[Peetwo]

RRAT Supp Estimates - Aviation: 23/10/23 - MKII

Hansard out, see - HERE - or PDF Version - HERE:

Senator McKENZIE: I want to move to aviation. Ms Purvis-Smith or Mr Betts, on what date did the minister first ask the department to consider restoring the ACCC monitoring function of the domestic airline sector?

Ms Purvis-Smith : The discussions happened at ministerial level—

Senator McKENZIE: At ministerial level?

M s Purvis-Smith : between the Treasurer and Minister King. We can go through our interactions if you would like.

Senator McKENZIE: Yes. I would appreciate hearing when you and Treasury had a chat.

Ms Purvis-Smith : It started on 12 October. Treasury called us to advise that the Treasurer and Minister King had discussed re-establishing the ACCC airline price monitoring.

Senator McKENZIE: On 12 October?

Ms Purvis-Smith : Yes. On the 13th, the department met with the Treasury to discuss the details. Treasury provided to the department a draft letter and media release, on which we commented.

Senator McKENZIE: The media release was drafted when?

Ms Purvis-Smith : The 13th.

Senator McKENZIE: The 13th. Excellent. Usually when ministers make announcements they ask for an announcement brief. Did you provide the minister with an announcement brief?

Ms Purvis-Smith : We provided the draft letter and media release to our office at the same time as it was provided to the Treasurer's office.

S enator McKENZIE: Right—so the same time. When did the Treasurer and the minister jointly announce this change?

Ms Purvis-Smith : This was a letter. It was a letter, sent to the Prime Minister, jointly signed by the Treasurer and Minister King.

Senator McKENZIE: Asking that the ACCC monitoring be reinstated?

Ms Purvis-Smith : That's correct.

Senator McKENZIE: When did the Prime Minister agree that that was all okay?

Ms Werner : I don't have any information as to when the Prime Minister made a decision. The decision to resume the ACCC monitoring was announced on 18 October.

Senator McKENZIE: On the 18th—five days later. Okay. A brief was provided to Minister King on 5 June regarding the ACCC's final report, which we had a long debate about at the select committee inquiry. Minister King, in conjunction with the Treasurer, subsequently made the decision to reinstate that monitoring. Why did the department not let its minister know that that was also the opinion of the ACCC?

Ms Purvis-Smit h : After the Senate inquiry?

Senator McKENZIE: No. You will recall this, because during the inquiry people who wrote the brief couldn't remember they'd written the brief. A brief was given to Minister King on the outcome of the ACCC's final report. In the final report, the ACCC made commentary around this being something that should be continued, but none of that was actually in your brief to your minister.

Ms Purvis-Smith : I think from memory the wording in the ACCC report was that 'this reporting has been helpful', and we provided quite a detailed brief to the minister on that.

Senator McKENZIE: I read it.

Ms Purvis-Smith : We provided that briefing, and a decision had been made previously not to continue the ACCC monitoring.

Senator McKENZIE: In terms of the minister-to-minister conversations that happened prior to 12 October, is that the first the department knew that your minister was considering reinstating the ACCC monitoring?

Ms Werner : Yes, Senator.

Senator McKENZIE: Was that a call or an email from the minister's office to the department, or was it something that came via Treasury?

Ms Werner : We were called by Treasury.

Senator McKENZIE: And your minister was very happy with that, I'm assuming? She signed off on it.

Ms Purvis-Smith : Minister King was happy to reinstate the monitoring.

---

Senator McKENZIE: Right. So the minister accepted the department's advice in this instance? Yes. I will take that as a yes. I want to go to repatriation flights for Australians trapped in Israel. Can the department advise what airlines have repatriated Australians out of Israel in recent weeks?

Mr R Wood : There have been repatriation flights from Dubai with both Emirates and Qatar, and there was also—

Senator McKENZIE: Qatar Airways?

Mr R Wood : Yes, that's correct. There was also a flight via Qantas from Tel Aviv to London and a further flight from London to Australia. There have also been a number of flights out of Israel by the ADF and some commercial flights.

Senator McKENZIE: When you say 'commercial flights', do you mean in the course of regular aviation—

Mr R Wood : No, sorry, there have been charter flights from Israel to other locations as well. There's a small number of those which we haven't been involved in.

Senator McKENZIE: Charter flights, yes, thank you. Can you please give me the dates and passenger numbers on each flight?

Ms Purvis-Smith : Senator, I'll just let you know that we'll provide you with what we can.

Senator McKENZIE: I appreciate that.

Ms Purvis-Smith : DFAT takes the lead on this; we don't have all the details for all the flights or the passenger numbers. We will—

Senator McKENZIE: But what you have would be really helpful, thank you.

Mr R Wood : I'm just checking my notes, Senator. Just to add to what Ms Purvis Smith—

Senator McKENZIE: It's alright; I'll ask the assistant minister something while you're finding your notes.

Mr R Wood : I've found them now. There was an Emirates flight arriving in Sydney on Sunday 20 October. The advice I have is that it had 44 passengers on board, but that's to be confirmed.

