PelAir Ditching:
Senator XENOPHON: Mr McCormick, today marks four years to the day since the ditching of the VH-NGA off Norfolk Island and nearly seven months since the references committee issued its report on aviation accident investigations. Has CASA formulated a response to the recommendations in the report?
Mr McCormick: The part that we had to do has been completed. The documents are no longer with CASA.
Senator XENOPHON: But there were various recommendations and you have given your views as to those recommendations to the department?
Mr McCormick: Yes, we have.
Senator XENOPHON: When did you do that?
Mr McCormick: I would have to take the exact date on notice. It was before the election.
Senator XENOPHON: It seems so long ago, Mr McCormick. I take it that it was at least 2½ months ago.
Mr McCormick: Certainly we formulated our inputs—of course, they are the minister's responses when the report is tabled—for the previous government and we have prepared our inputs for this government.
Senator XENOPHON: Are you able to tell us which of the recommendations of the committee CASA thought ought to be implemented?
Mr McCormick: I would prefer to leave that to the minister to reply.
Senator XENOPHON: But you do have a role to provide advice independently to government about aviation safety. Is that correct?
Mr McCormick: That is correct. We have provided our input to the present government on 26 September.
Senator XENOPHON: Just after the election? But do you have a view about some of the recommendations made by the Senate committee in relation to the ditching of the VH-NGA?
Mr McCormick: As I think I have said before, CASA is a learning organisation. We take on board any input that is given to us. We are certainly not the same organisation that we were leading up to that particular ditching in 2009. We considered in particular the Chambers report recommendations that we have implemented and, as I said, I had best wait for the minister to reply to the formal tabling of the report.
Senator XENOPHON: I am not asking the minister. I am hopeful that I will get an opportunity to speak to the minister later this week in person. Do you concede that the Senate report was useful in highlighting aspects of the investigation that could have been done much better?
Mr McCormick: I think any report is useful, Senator
Senator XENOPHON: For what?
Mr McCormick: Useful as an informative document for a learning organisation.
Senator XENOPHON: You do not concede that CASA could have done things a lot better in relation to the Pel Air ditching?
Mr McCormick: You are talking about what we might have done better outside of the report. We can always do better, as I said right at the start and during the Pel Air hearings themselves.
Senator XENOPHON: So, I have to wait to see what the minister says. Will you at least acknowledge that you actively advised the minister not to support some of the recommendations of the committee?
Mr McCormick: We do not formulate the recommendations to the minister, Senator.
Senator XENOPHON: So, what did you do?
Mr McCormick: We provided technical input to the department which formulated the responses to the minister.
Senator XENOPHON: Did that technical input lead to a particular conclusion about the Senate's recommendations?
Mr McCormick: There were 22 recommendations from memory and then there were some additional comments from yourself.
Senator XENOPHON: Twenty-six.
Mr McCormick: As I say we do not formulate those recommendations.
Senator XENOPHON: But did CASA have a view as to whether it thought any of the recommendations were worth implementing or not? Did you have a view that, say, this recommendation is nonsense or this recommendation is worthy of further consideration by the department?
Mr McCormick: From our point of view we were not dismissing anything out of hand. All we can give is our opinion of what we think of the recommendations.
Senator XENOPHON: So, please answer my question. Did you make specific recommendations or give advice to the department about whether any of the 26 recommendations ought to be supported or rejected by the department?
Mr McCormick: I am trying to answer your question, but I personally do not know what we said as far as the answers go, compared to what answers came out there. I am not comparing both. Our concern was what the recommendation meant to us. We did not form a view for the government or whether the government would accept or reject it. That was not our role.
Senator XENOPHON: Let's go back a step. I do not want to labour this. If you did provide a response—saying this is a recommendation of the Senate committee; this is what the recommendation would mean to us—presumably some of those responses would have been 'This is unworkable' or 'This is something that could be implemented'. Presumably, by framing your answer in terms of what it would mean to CASA would be a de facto acceptance or rejection of the committee's recommendation. Is that a fair summary?
Mr McCormick: I do not know if anyone was more actively involved in this than myself, but we would say what that recommendation meant as to where we are today and its effect on us. But whether it is accepted or rejected is not something we recommend.
CHAIR: It is most unlike you, Mr McCormick, that you did not have a strong view. You are the brains trust and if you wanted to tell them to tell the committee to go to hell, I would not be offended.
Mr McCormick: I would not dream of it, Senator.
Senator XENOPHON: Dream of what?
Mr McCormick: Making a recommendation to accept or reject a recommendation.
Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps I should ask the minister or the secretary this. What difficulty would there be in CASA providing material to the department about the Senate inquiry on Pel Air.
Mr McCormick: Again, Senator, I will have to take that on notice. I am not sure what the protocols are around that.
Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps I will ask the secretary. Given the communication that was sent from CASA to the department what difficulty would there be for the department and CASA to provide us with a copy of CASA's response
Mr Mrdak: The minister is currently finalising his consideration of a response to the Senate inquiry. I will take that on notice. I do not think there is an issue in principle but I would need to take that on notice and come back to you.
Senator XENOPHON: For instance,—I am not saying this would be the case—if the majority of this committee was minded to ask for that response at some stage, whether it waits for the minister's response to the Senate inquiry with recommendations, you do not see any particular difficulty with that as a matter of principle?
Mr Mrdak: Without pre-empting the minister's consideration of the matter, we have put an extensive amount of material and a draft response to successive ministers. Without prejudicing that process I will take that on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: Let us not talk at cross purposes here. I am saying that CASA gave a considered response presumably to the Senate inquiry, to the minister, to consider. That itself would not be a draft, it would be a document from CASA to the department. What harm would there be for that document eventually seeing the light of day?
Mr Mrdak: Again, without recalling the exact details of the document, I do not have an issue in principle, but I need to take it on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: At the end of the day you would not have an issue in principle with that being released, would you, Mr McCormick?
Mr McCormick: Again, I will take it on notice. I personally do not, but I am not sure what the protocols are. Perhaps Dr Aleck might have something to say.
Dr Aleck: I will concur with what has gone before and to add that CASA made a number of submissions to that inquiry. To the extent that the recommendations dealt with the same issues that were covered by the submissions I suspect there would be some alignment with our submissions.