While we are waiting for the WLR panel to wade through, the reportedly, over 260 submissions and for UITA to catch up…
URWE (‘Blast from the past’): In the dying years of the Howard Government and in the eventual lead up to the 2008 Senate Inquiry into the admin of Fort Fumble, Labor Senator O’Brien had this to say to his fellow Senators (cherry picked quotes)…
“Senator O’BRIEN (10:29 AM)
….I must say at the start that I am disappointed that government senators are opposing this reference. I am not surprised the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Warren Truss, is opposed to it and is calling for government senators to oppose this motion, because this reference was a test for him—a test he has failed. Mr Truss does not want Australia’s aviation safety regulatory regime subjected to a detailed examination by a committee of the parliament, and the question needs to be asked: why? It is obvious
that it is because he is worried what an inquiry might reveal…
… Another important change has occurred: Liberal and National Party senators no longer exercise any will of their own. They take the whip not just from their respective party rooms but straight from the executive. In this case it is a
National Party minister calling the shots: the metaphorical tail wagging the dog….
…The simple fact is that many Australians have lost confidence in Australia’s aviation safety regime. In particular,
they have lost confidence in CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority...
… A recent survey commissioned by CASA that measures views on aviation safety in Australia shows that many Australians have lost confidence in flying. This survey, released in January, shows that public confidence has fallen since it had last been measured, in 2002….
…CASA did, of course, report the survey results
with a big dose of self-congratulation.According to CASA, public confidence is ‘sky high’ and the survey results are ‘good news for the aviation industry’. That is what they say. At the time the survey was released I urged CASA to reverse the decline in public confidence in flying by concentrating on its core activity: improving safety in Australian skies—that is, a little more action and a little less public relations, please. The reality is
that if Australians lack confidence in flying the responsibility rests with the regulator….
….Mr Shane Urquhart, the father of Ms Sally Urquhart, a young Queensland policewoman who died in the crash, supports this inquiry. In fact, he has told Australian Associated Press that a move to block the inquiry would show
that the government has ‘something to hide’. Mr Urquhart says a decision to block this inquiry would
‘show the government has no compassion, no concern for its citizens getting justice, and lacks the guts to question anything CASA does’…
…I have no doubt that at some time in this debate a government senator will say something like: ‘Well, hang on, you can ask all the questions you like during Senate estimates hearings; you don’t need a references inquiry.’ To that I say: turn to the
Hansard of May last year and you will discover that the CEO of CASA, Mr Byron, was
too busy to appear to answer questions. He skipped estimates
to attend a one-day aviation conference in Europe, the cost of which the government is still refusing to reveal… (sound familiar..
)
….Have a close look at that Hansard and you will find CASA evidence that it conducted a full audit of Transair’s operations before the Lockhart River tragedy and gave the airline the all clear. That is evidence the regulator gave again at October and February estimates hearings, despite a finding by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau that there were manifest deficiencies in the airline’s operations, including a failure to lodge load sheets at departure and a failure to ensure pilots had the training mandated in the company’s operations manual. What the Senate estimates committee has heard from CASA
are excuses, not answers.
On the question of risk profiling, CASA has refused to reveal whether Transair was clearly identified near the top of its risk profile table in the months leading up to the May 2005 tragedy—the top meaning the biggest risk. That is my understanding,
but CASA has obfuscated for months. First, senior officers said they could not remember. Then they told us the risk profiling was unreliable. Recently, they claimed the risk-profiling table was filled with dummy numbers just to show what it could do if they ever got it to work. None of that is good enough….
…It is not just this side of the parliament that receives complaints about CASA’s performance, either. Recently we have all heard horror stories about CASA’s handling of pilot photo IDs. We have also heard complaints about CASA’s new cost-recovery based charging regime. Senator Eggleston came into the Senate a couple of months ago and laid out a case against CASA in relation to its dealings with Polar Aviation, a company operating in his home state of Western Australia. He said at that time that the ‘claim that CASA has failed the test of an impartial regulator seems not unreasonable’. He went on:
It seems difficult not to conclude that the behaviour of CASA in this matter warrants further investigation...
…At the end of the day, if the minister wants to hide CASA from scrutiny then it is the minister who will be responsible if the system continues to break down. As Mr Urquhart said, the government needs to have the guts to give the Senate the power to look at CASA because, at the end of the day, Australians want to have confidence in the aviation safety regime. They want to have confidence in the regulator, but every time the government hides the regulator from the scrutiny of parliament, more questions will be raised in the minds of doubters in the Australian community about Australia’s aviation safety regime. More questions will be asked. The numbers in CASA’s survey will probably deteriorate further, indicating a deterioration in confidence in the safety of Australia’s aviation regime, and ultimately that is not good for any operator of an aviation service in this country.
It is certainly not good for the public. It is not good for the parliament generally. And it will not be a
good thing for this minister, Mr Warren Truss, because at the end of the day it will be seen that he has obscured an authority over which he has ultimate control from the scrutiny of the parliament…. 
{Note: The full
Hansard text for the Senator O’Brien & Senator McLucas debate speeches can be viewed here:
O’Brien, Sen Kerry;
McLucas, Sen Jan}
History will show that the motion from Senator O’ Brien and Senator McLucas was voted down..
, however it is worth noting the post division comment from Senator Ian McDonald (witness to the infamous AMROBA meeting
):
Senator IAN MACDONALD (11:02 AM) —by leave—I came down to participate in the debate but came a little too late. I did want to say that I was going to be voting against the motion, but I was impressed by some of the things said by Senator O’Brien and particularly Senator McLucas, who comes from an area where I fly a lot in small planes as well. Whilst I voted against the motion because I know it is something that the minister will be pursuing, having heard what was said I simply wanted to associate myself on the public record with the sentiments that were expressed by the two speakers. I would certainly urge the minister to carefully consider the matters that have been raised, and to address them forthwith.
I do not think we need the inquiry, but perhaps if they are not properly addressed in the future this is something that could well be considered.
Which comment was then acknowledged by Senator O’Brien:
Senator O’BRIEN (11:03 AM) —by leave—I thank Senator Ian Macdonald for confirming
that this is purely a decision of the minister and that the executive of the government has called the shots for the Senate chamber.
I simply say: this will not be the end of this matter.
Hmm..indeed, now nearly 8 years later, it isn’t the end of the matter…
Dear Miniscule…TICK..TOCK!