Senator McKENZIE: That was Emirates flying from where?

Mr R Wood : From Dubai.

Senator McKENZIE: From Dubai into?

Mr R Wood : Into Sydney. On Tuesday 17 October, there was a Qantas flight from Dubai world airport in the UAE with an indicative passenger load of 252.

Senator McKENZIE: Was that into Sydney?

Mr R Wood : That's correct. And there was a further flight from London—no, sorry—

CHAIR: You said there was a Qatar flight?

Mr R Wood : There was a Qatar flight, that's what I was looking for. A Qatar flight arrived in Sydney on 17 October—again, from Dubai. The estimated number of passengers on board was 222. I'll just clarify that: because these are non-scheduled flights we don't have to approve them in advance, so we don't necessarily have the forward details of them. Airlines which are doing these flights are required to report within 14 days, although in these instances the airlines have provided advice in advance.

Senator McKENZIE: I only have three flights here: a Qatar Airways, a Qantas and an Emirates. Is that correct?

Mr R Wood : I believe that Qantas has done two flights: Dubai to Sydney and also London to Dubai. Sorry, that's—

Senator McKENZIE: Is the Dubai-London then London-Sydney one—

Mr R Wood : Carriage? Yes. Sorry, I'm just going to my notes. There was a Qantas flight that went from London to Dubai and then from Dubai to Sydney. The further flight by Qantas was a flight from Tel Aviv to London, leaving Tel Aviv on 14 October with an estimated 237 people on board.

Senator McKENZIE: Okay. Was there a London-Sydney flight?

Mr R Wood : Yes. There was one Qantas flight from Tel Aviv to London and another flight which went London-Dubai-Sydney. It had passengers from London and then picked up more passengers in Dubai.

Senator McKENZIE: Okay. There were 237 out of Israel into London. I assume that we took most of that passenger list into Dubai and then—

Mr R Wood : The number I have is 104, so about half that number—obviously.

Senator McKENZIE: So 104 went London-Dubai-Sydney?

Mr R Wood : That's correct. I'll clarify: 104 went on the leg from London to Dubai and from Dubai to Sydney there were 252. One would assume that all or most of those 104 stayed on board.

Senator McKENZIE: They didn't get off at Dubai.

Mr R Wood : You wouldn't have thought so.

Senator McKENZIE: Okay. What briefings did the department provide Minister King with in the last three weeks about the airlines available to assist with repatriation?

Ms Purvis-Smith : Because this is led by DFAT, the minister worked with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Minister Wong, and called the airlines. We know that the minister called Qantas and Virgin, asking whether they or their international partners could assist in the efforts to repatriate Australians looking to leave Israel.

We understand the minister's office also kept in close contact with the airlines and with minister Wong's office. We kept in contact because things were moving so quickly. We kept in contact with DFAT on a real-time basis and we kept in contact with the minister's office as things were moving quickly. DFAT had the lead in the sense that DFAT handle the procurement arrangements with the airlines. They also know, through their consular services, where people are and how many people have registered to be repatriated to Australia. They took the lead but we kept in contact with them. The Minister directly contacted the airlines and we kept in contact with Minister Wong and her office.

Senator McKENZIE: Who contacted the charter flight proponents?

Ms Purvis-Smith : I think that was DFAT. The other issue is defence: there were some ADF personnel. DFAT would have liaised with the Department of Defence and possibly also Home Affairs.

Senator McKENZIE: Probably Home Affairs?

Ms Purvis-S mith : They did liaise with the Department of Home Affairs—I do know that. Because they were the lead, we kept in contact. We didn't want to duplicate, for example, because things were moving so quickly on the need to talk to the same people about the same things.

Senator McKENZIE: When were those airlines contacted? You said the Minister rang Qantas and Virgin; what was the date of those two phone calls?

Ms Purvis-Smith : I think they were on 10 October.

Mr R Wood : I believe that's the case.

Senator McKENZIE: And then from the 10th, her office kept in contact with them?

Ms Purvis-Smith : That's my understanding.

Senator McKENZIE: Can I get an understanding of the cost of those flights?

Mr R Wood : We don't have that information; it's a matter for the Department of Home Affairs. They own that part of the process.

Senator McKENZIE: I am just trying to understand the process. If DFAT's doing the procurement, aren't they also in charge of bearing the cost?

Ms Purvis-S mith : Yes, I think it's DFAT.

Senator McKENZIE: Who pays for this?

Mr R Wood : To the extent that there is cost involved, it's a matter for DFAT. They hold the appropriation.

Senator McKENZIE: Not Home Affairs?

Mr R Wood : No, DFAT. Consular services are a clear responsibility of DFAT, and that falls within that area of responsibility.

Senator McKENZIE: Assistant Minister, there has been reticence, shall we say, from the government. There has been a lot of clapping for Qantas' role in the repatriation of Australians from a war zone. There has been little or no mention of Qatar Airways' involvement in getting Australians out of a war zone safely and securely. Are you thankful for Qatar Airways' involvement?

