David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present Report 164 Air Services—Kuwait, Air Services—Bahrainand Report 166 Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness-USA; Convention on Choice of Courts-accession; GATT Schedule of Concessions-amendment; Radio Regulations-partical revision.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report 164 and report 166 contain the committee's review of six treaty actions. Four of the treaties had been tabled in the 44th Parliament, and the inquiries lapsed when parliament was dissolved. These treaties were subsequently re-referred to the committee at the beginning of the 45th Parliament.

There are two air service agreements examined in report 164. The first is with Kuwait and follows the standard Australian model air service agreement and is expected to facilitate trade and tourism between the two countries.

The second is a protocol to amend the current air service agreement with Bahrain and provides for more liberal route rights and tariff provisions for both countries. The committee has recommended that both of these air service agreements be ratified.

The more substantive of the reports, however, is report 166, in which are the implementation procedures for airworthiness with the United States will enable Australian manufacturers to gain access to the United States aviation market—one of the largest in the world. This is an important area because our aviation sector has proven over many years to have quite innovative people working both in the design and in the manufacturing areas. Having agreements at a government-to-government level that provide these companies with access into other markets is really important for them to survive. Aviation is very important to many sectors of our community—not only the major airports, the commuters and the cargo but particularly our rural and regional areas. The aviation sector is a lifeline for them in so many areas.

One of our concerns is that, where our regulations do not immediately line up with those of other nations, people cannot export their products to other nations—whether that is conducting a service for others or whether that is, as in this case, manufacturing parts for aircraft. This is a measure that the parts-manufacturing industry has been calling for for some time. It has been broadly welcomed. During the Forsyth inquiry into aviation regulatory reform here in Australia, and during the committee process where we examined this particular treaty and looked at the cost implications for Australia, one of the points was looking at our own Civil Aviation Safety Authority and their capacity to deal with the engineering and design proposals put forward by Australian industry. I think it is important that, if we sign up to international agreements which potentially open a great export opportunity, whether we have interposed in that a role for the regulator, as opposed to outsourcing to a competent industry participant the ability to sign off on the design on behalf the regulator. I note that, in many cases, industry actually have more people with a greater range of experience than the regulator is able to attract and retain. We need to be careful that we do not create a choke point in the regulator such that, when people see a market and there is a mechanism by which they can access the market, their time to market is not impacted by a lack of capacity or, in some cases, a lack of competence within the regulator to deal with the approvals in a timely manner.

On the basis of the evidence we received, I was not convinced that that mechanism is necessarily yet in place. We had a range of opinions come from industry players, all of whom welcomed the treaty and welcomed the avenue being created for them to access the US market. But I think it is important we make sure that either the regulator looks at ways that it can work within the treaty framework to do what we have successfully done in the past—which is to empower an independent third party within industry have the sign-off, where there is both the competence and the capacity to do so—or the regulator is adequately resourced and their processes are appropriate. That is important so that our industry players, when they see an opportunity, can actually make the bid to win the contract and get to market in a time frame that enables them to win that work on a consistent basis.

This report also looked at a number of other amendments to, for example, Australia's schedule of concessions in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—GATT. That removes tariffs on a range of technology products and eliminates some agricultural export subsidies.

Finally, there is a partial revision of the radio regulations, which updates the international use of the radiofrequency spectrum, including the allocation of spectrum to radiocommunications services. These regulations ensure the rational, efficient and equitable use of spectrum. They will improve a wide range of areas, including:

Accepting these revisions will align Australia with the rest of the world in its regulation of the radiofrequency spectrum.

I will finish my contribution by putting on the record here that many people use our technology, whether it be mobile phones, radios or television—anything that streams data—and most do not actually appreciate that behind the scenes there is a huge demand for spectrum, and often commercial demands start putting real pressure on legitimate uses by things like aviation, defence, and science and technology, whether it be space or others. Part of the work that is done by parliaments and committees such as the treaties committees and others is the behind-the-scenes work that makes sure all of these vital functions continue to work in the best interests of the nation. And so, when people look at our parliamentary system, view things like question time and become despondent because they think it is all about politicians yelling at each other, I invite the Australian public to realise that 90 per cent of the time, behind the scenes, behind that stuff that gets picked up in the media, there is a lot of bipartisan, constructive work making sure that the regulatory system that supports all of the things that we take for granted in our day-to-day life is in place and is planned for and provided for appropriately so that our society can continue to enjoy them and our economy can continue to utilise them and grow. In the context of people's sometimes dissatisfaction with the parliamentary system, I encourage them to realise that this is an example. You will not see it in the headlines, but it is an example of the bulk of the work that occurs here in the parliament. It is productive, often on a bipartisan basis and in the best long-term interests of our nation. I commend both reports to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.