[Peetwo]

Not our Indaba – however.

AMAS v RRAT. Round 1.

No video of this hit out; the Hansard is published, about 20 pages of solid reading to plough through. Nothing whatsoever to with matters aeronautical – but of interest as a guide to what we may expect when CASA gets a turn. I know not many will read the Hansard – but for me it was (a) a required task and (b) it provides an insight to how Government agencies ‘think’ and operate; so in that sense, valuable. However, I have selected a few passages of play which reflect the Committee’s mood – in the matter being discussed. The session should be a wake up call for the ASA, ATSB and CASA, IMO there is a push on to upset the cosy, easy going attitude in which these agencies have cocooned themselves for far too long. It could just be that that the insulation against serious questioning, with venom is failing and the isolated splendour of ‘Safety’ as an endless trough is ending. We can only hope. Brockman, Gallacher, Patrick and Sterle were not there to kill spiders; it was good work by a fine team. Some of Glenn Sterle’s bowling is worth a few minutes, the closing remarks in particular.

Anyway – FWIW:–

ACTING CHAIR: because we're going to be back here, guaranteed—safer bet than Winx. Colleagues, if you want to have a chat outside, we can suspend for a minute and have a chat.

Mr Kinley: Thanks, Senator. I would like to make a short opening statement. But, before I do that, we did, of course, listen to the hearings in Perth for this inquiry. I would like to say that we apologise for not doing better in keeping our communications open with Mrs Nicole Mills. We did listen, in particular, to her evidence, and we will certainly do better in future. We will follow up on her suggestion to nominate a contact officer in such cases as this. What I do need to work out is what would be the appropriate training for our officers to be able to handle those sorts of issues properly and sensitively.

Prosecuting matters under the national law though remains complex and difficult, and AMSA recently met with the CDPP to discuss these ongoing issues. One matter we will be seeking legislative amendments for is to allow at least two years to commence proceedings rather than the one year now allowed under the Crimes Act for offences warranting less than six months imprisonment. We also suggest that the offences under the act be examined to consider if they're adequate for a matter involving a fatality. In this regard I would draw the committee's attention to the uncommenced amendments to the national law act that were intended to align the act with the health and safety laws with similar offences and penalties.

ACTING CHAIR: If you want to overrule me, that's fine. We'll do a count very quickly. I want everything on the record. We have deaths that have not been investigated by this mob, and all we've seen—you can smile as much as you like, Mr McKenzie, and whisper in your mate's ear or whatever you want to do. You people really are on the verge—I tell you: if I was the minister, none of you would even be sitting here unless you started owning up to whose incompetence led to this.

ACTING CHAIR: Mr Kinley, I'll talk to you, as the CEO, about what we have learnt recently in your term as the CEO, taking over under the national law. What brought this to our attention was the very unfortunate death of Mr Mills. As I said earlier, we're not going to stop here, because we know there have been so many more. For the families out there I'm going to mention Glen Wilson; Ryan Donohue; Ian Thompson; Paul McVeigh; Leila Trott; Murray Turner; Mason Carter; Chad Fairley; Andrew Kelly; Allan Russell; John Rodgers; Matthew Roberts; David Chivers; Martin Cunningham; one person on the Seabring; three people on a night raid, Luke Murray, Daniel Bradshaw and Tim Macpherson; Ben Leahy; Adam Bidner; Adam Hoffman; Zach Feeney; Chris Sammut; Eli Tonks; Harry Evans; Shalina Abdul Hussien plus about twenty more people who I'm not able to name, because no-one seems to collect the information. All these people have been killed on Australian vessels since AMSA took responsibility for the national system in 2013.

After what we learnt about the death of Mr Mills, I have absolutely no confidence that AMSA has done everything that it could have done to secure safety. I've got no confidence about the safety of workers or members of the public on other vessels. You could say that you've inherited a system that is a basket case, poor safety culture—all of that. What I don't understand where the plan is to improve this situation is. Looking at these numbers, they have got to be about the same as, or worse than, other dangerous industries, and it has been a priority industry for focus and action for Safe Work Australia. They have industry plans; they have safety codes of practice. I ask: where is your action and focus? All I see is vessels cobbling together—in my own words—their own safety management systems. I believe a lot of rules are made up, and they put as many people as they like on a vessel. If they don't like the basic rules that are there, I'm told they can go and talk to their mates on the AMSA board and get an exemption. When they do get in trouble or someone is killed, in my view, AMSA looks the other way.

I looked at your annual report hoping to find something to indicate that you have a plan. I'll talk about the chairman's report. I see that you have a new computer system, that there are plans to maintain your workforce, to deal with oil spills, for ship-sourced garbage, for new navigation systems, and that there have been important meetings in London. There is nothing about fatalities until you get to page 54. On page 54 it tells me that there were nine fatalities just last year, and this is not a huge industry. This was in your KPIs, coded amber, which I saw on page 12 is classified by AMSA as a 'minor' issue. There's nothing in there about what you're going to do to fix it. On page 23 it says that operators will be encouraged to take responsibility for safety outcomes. I can tell you all that that's not a plan to save people; that's a plan for more deaths, like the unfortunate death of Mr Mills.