Senator WHITE: [inaudible]

Senator McKENZIE: You don't need to run a protection racket—Assistant Minister Brown is well across the brief.

CHAIR: It's not a protection racket.

Senator WHITE: We commend all carriers that—

Senator McKENZIE: 'All carriers' is the language we use unless we're talking about Qantas.

Senator Carol Brown: Not at all, Senator. Of course, all carriers that were involved in bringing Australians home safely are thanked.

Mr Betts : My understanding is that it was Qatar Airways who asked that the flight not be publicised by the government, so we respected that.

Senator McKENZIE: Yes, but now it is public, as are all—

Mr Betts : We were respectful of the request.

Senator McKENZIE: I appreciate that.

Senator WHITE: [inaudible]

Senator McKENZIE: Senator White, you do not need to run a protection racket.

Senator WHITE: I'm not running a protection racket    [inaudible]—

Senator McKENZIE: It's enough!

Senator WHITE: [inaudible] you publicised it.

Senator McKEN ZIE: The whole Australian public are very clear on the protection racket that's being run, and I'm pretty sure Qantas has shown itself to be big and bad enough to stand up on its own. Honestly!

CHAIR: Order! Just ask the questions.

Senator McKENZIE: I am, chair, but I keep getting interrupted.

CHAIR: You don't—there was one little spat there.

Senator McKENZIE: I'll let the Hansard reflect Senator White's significant interruptions.

CHAIR: Senator McKenzie, you have the call, will you just ask the questions, please!

Senator McKENZIE: When did Qatar Airways contact DFAT or the minister for transport's office?

Ms Purvis-Smith : I don't have that level of detail because DFAT were the lead. I know that DFAT put out an expression of interest process, and that they were in contact with Qatar Airways.

Senator McKENZIE: Moving to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act, what are the grounds on which freight-carrying aircraft can gain a dispensation to fly during the night-time curfew of 11 pm to six am?

Mr McClure : The Sydney Airport Curfew Act specifies the types of aircraft that can operate through the curfew period in Sydney. It's basically an aircraft type Bae-146. But, under the act there is opportunity, where required, for the department to consider offering dispensations for other types of aircraft to operate in exceptional circumstances, which is what has been happening. It got generated at the start of COVID, and we're continuing that at the moment.

Senator Mc KENZIE: Who is able to grant the dispensation? Is that a departmental responsibility?

Mr McClure : It's the secretary's delegation down to appropriate officers in my branch.

Senator McKENZIE: Secretary, what is the process to apply for a dispensation? You delegate it?

Mr Betts : It's delegated, so he's better placed to speak to it than I am.

Mr McClure : We do dispensations for a whole range of curfew movements—planes that are delayed for various reasons. Specifically around the freight, we have been consulting so the dispensations are time limited and, well in advance, as they become due we consult with various industry stakeholders in the community group.

Senator McKENZIE: Like who?

Mr McClure : There are three primary freight carriers. ASL, who were formally Pionair; Team Global Express, which were previously Toll; and Qantas are the freight carriers who operate.

Senator McKENZIE: Sorry—Toll, Qantas?

Mr McClure : Pionair is probably, in Australia, a third of them. We talk to the likes of Australia Post and FedEx, who have much of the freight that gets moved. We provide information and discussions through the Sydney Airport Community Forum.

Senator McKENZIE: So you have consulted with community around these dispensations? Is this done as an individual dispensation?

Mr McClure : We've been doing the freight movements on a time limited period.

Senator McKENZIE: What's the time?

Mr McClure : The last dispensation we provided was for 12 months, basically from the middle of this year through to the middle of next year.

Senator McKENZIE: So July 2023 to July 2024?

Mr McClure : I think it's like 1 or 2 July through until that period next year.

Senator McKE NZIE: Did you consult the community about that dispensation?

Mr McClure : We consult through the Sydney Airport Community Forum.

Senator McKENZIE: What does that mean? As we've discussed in this committee for years, we've had airports that have not behaved well around the level of community consultation, so what does 'We consult through the Sydney airport' mean?

Mr McClure : It's not the airport; it's the community forum, which is the designated community group for Sydney airport.

Senator McKENZIE: Does the department send somebody, or do you rely on someone else to do the consultation?

Mr McClure : We send information out to them. That forum is made up of a number of community members, but then federal representatives from electorates that are around Sydney airport—

Senator McKENZIE: Community members—are they local councils or—

Mr McClure : Local government, state government, federal government and some designated community members.

Senator McKENZIE: And they get a pamphlet from you?

Mr McClure : No. They meet regularly, so we have opportunity to discuss with them. Otherwise, we've got a mechanism to send emails where we send information out that we're considering whether exemptions need to continue as they come due.

Senator McKENZIE: Is the community impacted by this 12-month free-for-all aware that that's happening?

Mr McClure : Yes.

Senator McKENZIE: They're aware? What are the exceptional circumstances that exist right now? I appreciate COVID was an exceptional circumstance. What are the exceptional circumstances that you granted this dispensation on?

