bottom of the issue and will make the appropriate recommendations so that these sorts of tragedies do not occur in the future. I can assure senators that there are many of us on this side of the Senate who are keeping a very close eye on this, and we will ensure that the appropriate inquiries are made and acted upon as time progresses. I just think this inquiry is a fraction too early.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some sympathy for Senator Ferris, who clearly was given a brief to put the government’s position on this legislation. One would have to say it was delivered without any apparent enthusiasm—and we know how vigorously Senator Ferris pursues cases that she feels strongly about. I will not say anything more about Senator Ferris because I do not regard the comments she made to be her own; in fact, I believe the views she has put are those of the minister and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority—and that was nothing more and nothing less than her obligation.

For those who might be looking at this debate and wondering what sort of minefield a Senate inquiry would pose for the government, we need to emphasise that we are talking about referring this matter to a committee with a government chair and, therefore, a government majority—a committee whose proceedings are within the control of members of the government. The minister, of course, will not sit on the committee, so to that extent the minister would not control what happened—other than the influence that might be brought to bear on members of the committee, however appropriate or inappropriate, proper or improper that might be.

We are talking about referring a matter to a committee that is in the control of the government. I think all committees are in the control of the government at the moment, but this committee is in the control of the government and chaired by a member of the government. We are talking about referring a matter to a committee which, in its previous forms, had a history of unanimous findings—that is, findings which were not political but, rather, based upon fact. In my experience it has had an extensive history of this. We are talking about a committee that has not had a history of partisan performance—on either side, I suppose.

We are talking about a committee that has a history of trying to get to the bottom of things. It has looked at search and rescue, the administration of the Civil Aviation Act and aviation operators in regional Australia. Frankly, it is a committee which has been responsible for changes in CASA in the past. The ARCAS inquiry saw a very responsible officer of CASA cease to be such and depart from the organisation after the exposure the inquiry gave to the ‘performance’ of that officer. Certainly, in my opinion, the inquiry exposed the very light-handed approach to regulating an operator that had serious problems.

We are talking about a proposal which would allow a Senate committee to look at not just the Lockhart River tragedy—a significant subject in itself—but also other matters pertaining to the performance of the Civil Aviation Authority. The committee would take evidence from members of the community who do not get the right to appear at Senate estimates, who cannot stand up in this chamber and put their point of view and who in some cases are worried that standing up and putting their point of view anywhere might attract the wrath of officials of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, to the detriment of their businesses.

Some members opposite know very well what I am talking about, because they have raised those very matters with me. Some members opposite know very well that it is time for an inquiry into CASA, because privately they have said they believe that is the case. Frankly, I am not expecting that they will all stand up and vote with the opposition on this issue today. Obviously, some believe that, whatever their personal views, they are obliged to carry out the will of the minister. And that is what they will be doing because, in this case, the minister will be calling the tune. There will be senators who will vote the way it has been determined their party will vote on this issue. That might not be the case for everyone. We will wait and see. At least one senator has expressed a slightly different view to me, but we will see what happens.

I want to deal with Senator Macdonald’s contribution. I think he said as much as he could, but he said he thought this was a genuine attempt for an inquiry. Thank you very much. It certainly is—and so was the last one. His other comment was that it is perhaps appropriate. Thanks again. It is good that there are concessions from the other side and that Senator Macdonald is leaning to the view that the inquiry ought to be supported. But he also said we are waiting on another ATSB report. The ATSB report will be a continuation of the inquiry into what happened in relation to a particular crash.

I do not believe that the ATSB is as well placed, in some regards, as a Senate inquiry to prosecute the case of the performance of the regulator, because the regulator has a right to accept or reject their recommendations. The regulator has input into those recommendations and, in my experience, where there is a disagreement about those regulations, matters can be delayed and, in relation to the implementation of recommendations, it can be a determination of CASA that they not be implemented. So I do not know that the ATSB is in a position to completely deal with the issues in relation to the Lockhart River crash—if that were the only aspect of CASA’s performance into which this resolution would allow the committee to inquire.

I am sure Western Australian senators would have heard of an operation called Polar Aviation—which, funnily enough, operates in the north-west of Western Australia, so it is a peculiar name, but they are entitled to have it. That operation has been fighting for its existence before the AAT and the Federal Court. Recently, CASA withdrew all actions against it. That has been painted by CASA as having been resolved at every point. But I am certain that if this inquiry took place there would be people from that operation who would completely contradict CASA’s view of what took place and what the outcome was.

When we go to estimates, the picture of Polar Aviation and the outcome there is painted in a way which seems to reflect positively on CASA, and I expect no different. It is only through the opposition’s pursuit of CASA at estimates that some of these matters have come to light and that we have elicited answers which can be tested over time. But that is not the be-all and end-all.

As Senator Macdonald said, if senators in this place are performing their duties they will regularly travel this country. Most of us will travel regional Australia and remote Australia in all sorts of aircraft, large and small. So I plead guilty to the fact that I have a vested interest in the regulator acting properly. But I also say that, in doing so, I am acting in the interests of the people who put me in this place, as would every other senator if they supported this inquiry. I will be saying to my constituents that I have stood up and said, ‘The regulator who is supposed to make things safe for you when you fly ought to be properly examined by the Senate committee.’ I do not think anything should be put in the way of that happening.

In the Senate estimates process, we have fewer estimates rounds and the rounds have been shortened, so there is actually less time to apply ourselves to the performance of different authorities and different sections of departments. So it is even harder now to use that process—and it was not possible before—to properly scrutinise authorities like the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, with all the detail involved and the delay between giving evidence and answering questions on notice, and getting obscure answers that subsequently have to be clarified at the next round of estimates. It all takes too long.

The only way to properly deal with this matter and get to the bottom of the issues that are being raised is: to conduct a hearing in which CASA gives evidence and has its view tested by others and in which others give evidence and have their views tested by CASA; to call witnesses back again, as these committee inquiries do; and ultimately to review the Hansard and come out with a finding based on the facts. That is the opportunity that this motion is giving senators in this place. The choice is, frankly, to take the easy way out and say: ‘Someone else can do this. It is too hard now; maybe it is premature.’ That is the choice that perhaps some, maybe all, on the other side will take. But we are not going to take that choice.

I am absolutely disgusted that this minister has chosen to accept the recommendation from a Civil Aviation Safety Authority that, in my view, is extremely worried about the possibility of an inquiry. I am extremely critical of this minister. I think it is a gutless act not to allow this inquiry to take place before a committee chaired by Senator Heffernan on which the government has a majority and not to look into this matter and come out with a finding which, in all likelihood—as with most of the inquiries before this committee—would be unanimous and based on the facts.

We will see what the vote is. But the opposition is not going to go away on this. If we lose this vote we will be seeking whatever opportunity we can to expose this matter. As I said in my original contribution, there are suggestions that some inquiry into a bill will give us an opportunity to look into this matter. And we might chip away at some of the issues, but that will not be anywhere near as adequate an opportunity as the one which would be provided by this inquiry. If senators opposite are using that as an excuse to justify voting against this motion then I am afraid it is a weak and shabby excuse. I urge them to vote for this proposition.

Question put:

That the motion (That the motion (Senator O’Brien’s) be agreed to.) be agreed to.