People are dying and it looks to me like no-one is held accountable and, worse, no-one thinks that it's a problem that should be fixed. I hope that you're not willing to look the other way. I believe the minister has been trying to look the other way—that's my view, not the committee's—but I'm not going to look the other way and I know that the committee won't either. Election or no election, as I said earlier, we will get to the bottom of this. We will be looking at your marine orders, your legislation and your operation—everything that you do or don't do—and we will fix this. I'll leave it at that.

That concludes today's hearing. With the approval of my colleagues, we've set 15 April for questions on notice. Thank you very much.

Toot – toot….

P2 Addendum: Sic'em Rex & Barry O'Bfuscation tag team undersecretary to Home Affairs:  https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Senator O'SULLIVAN: To capture this—tell me if I'm wrong—there has been no economic impact assessment done of the implications of the pending regulation on this cohort of airports that would assist this table to determine the impact on the local economy and the social implications of that, the impact on the cost of the operation of the airport and the impact on the travelling public?

Ms Langford : I can certainly say that, in terms of security, we've done the analysis. I can't say what my colleagues elsewhere in government have done in terms of the other analysis.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I didn't bring security into that question. It's nothing to do with security. I'm particularly exercised about this because, sadly for committee members, we've sat in the lounge rooms of the people who are going to be impacted by this. In some of these provincial airports you will get the ultimate security outcome, because the services will be terminated. That would have been quite predictable had anyone taken the time to have a look at the cost and the economic and social impacts of a decision of government. But it would seem to me we're driving this the other way. It really doesn't matter what those things are. We accept now that we don't know what they are. We don't, and you don't. The legislator and the regulator do not know. I don't know. We haven't been able to find out off anyone. But, despite that, we will make rule and we will follow it through. These impacts will occur. That's what we're dealing with, Ms Langford. That's what we're dealing with.

I have to tell you, I probably won't be in the parliament when the time comes. I am a member of the government. I would move a disallowance motion on some of these where I'm satisfied that it's going to impact on the public and where I'm satisfied that particular services are going to terminated because of it. I really think your department ought to have a thorough look at this. You should pick a couple of samples and see what the impacts are.

Senator PATRICK: I will just add to that. I will just put to you that this is what Qantas told this committee in Darwin:

Like all of the costs we've talked about, airport charges and others, on relatively marginal routes, there is always a tipping point. In the South Australian market, where we operate two Dash 8 Q300 50-seaters to Port Lincoln, Whyalla and Kangaroo Island, the impost of additional security charges to the level that you have described we think would be critical, in that it would move us beyond the tipping point of viability and put those services at risk.

I can also read from Rex airlines, who made a similar statement in Mount Gambier.

… if then the overhead of the company has to be carried by half of the routes, then that starts to make those viable ones suddenly unviable because the overhead is going to be a heavier burden on them.

They are talking about circumstances where, as it turns out, in some places the security charge is made even though they have a 34-seat aircraft. That's what we're staring down the barrel of. We're staring down the barrel of airlines saying they will shut down routes. Even when they don't, we have heard evidence that it will cause costs to go up that will decrease the amount of travel and it will affect access to travel.

As a South Australian senator, reading what Qantas has said—and they are going to provide the committee with more evidence—I will be in the next parliament and I will move a disallowance, in which case you're going to have to come up with the good reasons why you wish to do this. It appears to me that it hasn't been done yet. None of this has been done. I will be shouting from the inside of the chamber as loudly as I possibly can that this is going to affect regional communities and, on your own evidence, you haven't even considered those effects. 

Ms Langford : No. We have considered the effects. That is why the contribution is being made in relation to supporting equipment purchases. Clearly, our responsibility is to ensure that the travelling public is secure. In establishing what the travelling public needs to be secure, there is a cost associated. We are very conscious of it, but we haven't capriciously put in place or proposed settings that we don't think are absolutely necessary to keep the public secure...

and on..and on until - 


Senator O'SULLIVAN: But it's not your brief or the brief of your department actively at the moment to look at ways to relieve those economic impacts, even if you knew what they were. No-one is in the back room; you don't have a team going: 'Righto, the big fellas up the front are getting the security in place. It's our job to see that it doesn't have a negative economic impact on Charleville, Port Macquarie or Port Augusta.'

Ms Langford : It's certainly our job to work with those airports to make sure that we give them as much good advice as we can about standing up this sort of arrangement.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: What are the names of your public servants who are working on a model to alleviate these particular economic impacts on local authorities, airport operations and airlines in these provincial centres? What are the names of your staff who are tasked with that? That'll clear this up. I suspect you're going to tell me that there are none.

Ms Langford : We have an aviation security branch that has staff in it who are responsible for delivering this policy in the broad, and that includes working—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: We got that, and thank you for that. That was a given. How many of those staff—do you—

CHAIR: You're going to need a valium, Senator. 

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, I've only got a week to go in this bastard of a job and I'm trying to behave myself. Is there anybody looking to develop measures within your department that will alleviate the economic impacts of this policy on small provincial airports such as Charleville?

Ms Langford : We're operating under a broader government policy which has been in place for a long time, where there is occasionally the option to provide capital funding, but, once we start to get into that operational funding space, it's outside our policy framework.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: Ms Langford, I promise you—

Senator PATRICK: So the answer, therefore, is no?

Ms Langford : Correct.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: That's right—no. It took us an hour, but that's it.