Mr MARTIN FERGUSON  (Batman) (6.38 p.m.) —Obviously things have moved more quickly than we thought with the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000. I rise to speak in relation to the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, a bill which has not moved as quickly as we originally thought it would. The bill contains a number of disparate amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959. I am sure you have a complete understanding of all the details of these bills, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The bill has been around for almost 12 months. After being initially portrayed as a non-contentious or non-controversial bill, it became obvious that the bill had serious flaws and required further consideration by the government. From the point of view of the Labor opposition, I am pleased to see that some changes have been made through government amendments which will be dealt with later and which overcome some of our original concerns with the bill. These government amendments attempt to address the problems with the bill that the opposition identified and communicated to the office of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services after it was first introduced.

Although the amendments go a long way to addressing the problems that we previously raised, they are insufficient to allay our concerns about the bill. It is our contention that the bill should not be proceeded with until the minister satisfies a number of conditions. They are set out in an amendment to the motion for the second reading that I will move at the conclusion of my contribution this evening. I also point out that, given the composition of the House of Representatives, there is an expectation that the government will proceed with the bill. For that reason, I am pleased to note that the Senate has referred the bill to the relevant Senate legislation committee to provide the scrutiny which I believe is needed with respect to potential flaws or weaknesses in the final implementation of the bill.

For those reasons, the opposition will be endeavouring to ensure that the Senate processes give this bill a rigorous analysis to clearly extract its implications and intent. I also believe that it is not only the responsibility of senators to give the bill full and proper consideration with respect to its potential weaknesses but that, in the lead-up to the Senate consideration of those matters, those who will have to operate under the terms and conditions of the bill should draw any concerns they have with respect to the potential application of the bill to senators who serve on the Senate legislation committee so as to ensure that the Senate guarantees that, in considering the implications of the bill, it fully takes into consideration potential difficulties that those in the industry who will have to operate under the bill are aware of.

There are parts of the bill, to be fair, that are not contentious to the opposition. But, as it stands, we can only argue that it not be proceeded with and urge the government to bring it back to the House with our concerns remedied. If this does not occur—and the opportunity is there for the minister to take on board such a suggestion—we will have to rely on the Senate, and especially the Senate legislation committee, with further debate in the chamber, to deal with the other issues that I will raise during my contribution this evening.

As to the bill, there are two schedules. Schedule 1 deals with a range of amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988. Schedule 2 amends the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959. There are three categories of change put forward by schedule 1. The first introduces new terminology consistent with that used by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and national airworthiness authorities. It also harmonises some offences with current criminal drafting policy. The second category of change to the Civil Aviation Act empowers CASA to enter into article 83 disagreements with other national airworthiness authorities, which is exceptionally important. The third set of changes in schedule 1 gives CASA the power to accept voluntary enforceable undertakings as another regulatory and compliance tool. That is not without its challenges.

The need for new terminology in the Civil Aviation Act arises from a policy to follow ICAO recommendations regarding global harmonisation of national rules. In practice, this means modifying terminology and rules that are specific to Australia. I clearly say that the opposition has no beef with this direction—provided, of course, the case has been fully and properly made that there are no peculiar circumstances that justify something different for Australia. I think we all understand more than ever that the aviation industry is a global industry and always has been but, more than ever, we are moving towards a smaller number of major international operators and also a requirement that we actually have regard to what is happening internationally in the aviation industry on a range of fronts. We must therefore be cognisant of that to facilitate the growth and development of that industry. We must also seek to protect our national interests whilst having regard to the interests of the industry internationally.

Therefore, the opposition believes it makes sense, wherever the case is made and wherever the national interest is protected, to harmonise the provisions and regulations. This bill achieves some international harmonisation by introducing new, consistent definitions for the aviation terms `aeronautical product', `maintenance' and `servicing', for example. I note in passing that the new definitions proposed for this bill are not consistent with those that were recommended by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in their summary of responses. This summary was prepared by CASA after consultation with the aviation industry. For example, the definition of maintenance was recommended to specifically exclude `servicing'. That was accepted by the CASA review team but not reflected in the legislation. I think it is only appropriate that the minister should provide some clarification on this point. It could have changed for technical, drafting reasons. Not only the opposition but also the aviation industry are entitled to be assured of the reasons for the change and that all is above board and with proper justification.