Mr McClure : The original consideration of opening up freight flights to upgauged aircraft came during COVID, and COVID was the trigger. Basically, the consideration was whether the overnight air freight market in and out of Sydney could be viably maintained within the confines of the curfew act. So, at the time, because there was only one specified aircraft, which is an older aircraft—basically there are about 17 functional BA 146 aircraft in Australia. COVID was the first consideration, but since then we've looked at impacts that have flowed from COVID, things like challenges with getting crews and pilots. As you'd be aware, we've got very much a food chain when it comes to international, Qantas, Virgin, regional, down to overnight freight, which is fairly well down the pecking order for crews and pilots. And—

Senator McKENZIE: What are the exceptional circumstances?

Mr McClure : The exception circumstance—

Senator McKENZIE: There's no global pandemic.

Mr McClure : We have made the determination on an ongoing basis that the freight task out of Sydney cannot be maintained within the refines of the Sydney curfew act.

Senator McKENZIE: So, of the 17 aircraft that are able to be approved, who owns those 17? What's the breakdown of that?

Mr McClure : They are divided between Pionair and a group called Jet Express, which are a subsidiary of Qantas. They have—

Senator McKENZIE: So Qantas Group and Pionair are beneficiaries of this decision?

Mr McClure : No, they're not benefiting from it, because we are allowing aircraft of a different nature than they own to operate. They have the compliant aircraft, but we haven't been satisfied that just using those aircraft would be sufficient to maintain what is a fairly sophisticated airfreight network.

Senator McKENZIE: So what are the airlines that have benefited from this decision then?

Mr McClure : That would be Toll, Team Global Express and Qantas are using upgauged aircraft.

Senator McKENZIE: Toll and Qantas.

Mr McClure : They're the carriers—

Senator McKENZIE: I appreciate it.

Senator RICE: Exceptional circumstances [inaudible] and Qantas.

Mr McClure : Exceptional circumstances is to maintain an airfreight core network.

Senator McKENZIE: I just want to go to the process of granting the dispensation. Has the department sought legal advice on this dispensation, given the lack of exceptional circumstances?

Mr McClure : As I said, it commenced with COVID when we made the determination around the inability to maintain a viable network, and we've followed that process each time we've considered the extension.

Senator McKENZIE: Have you got legal advice around your right to grant this dispensation, given the lack of exceptional circumstances?

Mr McClure : The last time we made the approval was in July. Because we've had discussions with the Sydney Airport Community Forum—and we have run a bit of a session on Friday with member of that forum and the group—we did recently look to get legal advice to check on the position that we were taking.

Senator McKENZIE: Have you received that legal advice?

Mr McClure : We have.

Senator McKENZIE: You have. Are you prepared to table?

Mr McClure : Legal and privilege—

Senator McKENZIE: No legal and privilege. You'd better know what you're claiming before you say it, Mr McClure.

Ms Purvis-Smith : We'll have to take that on notice.

Mr McClure : We'll have to take that on notice.

Senator McKENZIE: So you had legal advice. In the absence of it being able to be tabled, does the legal advice say, Mr McClure, that you were able to make this dispensation or not?

Ms Purvis-Smith : It's more difficult than that. That's not a binary decision.

Senator McKENZIE: It's a binary decision to grant a dispensation or not.

Ms Purvis-Smith : I understand. That is right. I would also like to clarify that one of the issues that Mr McClure went through in terms of the exceptional circumstances was the age of the BAe 146 aircraft. If we can't crew the BAe 146 aircraft, we cannot maintain the freight—

Senator McKENZIE: Which is why it beggars belief that the department hasn't recommended to the minister that she review and change the act so that it's more functional rather than granting dispensations that may or may not be legal. How often are the flights that you've approved, Mr McClure?

Mr McClure : Currently up to 80 movements are permitted every week.

Senator McKENZIE: And this is during curfew?

Mr McClure : It's during the curfew period, yes. The act allows 74, so there are an extra six movements.

Senator McKENZIE: On top of the act? At what time? Do you have the times that these flights occur?

Mr McClure : I'm not 100 per cent sure. The idea of the airfreight is that a lot of goods are collected through the day and taken out to the airport, and a plane will leave early morning. It's got to meet distribution points in Melbourne and in other parts of the country, like Brisbane, so it's a fairly sophisticated market that has timings where freight can get to regional centres and to all the major cities across Australia. Sydney is the biggest city, which generates the most freight.

Senator McKENZIE : Did you advise the minister of the decision you made? Is there some obligation, as a delegated decision-maker, to inform Mr Betts up the line and then for Mr Betts to inform Minister King?

Mr McClure : We provided advice to the minister. I haven't got the data—I'm sorry, Senator—but, at some point, when we continued the dispensations after the worst of COVID had abated, we provided advice that we were continuing to consider those dispensations in a rolling program as they fell due.

Senator McKENZIE: Mr McClure, you've approved a dispensation that runs for 12 months. I'm less than impressed with the level of consultation that was undertaken. I'm not confident that, if I went into the community, they'd be happy. Does Minister King know that this has happened?

Mr McClure : I'm not sure Minister King is aware of the 12-month dispensation as such.

