The proposition that, somehow or other, a proven international aviation airspace management system—which is used in a country where there are four times the levels of aviation activity as there are in Australia, where the weather is less clement than it is in Australia, and where the aviation safety record is outstanding—is somehow not safe or is less safe than what we have now is palpably nonsense. I remain absolutely consistent in my view that moving to NAS is in the interests of the travelling public of Australia.
So, the goal posts are gradually shifting. The same minister who claimed that NAS would make aviation in Australia
safer, is now reducing his argument to weasel-words such as those above.
No one is suggesting it is ‘not safe’ in the absolute sense. What many (including myself) are suggesting, Minister, is that it is ‘less safe’. You, Dick Smith and the others who perpetrated NAS have provided not one iota of evidence to show that you even bothered to find out whether or not it was.
If I were to say that ” The proposition that, somehow or other, a proven international automotive system—which is used in a country where there are four times the levels of automotive activity as there are in Australia, where the weather is less clement than it is in Australia, and where the automotive safety record is outstanding—is somehow not safe or is less safe than what we have now is palpably nonsense”, many would be quick to point out that the US:
a) Does not mandate seat-belts in all jurisdictions.
b) Has experienced child deaths in vehicles caused by air-bag deployment in light collisions
c) That these child deaths would not occur in Australia because our air-bags are ‘low-impact’ types, designed to be used in conjunction with seat-belts.
Only someone who had a pre-determined agenda would consider scrapping the Australian Design Rules in relation to air-bag deployment, in favour of the US rules without considering the legislative and other differences between the two countries. It would be a foolish minister indeed who accepted the argument that “it works in the US, therefore it is safe.” A wise member of a theoretical “Automotive Reform Group” would be aware of these differences and would want safety to be analysed before adopting any changes.
The simple fact is that the US, being a strong and free country accepts certain risks in exchange for those freedoms. It also is willing to pay the financial costs of ameliorating those risks.
In the case of motor vehicles, drivers’ groups have lobbied to avoid compulsory seat-belt laws. They see this as a basic freedom. In Australia, we have gone the other way, mandating seat-belt laws. Which approach is better is a moot point.
The important point is that:
1) A car manufactured for US conditions will be more dangerous in Australia than one manufactured for Australian conditions.
2) A car manufactured for Australian conditions will be more dangerous in the US than one manufactured for US conditions.
Perhaps all involved in this sad debacle are coming to realise that:
1)NAS reduces safety. The available facts support this proposition. If confirmation was needed, Dick Smith’s silence and evasiveness on the question provide ample evidence.
2)NAS has cost over $50,000,000, only to now require ‘enhancements’. Who knows what this will eventually cost.
3) NAS has harmed Australia’s reputation as a safe aviation climate. This will jeopardise the aviation industry in its attempts to attract foreign business for the GA industry.
Why, Mr Smith,
if you care about the aviation industry, are you
not willing to prove that NAS is safer? What is there in the evidence that you are unwilling to let us know? Or did you just not even bother about safety, relying on "it works in the US' as your only safety 'analysis'?