Turning to the first part of the bill, I indicate that it harmonises some offences with the current Commonwealth criminal drafting policy. It should be pointed out that the bill amends some offences, but not others. The other offence provisions of the act must be harmonised before chapter 2 of the Criminal Code commences on 15 December this year. There is no explanation as to why all offences were not harmonised. While this, to be fair, is not absolutely necessary, it would be preferable for completeness and clarity. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on this at the conclusion of the debate.

Further, on definitions, the bill also introduces to the act the concept of `aircraft maintenance control' as opposed to `aircraft maintenance' as such. This change is obviously intended to broaden the regulatory scope to enable CASA to regulate aircraft maintenance where the actual aircraft maintenance is not performed in Australia. The bill also empowers CASA to enter article 83bis agreements on behalf of Australia. I note the advice that this new power for CASA is consistent with ICAO's opinion that such agreements should be made between aeronautical authorities of the relevant countries because they are instruments that are not of treaty status.

Whilst this may be the case, the importance of these agreements—and the industry knows how important such agreements are—should not be downplayed. I therefore have some concerns that there are no criteria or restrictions on CASA's discretion to enter these arrangements with other countries. The only apparent, and very loose, control and the only broad protection on this power is that these agreements can only be entered into by parties to the Chicago convention. Those countries are, in turn, therefore subject to international standards.

I note from the minister's second reading speech that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and his department will be developing regulations to cover the administrative and technical operation of this provision, in consultation with the industry. I simply say to the minister this evening that it would have assisted the opposition, in our consideration of this bill, had he indicated what types of provisions he foreshadows in those regulations—for completeness and full and proper consideration of the intent of the bill.

I appreciate the difficulties that arise from the current situation—that is, where a country has responsibility for the regulation on its register in one country when that aircraft is operating in another. The power to enter these article 83bis agreements and thereby swap and share this responsibility provides a logical situation. Australia agreed to article 83 and then adopted them through legislation when Labor was in government. It is now being given to CASA to administer. The power will assist industry with their international operations and facilitate the ability to use aircraft in other countries during times when they are under-utilised in Australia—for example, during the northern Australia wet season.

However, I issue a word of caution. This power should not be unfettered, nor should there be an unfettered power to CASA. We must ensure that these agreements are not entered into lightly and that it does not result in lower standards of maintenance. We therefore must be well satisfied that countries given responsibility for Australian aircraft have impeccable standards like those expected here domestically. We do not want to occur in the aviation industry what has occurred in the shipping industry in Australia where ships are not properly maintained and actually endanger our own national interests. I issue a word of caution to the minister, based on the minister's current performance in one area of his responsibility—the shipping industry. Let us not see the same sloppiness and lack of attention to detail now extended to the aviation industry. The opposition will, therefore, be monitoring the development of those regulations and actively pursuing questions about the limits of this new power for CASA. Other than this proviso, this is not a contentious provision.

There are a number of amendments to section 20AA of the act through this bill which have now been substantially modified through government amendments now before the House. The changes caused a significant amount of confusion and were not addressed in the second reading speech or in the explanatory memorandum. While the government has corrected what was admitted as an error in the drafting instructions, I contend that not all matters have been properly resolved by the new amendments.

I now turn to some other issues of concern to the opposition. In the supplementary explanatory memorandum, the minister has clarified that his amendments will clarify the operation of section 20AA. The change confirms that regulatory action may be taken to cancel, suspend or vary an air operator's certificate as a result of a breach of subsections (3) or (4) only if that breach occurred `knowingly or recklessly'—that is, that a mental element existed to that breach. The provisions of subsections (3) and (4) would be serious breaches. They in fact go to operating an aircraft without the appropriate airworthiness certificates and approvals or with outstanding maintenance work.