Senator McKENZIE: Mr Betts, is Minister King aware?

Mr Betts : I'd say that, from what Mr McClure has said, he alerted the minister up front to the way in which the delegation operated, and it is a delegation from the secretary. Beyond that, I can't comment.

Mr McClure : I should add that all these are tabled in parliament, so we're not hiding the fact. All the dispensation approvals are tabled in parliament.

Senator McKENZIE: But usually ministers like to know things are going to be tabled in their area of responsibility before they're tabled.

Mr McClure : There's a process for the tabling.

Senator McKENZIE: Would it have to go up to the minister's office prior to tabling, or can you just table without her knowing?

Mr McClure : To be honest, I'm not 100 per cent sure how the tabling works, but it goes through our ministerial parliament services.

Senator McKENZIE: You mentioned, in the level of consultation, that local members were informed; is that correct?

Mr McClure : They're part of the Sydney Airport Community Forum.

Senator McKENZIE: Was Matt Thistlethwaite informed?

Mr McClure : He was aware.

Senator McKENZIE: Was the member for Grayndler aware?

Mr McClure : His electorate is a member of SACF, yes.

Senator McKENZIE: So the Prime Minister knew this was happening, but we're not sure the minister knew this was happening.

Mr McClure : I don't know exactly what level of knowledge people have, but the federal members that are in Sydney that could potentially be impacted by the airport are on the Sydney Airport Community Forum email list.

Senator McKENZIE: So Anthony Albanese is on that list?

Mr McClure : His electorate is, so it goes to his office.

Senator McKE NZIE: Matt Thistlethwaite?

Mr McClure : That's right.

Senator McKENZIE: The member for North Sydney, whichever teal that is?

Mr McClure : Yes.

Mr Betts : The member for Sutherland.

Senator McKENZIE: That would be Cook. Anybody else?

Mr McClure : Yes.

Mr Betts : This isn't a secret; we can get you the names.

Senator McKENZIE: But it does seem that some people knew, Mr Betts, and others didn't.

Mr Betts : That's because of the nature of them being local federal members.

Senator McKENZIE: This is a concern that the minister potentially knew, and I'm yet to receive a response—

Mr Betts : The minister is the member for Ballarat. We're talking about geographically defined membership.

Senator McKENZIE: I appreciate that, but you're tabling a dispensation for 12 months for additional flights in a curfew period, and the minister doesn't know.

Mr Betts : It's in accordance with the legislation and the delegations which are in place to do that, and the minister was briefed on the nature of those delegations.

Senator McKENZIE: Ms Purvis-Smith, given your interjection earlier about the problems with the existing legislation, has the department ever suggested to this minister or any previous minister that this legislation is out of date and it would be a hell of a lot easier for Mr McClure and whoever held the delegated authority prior to him if this legislation were updated?

Ms Purvis-Smith : I'm not sure about whether advice on that has ever been provided. But we are looking at making changes through a range of processes including the slot management reforms and the sunsetting legislation process.

Senator McKENZIE: The Harris review sits on the desk of the minister, who refuses to act on it, and we've all got to wait until after the next election for some slots out of Sydney. Is it not the case, Mr McClure, that your dispensations favour Qantas?

Mr McClure : No. I wouldn't say they favour Qantas. They're absolutely one of the providers, but what we're trying to do is maintain a freight network that benefits everybody who relies on that for goods.

Senator McKENZIE: I appreciate that, Mr McClure, but the outcome of your dispensation is that one airline is actually getting the lion's share of benefit.

Mr McClure : There's been no change to what Qantas already had; I can't remember the exact number of 74. Qantas has been a longstanding overnight freight provider, so they have always had the ability to fly the freight flights.

Senator McKENZIE: And we're continuing to uphold their market share. Thank you. Chair, I have no further questions in this area.

CHAIR: Welcome back, everyone! I welcome officers from CASA. I won't ask for opening statements; if you have one you can table it. Senator Fawcett, who is 60 today, has the call. Happy birthday—there's no better way to spend it than at Senate estimates!

Senator FAWCETT: We won't be asking for your age, either, Ms Spence, you'll be glad to hear!

Ms Spence : Happy birthday, Senator!

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you. In fact, this does actually take me back a little bit. I'm assuming that in preparation for your role you read through the Hansard transcripts of many years and that you're aware that between 2014 and 2017 your predecessors and I had many discussions about colour-vision-deficient pilots?

Ms Spence : Yes.

CHAIR: I'm aware of it!

Senator FAWCETT: Eventually, as you'd be aware, in February 2020 your predecessor, Mr Carmody, announced something to the world, which I will read from the statement that he sent out:

Research in recent years has shown relying on diagnostic tests alone may be unnecessarily limiting when considering the impact of colour vision deficiency on aviation safety. Advances in technology, operating techniques and human factors training can now mitigate many of the safety risks of colour vision deficiency. Technology to assist pilots has developed significantly and the impact of colour vision deficiency on aviation safety should take these changes into account.

