Mr LIEBERMAN (4:02 PM) —One would have thought that the opposition, after moving such a motion concerning the alleged failure of the government to accept responsibility for the administration of aviation safety and the failure to address and resolve their safety concerns regarding class G airspace, would have put some substantial facts before the parliament so that they could sustain and justify their action in bringing this MPI. In fact, they have done quite the opposite. What they have done has revealed their lack of sincerity, their lack of substance and their lack of responsibility.

I give you some examples of why I say that. Firstly, it is only about eight or so weeks ago that we had a federal election. Both sides of politics, all parties, had the opportunity to put before the public what they thought about aviation safety, what they thought needed to be done by the minister, and what changes needed to be put in place by their minister— or any minister for that matter—in the Commonwealth government regarding air safety.

The Labor Party document on aviation policy shows that in effect what they are saying is that they will maintain the policy originally modelled by the former minister in this place, the member for Kingsford-Smith, who had the opportunity to speak today on the MPI and did not—remarkably. And I think that ought to be noted, because that sends out certain signals as well. So there was nothing in the policy of the Labor Party, the party for whom the member for Dickson is now the shadow minister in this area, nothing at all to indicate that there ought to be substantial changes in the role of the minister in relation to aviation safety.

In fact, from what I heard the member for Dickson say, there is substantial support for the actions of John Anderson—an excellent Minister for Transport and Regional Services—in his actions and behaviour, because what this government is doing and what this minister is doing is ensuring that the crucial issues of air safety are dealt with by appropriate experts, free of politics, who are accountable through their departments and their statutory functions to the minister through to the parliament and the public of Australia. So nothing at all came today from the opposition, the member for Dickson or the member for Paterson to substantially establish anything at all about the process that would be detrimental.

So we have actually seen unfold in the minister's hands—and thank goodness John Anderson is the minister—a correct approach to the administration of air safety. He has required at all times that the statutory officers in CASA and BASI provide reports, respond and are accountable. And the minister himself has made available to this parliament letters from the director of civil aviation air safety, Mick Toller, as early as this week, explaining circumstances in relation to class G airspace. The minister himself has done that and made information available. The minister today has informed us that the process that he supervises, which is substantially the administrative process set up by the member for Kingsford- Smith during the 13 years of Labor government in Australia, has in fact been proceeding to the point where now the experts, the people that must advise us and give independent advice, have said that the class G airspace demonstration will now cease and will be assessed according to what they have learnt during the demonstration. Furthermore, the minister is very properly and correctly requiring his department to come to him by 22 December—I think he said—with an overview and a report of the various functions of people involved in this process.

I have another point about the member for Paterson. He raised some very serious matters as a federal member of the parliament. In support of the member for Dickson's pitiful attempt to cause problems with her MPI, the member for Paterson told us that he was privy to information from pilots. He was given information by pilots which indicated grave matters on safety which were of concern. Because I was not given prior notice, I do not know whether the member for Paterson reported those matters or whether he asked the pilots concerned to provide substantial information and facts on the air safety matters that were so serious that the member for Paterson said that he was told not to fly.

I challenge the member for Paterson to come back to this House and indicate whether or not he conveyed that information to the appropriate independent authorities which are charged with responsibility for investigating serious matters of air safety. If he did not, why didn't he? Why did he wait until today to raise the matters in a rhetorical way and to cause alarm and concern in his support of the very pitiful attempt by the member for Dickson to create a major political issue when she herself had failed to sustain her case? The minister has acted very correctly in accordance with the legislation and his responsibilities. He has done what you would expect him to do.

The policy which the Labor Party put before the people until 3 October was to support that process. What we have today is a failure by the opposition to make its case. It is an opposition full of rhetoric, and an opposition which made very serious claims through the second speaker on the MPI. The opposition has a responsibility to account for its actions and to indicate what the member did with that knowledge. It is now 9 December. When did these incidents occur? Why has there been a delay, prima facie, in the member for Paterson conveying that information to the appropriate authorities and asking the pilots involved to do the same?

Let us look at what is ahead of us. The minister has outlined a very responsible and correct approach to achieving the best air safety standards—standards that all Australians want. He has outlined a process which will require further reporting to him by the people involved. They have the statutory responsibilities under the legislation; legislation which was substantially set up by the previous Labor government to separate from the political arm, from the parliament, the necessary processes of advice, evaluation and supervision.

Surely to God, the community—those who are listening to this debate and the commentators in the media who will report on it—is entitled to conclude clearly that we have an excellent Minister for Transport and Regional Services who, on behalf of the Howard-Fischer government, is attending to the business that he is responsible for in a very correct manner, and who requires the people who are responsible for air safety, supervision and regulation to respond and report. That will be done in a very transparent way. The minister has already outlined that.

Surely that is the process that we in Australia should expect and not a process, as it appears the member for Paterson wanted in his speech in support of his shadow minister, where a member of parliament is the one who determines the facts and the one who determines whether or not a particular process or regulation is efficient. That is really what they are putting. It is contrary to what the shadow minister said, because in effect she said that she was not qualified to make the technical judgments and give the technical advice necessary to achieve air safety. She acknowledged that.

Does the member for Dickson expect the minister to have the technical knowledge and expertise to supplant the technical knowledge and expertise that the people of Australia have provided through the various legislative processes and through CASA and BASI? They are the ones who are required to perform. The minister clearly requires them to perform, and the minister has set out a timetable for them to respond in respect of the remaining elements of the class G airspace demonstration process.

The results of the class G demonstration process will be made public so that everyone will be able to respond to and learn from that, remembering that this government's objectives are ones that I would have thought a responsible opposition would be supporting, because they are to deliver sound, safe air safety regulations; to ensure that the system is working; to ensure that it is monitored constantly; that it is transparent, accountable and flexible; and that, when change is needed, we have the courage to respond and to change. That is the charter of the government. (Time expired)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) —Order! The discussion is now concluded.