In the original bill, the changes were open to various interpretations not adequately covered in the explanatory memorandum. While the interpretation has been clarified in brief in the supplementary explanatory memorandum, I do not believe it answers all the questions. For example, what is absent from the explanation, from the second reading speech and from any information available on this bill is that, if an act of, for example, flying an aircraft without a maintenance release occurs in an unknowing or unreckless manner—if you like, in an inadvertent way—and this is discovered by the regulator either through surveillance or through an accident investigation, it is now confirmed that this is not a breach that can result in any regulatory action to suspend, vary or cancel the certificate for that breach; that is, while it is a noncompliance with a critical part of the act, it is not a breach of that act. Obviously, this raises the issue of what courses of action are open to the regulator. Regardless of the clarified legal interpretation, I believe the Australian travelling public want to know the implications and recourse available. It is a bit like ignorance of the law being a defence for breaking it. This does not sit well with us on this side, as we all understand, and therefore I am asking the minister to come forward with some more information and clarification concerning these matters.

One interpretation of the act, the literal one, has a concerning effect. That effect is that, if there is no valid certificate of airworthiness or an outstanding maintenance requirement but the operator or pilot does not know and is not reckless as to these matters, it would be lawful to fly the aircraft. A situation could arise, for example, where an operator or a pilot takes appropriate steps to confirm approval of the aircraft and is informed wrongly that it is approved to fly. Although the operator or pilot has not been reckless, the aircraft is in fact not approved—a serious issue. The amendment would mean that the aircraft has legal permission to fly, as the prohibition is dependent on the mental state of the operator or pilot. That is also why our second reading amendment calls for some more clarity from the minister on what these reforms are about. As I have already indicated this evening, this bill has been referred to a Senate legislation committee, and I believe this is a key issue to be pursued in that forum. If we think it is necessary after those investigations and, hopefully, some more information, we may consider some amendments in the Senate.

This brings me to another very contentious part of this bill, which is the introduction to CASA of a further regulatory tool, that of voluntary enforceable undertakings. This power may have worked well in other agencies, but the opposition firmly believes that this authority, CASA, is not ready for the extra power and has more than ever proven that in more recent times. These undertakings can be entered as an alternative to prosecution and may avoid excessive and expensive litigation. A strong criticism of CASA from parts of the industry is how it seems to use a large bucket of Commonwealth coffers, taxpayers' money, to outpay solicitors and silks and therefore outplay small operators—hardly the way to run aviation policy in Australia if you are concerned about safety.

But what are voluntary enforceable undertakings? I suggest to the House that they are actually a very powerful tool. They must be completely voluntary, they can be withdrawn or varied only with CASA's consent and they are enforceable through the court. That is fairly powerful, to my way of thinking. As I said before, this regulatory tool has been effective in, for example, the trade practices area. The opposition does not have any in-principle problem with voluntary enforceable undertakings, but we do have a major problem with CASA's performance in recent times and CASA being given the power at this stage. To our way of thinking, we do not consider that they have actually earned the respect and therefore a capacity to actually accept responsibility for these additional actions at this point in time. I say that because the Australian travelling public and all others dependent on aviation have charged CASA and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services with the responsibility to prescribe and regulate safety standards. In the same vein, when someone steps onto an aircraft, they charge the airline and the regulation authorities with the responsibility to deliver them safely to their destination.

We have been on the public record questioning just how effectively, consistently and efficiently CASA has been performing that role. The opposition does not pluck these concerns from thin air. I refer in passing to the Australian National Audit Office and the fact that it conducted a report into CASA's record on the key functions of safety compliance. That report, as we all know, is far from glowing. The audit report seriously questioned the proportion of time that inspectors were spending on regulatory services and surveillance activities. The report also revealed a degree of underplanning as well as overplanning of surveillance tasks, suggesting that surveillance is not being conducted in accordance with identified procedures. As a result, resources are not being used to maximum effect.

The report also found that surveillance targets are not consistently achieved across all industry sectors and that CASA did not seem to be analysing its achievement of surveillance targets. The report further found that CASA inspectors are not implementing the procedures for following up and acquitting noncompliance notices. While some noncompliance notices are not critical to air safety, the Audit Office correctly identified the flaw that, in not having proper procedures, CASA does not always know if breaches of safety regulations have been corrected.