At the end of his statement he said:

CASA has carefully examined all relevant safety issues and believes this new approach—

Which is the same as in New Zealand and for the FAA—

offers a practical alternative assessment for colour vision deficient pilots. We have listened to the views of pilots and made judgements based on research and evidence.

That is a fantastic outcome. They changed the lot of pilots, which had been thrown into confusion by a new senior medical officer within CASA who didn't like Australia's position, which was to allow pilots to do an operational test. Despite losing AAT cases et cetera and despite reviews of evidence that finally proved we should do this operational test, like the New Zealanders and the FAA, it's all happening again. Could you explain why CASA is spending half a million dollars on a review? What is the evidence base to justify this change of position? What incidents have occurred? What evidence has led to the decision to spend half a million dollars of taxpayers' money and overturn what has been in the CASRs for some years now, to the detriment of a group of individuals in our aviation community?

Ms Spence : I wouldn't describe it in the same way that you have, in terms of someone coming in and not supporting the previous position. I will ask our principal medical officer if she wouldn't mind joining us at the table, but I think the first thing really is that it's a question about what's consistent with the standards versus what's okay from an operational perspective. I don't think we've changed our position that there aren't ways of overcoming the issue of colour blindness from an operational perspective. I think there is a different question about whether that is consistent with the standards, and that's a harder question to answer, so I might pass to Dr Manderson to provide a bit more detail.

Senator FAWCETT: Dr Manderson, welcome.

Dr Manderson : Thank you very much. Regarding the colour vision assessment, what we found a couple years ago, and going back a bit before that, was that there was a lot of difficulty and confusion in how that colour vision assessment was being applied by the flight instructors who were assessing the pilots with colour vision deficiencies and in how the pilots themselves knew what they would be expected to demonstrate in their flights. We had some difficulties where the forms and the flights were not being conducted to a consistent standard across the board. Someone might have one kind of flight or assessment with one assessor and a completely different one with somebody else. With that degree of confusion and lack of clarity, we realised that, having established that an operational flight based assessment was really important, how we did that was where there was a big gap in what we were doing and why we were doing it, and it was that gap that led to all of that confusion and some difficulties in what standard was being met by whom and when. That's why we saw that gap in the how that hadn't been filled by any of those other organisations or jurisdictions.

We've consulted really quite extensively. Even last Friday we had an international meeting here in Canberra with our colleagues from FAA, New Zealand and ICAO. The United States military have come across as well to share their experiences with us and how we do it now. There really is a global consensus that the approach we've taken is world leading and will make a big difference to the consistent application of a good standard that our instructors and pilots can rely on to make a safe decision.

Senator FAWCETT: Sure. I don't have a problem with standardisation. I think that's excellent. I do note my understanding is that New Zealand did have a course to standardise their examiners, which we didn't adopt, even though we adopted their operational test. Am I correct in my understanding of that?

Dr Manderson : I'm not familiar with the detail of the way the New Zealand team initially applied theirs, but they're certainly very excited about looking at what we're doing and learning from what we're doing. That's because we have gone to the next level. There's much more depth and it's much more comprehensive. The CAA New Zealand chief medical officer is very interested in learning from what we've done.

Senator FAWCETT: My understanding is that, because we didn't have any standardisation initially, the initial batch of flight examiners went to New Zealand to get their training there. In fact, we encouraged or enabled it, saying that, if pilots wished to bear the cost to go to New Zealand to be tested by the New Zealanders, we would accept that as a valid system that did have standardisation and did the test. I don't have a problem with standardisation. What I have a problem with is this. When I look at your website, we have gone back to the days of saying: if you pass the operational test, we are still going to limit you in terms of what you can do as a pilot; for example, fly as or with a copilot. Given everything Mr Carmody said, everything the AAT found and cases back in ancient history—30 years ago now—when Australia became a world leader, what evidence justifies that imposition of a restriction on someone who passes the operational test?

Dr Manderson: The evidence is based around the demonstration of being able to do the elements of the flying task that have been assessed by this international group of expert pilots and flying instructors as being the time-critical, safety-critical colour-vision-dependent tasks of the flying task. That was a gap that was there in the work that was done leading up to the New Zealand assessment that we've now been able to produce. It is not about the medical diagnosis; it is what it is with the diagnosis of colour vision deficiency. The evidence is now about being able to know exactly how that medical status affects a person's fitness to fly and fly safely. That's exactly the same as we do with people with kidney disease, hearing deficiency or heart disease. They don't meet the standard, but now we can—in very great detail and very safely—effectively and consistently assess whether or not the way they meet the standard presents a hazard to safe air navigation. That's the way we do all of our medical assessments.

Senator FAWCETT: In theory that is fine. What you're describing is that your test is now focusing on some discrete task elements that you believe are important. But what your website says is that even if someone passes that test—they've now jumped through these additional hoops of specific tasks—you're still going to put limitations on what they can exercise as captain in command of an aircraft. What is the evidence to justify those limitations? That is my question.

