For the avoidance of doubt, the former and perhaps again future Minister For Aviation has by his own words branded himself as a hater of aviation in all its forms.
I refer to his speech as reported by Hansard, in response to Minister Truss's announcement of the Governments response to the Forsyth report.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John McCormick. John McCormick did an outstanding job. He was someone who was recruited after an international search for the best person. He brought decades of experience, not just in the Australian aviation industry but also particularly in Hong Kong, for Cathay Pacific, and in the international sector. I think he provided a rigour that was needed at the time. When John McCormick made the decision to ground Tiger Airways, that decision to ground an RPT service for the first—and hopefully the last—time in Australia's history was not only a courageous step but one that was entirely appropriate and needed.
Factually incorrect. Ansett lost their AOC. CASA routinely kills charter operators all the time but these are beneath Albaneses notice.
In the report, the review panel expressed concern about relations between the industry and the regulator. It said this:
In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
It went on to recommend a new strategic direction for CASA, calling for a more 'collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect'. It is here that I would respectfully sound a note of caution to the minister. I certainly agree that it is important for a regulated industry, like aviation, to have constructive and respectful relations between the regulator and the industry; but I would be very concerned if the relationship between CASA and aviation operators became too close. I expressed this concern to David Forsyth, who the minister ensured—and I thank him for this—gave me a verbal review as well, and we were able to have a very constructive discussion about it. If I could, I would like to express some caution. I think that, by definition, a regulator must have a bit of tension with those people who it is regulating, particularly in aviation.
Why "particularly in Aviation?
The term 'trainspotters' is pretty familiar to people; in aviation there are 'plane spotters'. They think that they know best, and they do not want to be told by any regulator that they do not know how to keep their plane safe. But the truth is that the incidents that have occurred in this country have occurred particularly with small planes, which are involved in incidents all too regularly.
So we are "naughty children" who know nothing? Might the light aircraft accident rate have something to do with the fact that there are a lot of them?
If I could sound that cautious note, as I expressed to David Forsyth: the customers are not the people who own the planes; the customers of CASA and aviation safety are the people on the planes and the people who would be impacted if there were an incident. Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals. My electorate is the second smallest geographically; Wentworth is the smallest. These areas have highly dense populations. If there were an incident in these most densely populated areas of Australia, it would have an impact not just on people on the planes but on people in the vicinity of an airport. If I could express that concern—that we must never sacrifice rigour for harmony.
The public rate the probability of an accident event proportional to the ease with which it can be imagined, not the actual probability. Albanese is similarly ignorant. How many cars run into houses and pedestrians? Lots. AIrcraft? The last on ground fatality caused by an aircraft that I can remember was in 1978, this one:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24632/197802547.pdf
I agree with the minister that the actions of the regulator must be firm, and they must also be fair. But the minister has a responsibility to hold the line against industry pressure. We must maintain the necessary tension between the regulator and the regulated to keep all parties on their toes. If they are on their toes then they are focused on what matters: the safety of the travelling public. If they were allowed to operate too closely and without appropriate distance, the public would be the loser. So, while doing all we can to promote professional dealings among all participants in the industry, our overriding responsibility is to make accident prevention and proper safety standards our primary concern. All other concerns must be further down the ladder.
So preventing aviation is Albaneses preferred method of regulation of the industry, not a word about the positive effects of aviation on jobs, investment and growth.
No wonder this country is in a mess.