The report was also highly critical of the trial to introduce a system based approach to surveilling large airline operators. I contend this is appalling, given the subsequent and recent critical issues at Qantas and Ansett, issues that CASA should have detected if it was properly doing its job, if it had a minister that was interested in the portfolio and if its eye was on the ball. This is just a small sample of the far ranging criticism of CASA's aviation safety compliance record. But in relation to the specific issue that is subject to the bill—the issue of voluntary enforceable undertakings—the audit report said at page 109:

... the process of operators entering into voluntary undertakings at informal conferences, once a show cause action has been invoked, will require proper documentation. Also, for undertakings to have any enduring significance they will need to be monitored by the responsible office. In the light of the ANAO's findings, cited earlier in this report, this will require improvement in the way CASA manages and prioritises tasks in its surveillance program...

And further:

... an effective quality control system is in place to ensure that the evidence is reliable, and that the quality of the inspection and audits from which the evidence is derived is consistent with the standards set by CASA.

To me, this was an unavoidable consideration, and I raised this issue with the minister's office when the bill was introduced. The Audit Office, as we all accept, has identified significant and safety-critical concerns with CASA being given this power. But, unfortunately, it would seem that those have been ignored by the minister. I think that is foolish when you consider the emerging lack of confidence by the travelling public in the performance of CASA in recent times.

The problem is that, in response to my raising this issue, the minister has introduced an amendment and that amendment does not remove these provisions to introduce these undertakings. All the amendment does is say that part of the act would only come into effect upon proclamation. In the supplementary explanatory memorandum, we are advised that this amendment will `allow adequate time for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to develop procedures and training for its staff in relation to enforceable voluntary undertakings'. In essence, the minister is saying to this parliament and to the Australian travelling public, `Trust me.' Unfortunately, only time will tell whether we should trust him as to what arises out of this bill.

The problem for the opposition is that it does not believe the minister has earned that respect and trust in this portfolio. Neither does the vast majority of the aviation industry or indeed the broader transport using public and the transport industry. I say that not because I want to be regarded as having made an attack on the minister—don't get me wrong. We are not saying that he is untrustworthy as a person in a way that is intended to damage his character; we are saying that we do not trust his competence in and commitment to this portfolio to ensure that the changes are timed to ensure that they work. That is a huge challenge when you start to think about the issue of aviation safety. Therefore, in part of the opposition's second reading amendment there are provisions to require the minister to not proceed with this bill before this House is satisfied that CASA has corrected the problems identified not by me alone but also by the Audit Office, an organisation that is properly charged with the responsibility of scrutinising the performance of government and its agencies.

To do anything else would be letting down the industry, who will end up at the wrong end of the power if it is wielded in an incompetent manner by CASA. The aviation industry is already highly critical of the broad regulatory compliance approach of CASA. This exposes them to more risk and exposes the travelling public to more risk. Of course, as with everything in this aviation portfolio, at the end of the day it affects safety, so to let this go through in this way would neglect our responsibility to the travelling public. It is past time that this minister took more time to attend to the issues of the aviation industry. It is time he reassured himself, his department, CASA and, importantly, the Australian public that he has aviation safety regulation under control. I say that because the confidence of all concerned is being undermined, and that is no good for anyone at this very delicate point in time when there are major issues out there about aviation safety. I suggest it is time that he stopped bleating about having a measured approach to aviation reform and stopped this rhetoric that is merely hiding his reactionary, regressive and ineffective administration of a very important part of his policy portfolio.

The second schedule of the bill amends the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959. This bill corrects the cross-referencing error in the definition of `Australian international carrier' in sections 11A and 21A. Increased liability limits were inadvertently imposed on foreign charter operators. The effect of this bill is that an Australian international carrier will now be either a carrier authorised by Australia to operate scheduled international air services or, alternatively, a carrier operating a non-scheduled international charter flight permitted under section 51D of the Air Navigation Act 1920 who is an `Australian person'. The increased liability for death or personal injury will not apply to foreign charter operators but only to Australian charter operators. The opposition is satisfied that this provision was only ever intended to operate in this manner and that this amendment is therefore not contentious.

Mr Deputy Speaker, obviously you will have gathered from what I have said that the bill is fairly complicated. For that reason it is very important that we actually get it right rather than have to try to come to terms with our mistakes, which may in turn endanger the travelling public because we failed to get it right in the first instance. For that reason I foreshadowed earlier this evening that, in addition to moving a second reading amendment, it was exceptionally important that those senators who serve on the Senate legislation committee give the issues that I have raised this evening their full consideration.