Mr Marcelja : Could I jump in? The website and some of that information sits in my area. I think what you're describing, if that is correct, is not our policy. Our policy is that there are various conditions that we can put on medical certificates, depending on how you go in the test, but if you pass the test and can demonstrate that you're operationally safe there is no condition of a copilot. What Dr Manderson is saying, though, is that, because you have not met a medical standard that's internationally accepted but have proven you are safe, we will grant you a medical certificate. We can't say that you've met a standard but we can say you're safe to fly, and those conditions will be applied depending on the way you've gone. If that's on our website, I'll take that up, because that's not the policy.

Senator FAWCETT: I have two points. I think it was amply proven almost a decade ago, and two decades before that, as we dug into the history, that those standards emerged from maritime standards that were applied in the United Kingdom in the days of Sopwith Camels and things in World War 1, and the reason we no longer require them is that we have secondary means of communication. We've demonstrated through a whole range of flight profiles and cockpit modifications, particularly with the advent of EFIS screens et cetera, that many of the old colour hierarchies around warnings et cetera are no longer relevant. They're not required to do the task. Even the red and green lights are not required. Pilots wear Bluetooth headsets.

I come back to the fact that your website—at this stage, this is what industry is seeing—states that a pilot who passes the test will have these restrictions until they have 100 hours of flight at night, the ATPL standard, or 75 hours of instrument time. I've done just a very quick bit of research on the current costing of something like a Cessna 172RG, which is the kind of aircraft for night VFR or instrument flying, the costs between Moorabbin, Dubbo, Adelaide and Sunshine Coast vary from about $250 to $355, excluding GST. We're putting a burden on pilots who want to enter the industry of $30,000 to $40,000, and I'm not aware of any evidence that would justify those restrictions if they have passed the operational test.

Ms Spence : I think what we're saying is that we think our website's wrong. We will go back to review it, because that doesn't sound like our policy. As Dr Manderson said, we're working—and we're working internationally—looking at how we manage this issue. But the whole point, in the simplest terms, was that if you pass the test then you've got a permission to fly. Those sorts of conditions you've just described should not be applying. If you can bear with us, we'll review the website, because what you've read out just doesn't sound right.

Senator FAWCETT: I'll have a look tomorrow afternoon. I'll be very pleased to see that gone. This is my last question. My understanding is that, in accordance with the regulation—which I could look up; I've got it written here somewhere, but I'm sure you know what it is—CASA was still advising pilots to do the operational test, which they did at some cost, and then AvMed were denying them an aircrew medical because CASA had changed its mind, even though the regulation still said it was possible and even though pilots have been directed to that. Some pilots now, over periods in excess of 12 months, have forked out thousands of dollars to take a flight test and have had their application refused. What is the situation for people who have previously done it, before this change in approach? What is the situation for those who did it in the intervening period, when the regulation said they would be approved? They committed to a flight test on that basis and have now been told they're not able to fly. What is CASA going to do to enable those people to move ahead with their lives, and can you guarantee there's going to be no retrospective action against the many pilots who did the original operational flight test as announced in 2020 and have been flying—single-pilot, in RFDS type operations, and multi-pilot, in RPT operations, both domestically and overseas—without incident since they got their medicals? Can you guarantee that they will be able to continue to exercise the qualifications that they have earned in accordance with the regulation, or will there be any retrospective action that CASA is looking to impose upon them?

Ms Spence : Can I just jump in first: if you've got people who've come to you saying that they haven't been approved, I would really encourage you to refer them to me, Mr Marcelja or Dr Manderson, because that doesn't sound like that's consistent with our policy. I would have thought, with medicals, that they're things that come up every two years or whatever, depending on where you are, and so there would be no retrospective requirements. If matters change over time then get your medical renewed, but there's certainly not an intention to have a retrospective element to all of this. Again, for anyone who's spoken to you and said that they've been refused on the grounds that you've described, please encourage them to talk to us, because that just doesn't sound right.

Senator FAWCETT: This is my last question, Chair, before you wind me up. Industry had been told that the new test and all of its conditions would be released in September this year. We're now approaching the end of October. Where are we at, and when will these people have some certainty about their future or current careers?

Mr Marcelja : We have slowed that down just a little bit because we're working through some of those implementation issues that you just mentioned. As Ms Spence said, we don't expect people to automatically have to prove things themselves, but, where we've discovered that a test maybe has some uncertainty around it, we might ask somebody to do that test again. In that circumstance, we would fund that. These are the policies that we haven't yet settled, which is why you haven't seen a policy come out. They haven't been finalised, but they're very close. As Ms Spence said, we'd very happily follow up any individual case where someone's been disadvantaged, because our understanding was that the existing scheme was in place while we were settling the new one.

Ms Spence : As far as my understanding goes, no-one has been refused—

Dr Manderson : There have been no refusals or cancellations for colour vision deficiency.

Senator FA WCETT: Okay. I'll go back to the email trail that I have been given and see if I can see whether there's substance to what was reflected in that email. If that's the case, I will come to you, Ms Spence, as the best person to—

Ms Spence : That'd be great. Thanks, Senator.