I do not believe that the minister will actually take up my suggestion that we resolve our problems and hold back the final determination on the bill until then. In his normal bull-in-a-china-shop approach, he will be too interested in ramming the bill through the House of Representatives and getting it off his desk, because at the moment there are too many outstanding reports concerning the transport industry sitting on his desk and gathering dust. From his point of view, he will be able to put the red pencil through one of those items on his list. He will be able to say, `In this term of parliament, I may have at least got the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 through, but in essence I have done very little else in the transport portfolio.' That is not just my view; it is the view of a lot of people operating in the transport industry at the moment. It is therefore important that I move a second reading amendment. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“the House is of the opinion that the bill should not be proceeded with until:

(1)the Minister satisfies this House that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has resolved all concerns raised in the Australian National Audit Office Report on Aviation Safety Compliance issued in November 1999;

(2)the Minister satisfies this House that CASA has especially heeded and acted upon the ANAO warning of the need for CASA to improve the management and the prioritisation of tasks in its surveillance program, before using the proposed voluntary enforceable undertakings power proposed in the Bill;

(3)the Minister convinces this House that he has a clear and effective plan to ensure CASA fulfils its responsibility to rigorously and effectively regulate aviation in the interests of the Australian travelling public.”

Debate interrupted.

Mr BAIRD  (Cook) (7.11 p.m.) —It is my pleasure to rise tonight to speak in support of the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. I notice that the member for Batman is now leaving the chamber. He has made some fairly sweeping statements tonight on the whole aspect of the operation of CASA. It was particularly interesting that he read the whole speech—obviously, one of his staffers had prepared it. He did not show any particular knowledge of the aspects of it but rather just gave a diatribe through the speech that had been handed to him. He was criticising the minister, and I say this to him: if he wants to show that he has the technical competence to one day be a minister in this portfolio, he has to show some understanding of the bill he is talking about. The minister he was so freely criticising, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, has done an outstanding job across every aspect of the portfolio and has shown real leadership. You would think that the member for Batman was talking about some third-world country in terms of the aviation safety regulations in this country whereas, as we all know, we have a very proud and outstanding record in air safety in Australia. Yes, there have been some areas that have needed the minister's attention over the last few years in relation to CASA, but overall it has performed its functions well and the minister's control and direction of that area of responsibility have been nothing less than first rate.

The debate and the amendment that has been moved tonight are not really directed at the bill, which is in essence a technical bill. The aviation bill was brought in several months ago, and the broad provisions passed through this House and through the Senate. This bill involves minor technical provisions. The amendment moved has little to do with this bill; rather, it talks about the overall operation of CASA. By all means, let us have a debate on that if the member for Batman wishes it, to show the credentials of one side of the House to the other in a free-ranging debate, but attempted point-scoring by trying to widen out the nature of this bill is somewhat counterproductive. It is a straightforward exercise. It relates, firstly, to the ownership of aircraft—quite often, the ownership of aircraft that is leased in one country and operated by an airline in another and that is flying in Australia—and simplifying the question of responsibility: the airline that is operating it takes over that responsibility. That is one part, and it is fairly straightforward, fairly simple and fairly pragmatic.

The other aspect is a voluntary undertaking where there has been some breach—not a serious breach—of the aviation regulations and the individual, the pilot, concerned has agreed in writing to undertake to rectify that. That can be enforceable at law. These are fairly straightforward, simple provisions, ones which I am sure we would all agree to. That is the nature of the bill. It is technical but simple, straightforward—no major changes. What we had tonight was a whole diatribe in relation to CASA's operation, without any real substance to it at all, but quite a well crafted speech given by the member for Batman, who I am sure had not one piece of input into it. But it was interesting to hear it.

Tonight I want to talk about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's comprehensive review into legislation in this area in Australia which was brought forward in the previous bill. The bill's primary focus is to amend the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and also to make some minor changes to the Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act 1959. Changes were made in April of last year, as I have said. Basically, there are some minor technical changes to redress drafting errors. The bill contains three elements. Firstly, it gives CASA the power to take enforceable written undertakings from people in relation to air safety compliance; secondly, it allows CASA to enter into article 83bis agreements with other national aviation regulatory bodies; and, thirdly, it brings the terminology used in the current act into line with that used by ICAO. The overall drive behind this legislation is to improve the clarity and international compatibility of our aviation legislation. It is a changed environment, as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would well know. We have global alliances of airlines and a changing scene. We have the Star Alliance and oneworld alliance changing the face of aviation around the world. There is cross-leasing of aircraft—aircraft coming from various parts of the world. As they enter into peak times airlines often borrow aircraft from others in non-peak areas around the globe. This bill is recognising those requirements.

Air safety is obviously important to all Australians, particularly to those in my electorate. Fifty-five per cent of all aircraft take-offs and landings in Sydney come over my electorate, and obviously the residents in my electorate are very concerned about it. Also, living in the electorate of Cook we have many employees working both at the airport and for the airlines. As I understand it, most airline operators will welcome the steps being taken in this legislation. This week at the Friends of Tourism lunch we were very happy to hear from the incoming managing director of Qantas, Geoff Dixon, who I am sure will do an outstanding job in leading that company, which has such a fine tradition in this country and an excellent reputation internationally.

The aviation reform process currently being undertaken by the government will also reduce many of the costs involved to both aviation suppliers and consumers in the future. It is alongside the government's efforts to deregulate the industry and to increase the competitiveness in this sector. It will also assist in driving down the price of air travel in this country, of which I am sure we would all approve. Of course, the introduction of the two new airlines, Impulse and Virgin, has brought air fares down very markedly in this country, which is a great plus for consumers.

A provision of this bill empowers CASA to take written undertakings from people on aviation safety issues. The undertakings made can then be rendered legally enforceable by the Federal Court. This is an extension of the existing enforcement powers possessed by CASA. Section 87B of the Trade Practices Act allows for an enforceable undertaking to be written by a person or organisation who makes minor breaches against the act. They are useful in that they can bypass the normal lengthy and costly legal proceedings that are normally required.

The terms of the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 envisage that CASA will use its power to accept these undertakings only with respect to relatively minor transgressions. For example, a pilot who goes into airspace that they should not have been in would undertake on a voluntary basis to write to CASA and say, `I've clearly breached the guidelines and I'm prepared to undertake training to ensure that I do not breach that in the future.' CASA has the power to enforce this through the Federal Court. But of course it is important to recognise that more serious breaches could still be enforced with CASA's strong enforcement powers, such as licence cancellation, fine or other sanctions. That is perfectly understandable—a voluntary agreement for minor breaches; not a huge deal. I listened to the shadow minister, who has made it the centrepiece of aviation safety in this country. It is not that; it is a minor technical amendment.

Article 83bis agreements are with the controlling aviation bodies of other countries. In December 1994 Australia ratified article 83bis of the Chicago convention. This convention says that a country an aircraft is registered in is responsible for monitoring and regulating the safety of that aircraft, regardless of where in the world that aircraft is. Article 83bis of the convention permits the transfer of this responsibility if an aircraft is registered in one country but operated by a person or company whose principal place of residence is another country.

This bill allows CASA to enter into these agreements and has got two significant advantages. Firstly, it sidesteps the basic administrative problems that arise when an aircraft is registered in one country but is largely being operated in another country. Secondly, it makes easier in quieter periods for Australian aircraft operators to lease their aircraft to operators overseas, and we have seen that increasingly take place when aircraft might be redundant for one reason or another. This provision will obviously be welcomed by those Australian aircraft operators whose work is largely seasonal, such as charter aircraft, crop-dusters, et cetera, as part of the business opportunities that they can take advantage of. Securing overseas leases has previously been more difficult for Australian operators, as their aircraft were subject to Australian rules, regulations, safety inspections and so on, even if the plane was mostly being operated overseas.