Note the following from the Kingston City Council prior to Miniscule Dicky King's bollocks masterplan decision:

Future of aviation at Moorabbin Airport hangs in the balance

Published on 24 August 2023



The future of Moorabbin Airport is on a knife edge with aviation businesses kept in the dark and fearing for their survival.

Aviation businesses celebrated when a proposed 5-year Masterplan for the site was refused by former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce in 2022 due to growing concerns that aviation businesses were being pushed out in favour of factory developments.

These developments have progressively eroded aviation, despite it being the core purpose for the Commonwealth-owned land.

The Moorabbin Airport Corporation was sent back to the drawing board but has argued current legislation does not require it to share any details on the updated plans for the site with aviation businesses, residents, or Kingston Council.

Kingston Mayor Hadi Saab said it was utterly ridiculous that a Masterplan for a significant airport was not shown to neighbouring residents or tenants on-site particularly when it directly impacts their business survival or allows large warehouses against residents’ boundaries.

Moorabbin Airport, located in Melbourne’s south-east just 25km from the CBD, is Australia’s second busiest airport averaging 295,000 movements per year and is responsible for the training of about 25% of Australia’s pilots.

“The Federal Government is due to rule on the Masterplan at any time, yet neighbouring residents have no idea how their homes may be impacted and aviation businesses on the site have been left in the dark about their future,” Cr Saab said.

“This is clearly unfair. One of the reasons the first draft was refused was due to a lack of consultation. How can anyone say there has been consultation when key stakeholders have not been shown any new designs since the first draft was refused.”

Council sought legal advice from one of Australia’s top Kings Counsels who has questioned the approach the Airport has taken and disagrees that further consultation is not required after the first draft.

Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce President Rob Simpson said the first draft of the Masterplan had large areas of the airport land currently used for aviation set aside for large industrial/ commercial uses.

“Australia needs a strong aviation industry, but aviation businesses are being pushed out in favour of warehouses,” Mr Simpson said.

“There is a global pilot shortage and now is the perfect opportunity to boost strong pilot training services, but businesses have no certainty they will have any room at the airport.”

Kingston Council, aviation businesses and nearby residents have flagged concerns about growing factory development at the site for a number of years which would result in:

Reducing space for aviation at the site and increasing safety risks.
Long-standing aviation businesses that are reliant on being located on the airport may be forced to close.
Neighbouring homes facing huge factories being over the fence, with no planning protections embedded in the Masterplan which require a Major Development Plan trigger to be used to ensure a robust and prescribed consultation on any such proposals.
Loss of highly respected pilot training services which provide qualified, safe pilots for the industry.
“We are simply calling for development at Moorabbin Airport to be properly managed in a way that protects aviation at the site, respects neighbouring homes and does not increase safety risks at the site. Buildings should be located away from homes and should leave plenty of open space for emergency landings,” Cr Saab said.

Cr Saab said Kingston Council and aviation businesses had taken their concerns directly to the Federal Infrastructure Minister Catherine King, who oversees the department that will provide advice on the Masterplan.

“We have been pleased to meet with Minister King twice to raise concerns and we hope that a Masterplan is not approved until proper consultation occurs and that the plan is safe, sets aside more space for existing and future aviation activities and includes buffer zones between warehouses and neighbouring homes.”

Proper strategic planning requires that the site’s primary purpose as an airport is prioritised.

“There is a strong history of refusing inappropriate airport development with Anthony Albanese previously refusing masterplans for both Bankstown (2011) and Canberra (2008) airports and blocking plans for inappropriate commercial development here at Moorabbin Airport (2013). An airport and the industries on it are not something you can easily replace,” Cr Saab said.

And then after the decision:

Media Statement - Moorabbin Airport Masterplan

Published on 07 September 2023

Council is pleased to see that significant changes have been made to the Moorabbin Airport Masterplan to protect the future of aviation at the site.

We’re hopeful for clear skies ahead following a successful campaign by aviation businesses and Kingston Council to secure the future of aviation at Moorabbin Airport.

The new masterplan was released yesterday, and Council will discuss the details with the Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce in coming days, but our first impressions are largely positive.

We are pleased to see the masterplan guarantees no decrease in land dedicated to aviation purposes and that commercial warehouses are prohibited in these areas – which were some of our key concerns with the earlier draft masterplan. Commercial uses have grown at the site with a reduction in aviation space in successive masterplans.

We are pleased that Minister King listened to the concerns of aviation businesses and Council which resulted in much-needed improvements being made.

However, Council is deeply disappointed that the masterplan continues to offer no protection for neighbouring homeowners who may face largescale warehouses towering over their homes.

We are pleased that the Minister’s review of aviation has commenced and hope it results in critical changes to ensure the rights of aviation businesses, neighbouring homes and critical safety issues are properly addressed through updated legislation.

It is utterly absurd that aviation businesses were kept in the dark about the contents of the masterplan and new legislation is needed to make sure proper and transparent engagement takes place when deciding the future of planning on what remains Commonwealth-owned land.

Finally this was the Kingston Council's excellent presentation to the now kyboshed GA Inquiry:

MTF...P2