Some terminology consistency aspects are also being introduced in this bill. As part of the global rule harmonisation resolution, recognised terms like `aeronautical product' will be used instead of `aircraft component' or `aircraft material'. They are sensible rules of harmonisation. This technical bill is particularly good news. I am sure that the next speaker, like the shadow minister, will again try to raise the spectre of CASA. CASA has been doing an excellent job in this country. The minister has been doing an outstanding job. Yes, there have been some issues, but these have been addressed. There is a technical requirement providing for individual pilots to agree to undertake remedial activity if required as a result of minor breaches of requirements. If serious breaches occur they can be addressed through other legal means.

Finally, registration can be recognised in terms of ownership arrangements where an aircraft is operated within one country but may be owned in another—part of the modern globalisation that is occurring in the aviation area. I commend this bill to the House. It will assist in reducing costs, it will recognise current arrangements and it will simplify administrative arrangements across the board. It is certainly a bill that does not warrant the type of amendments we have seen brought forward by the Labor Party or the type of comments we have heard. It should be supported by all members of this House.

Mr ALBANESE  (Grayndler) (7.23 p.m.) —I am pleased to support the amendments moved by the shadow minister to the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, which is concerned with CASA and safety in the operation of airports in Australia. Of course, we all know that the situation of CASA and air safety is a mess under this government. Its own appointments have said that it is a mess. Those people who have been put on the board—well-known government supporters such as Dick Smith—have indeed been very critical of the operation of these organisations.

Tonight I particularly want to take the opportunity to express my concern, on behalf of my constituents in Grayndler, about air safety and the operation of Kingsford Smith airport. The Kingsford Smith airport is an airport which has reached its time limit. It is full. Anyone who flies in and out of Sydney airport knows about the time delays, which occur because, frankly, the number of movements is at breaking point. Indeed, I moved a private member's bill, seconded by the member for Watson, in this House to ensure that there was a cap of 80 movements per hour at Sydney airport. That also resulted in guarantees of slots for regional airlines from New South Wales into Kingsford Smith airport. That was not a technical issue; that was an issue in part about safety. We believe that, when aircraft are flying over the most densely populated area of Australia, that is, the inner suburbs of Sydney, 80 movements are about all that Sydney airport can take. Yet, what we have seen in the past year are numerous breaches of the cap—interestingly enough, not while the Olympics were on—at Sydney airport. I say that to dismiss any potential criticism made by, for example, the Daily Telegraph journalist Piers Akerman who suggested that it was all Olympics related. Indeed, there were more aircraft movements in and out of Sydney airport over the December-January holiday period than there were during the Sydney Olympics. And that says a lot about the pressure which is being placed on Sydney airport.

My concern, as a member of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, is that when we have questioned those people concerned with aviation safety it is apparent that what those bodies do when they look at safety concerns is to take into account the safety of the people in the aircraft; they take no account whatsoever of the safety of people on the ground. God forbid any accident with an aircraft coming down, but if one does come down—and they do, from time to time—better it come down where there are no people than in an area which is the most densely populated in Australia. That is why we have seen the real plan come out with regard to Kingsford Smith airport. No matter how much people might prevaricate over the issue of a second Sydney airport and the need for it—and governments of both persuasions have prevaricated for decades about doing what needs to be done—the reality is that Sydney airport is now at its limit. It is now breaching the cap of 80 movements. Pressure has now been placed on the curfew also, which has been breached at Sydney airport. That is why the government's absurd decision, which says, `No, we won't build a second airport for Sydney, but we will reserve the land around Badgerys Creek because we know we will have to do something down the track and, in the meantime, we will stop regional airlines flying in and out of Sydney airport and move them to Bankstown,' is the worst possible option.

When confronted by this, the National Party representatives in regional New South Wales, including the leader, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, said, `No. We won't force them to move out of Sydney airport to Bankstown.' No, of course they won't—they will just price them out. That is what will occur. That is what was in the briefing given by Bankstown Airport Limited to country federal MPs, state MPs and mayors in January of this year. In spite of the fact there were a number of National Party representatives at that meeting, not one of them brought to the attention of their constituents the fact that they were about to be treated as second-class citizens and discriminated against and moved to Bankstown. The Bankstown airport option is bad for regional New South Wales because it treats them as second-class citizens. It is bad for the people around Sydney airport because it means that jet movements will increase as the propeller and regional flights are moved out. It is bad for the people around Bankstown, including those people in south-western Sydney, who will suffer from aircraft noise.