Mr BAIRD (10:10 PM) —It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 . I listened to the member for Dickson in terms of this debate and found that she debated the substantive issues in this legislation for a couple of minutes and then moved onto a wide ranging political debate in terms of CASA. But the fact is that this is basically a machi nery bill. It involves some technical changes to the Civil Aviation Act, and it aims to harmonise it with the international standards of safety regulation, which I would have thought was an appropriate objective. Its aim is also to make it shorter, simpler and easier to understand.

There was also an election commitment in the government's Soaring into Tomorrow document, which Minister Sharp at that time took to the election. Of course, the Morris committee report entitled Plane Safe and the Seaview commission of inquiry both supported the need for a review of Australian regulations and standards. So this is the result of that inquiry. There are some changes to the regulations which were overdue, and the aim of the bill is basically to facilitate the findings of the review. As I said, this bill is basically of a machinery nature and provides for the introduction of a new set of regulations which are harmonised with civil aviation laws in various countries, particularly the USA.

One of the first key features of this bill is the retention and destruction of goods. The bill provides for new powers for CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, in relation to the retention and destruction of goods seized by CASA in the course of investigating breaches of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations. The power to retain seized goods for longer than 60 days and the power to destroy seized goods are vested in courts. CASA must apply to courts for orders to retain or destroy, as the case may be.

These changes have arisen in response to the difficulties which have occurred in commissioning proceedings within the 60-day time limit and provide for goods to be destroyed where the owner cannot be located or has refused to take possession of the goods. The discretion to destroy dangerous goods seized is proposed because, in practice, it is not always possible to return the seized goods. That is obviously a sensible proposal. They are saying that, in the past, they have had to do a search as to who owns the goods. They have had to store it. This simply means that, if they do not indicate ownership within the 60-day period, they can destroy it instead of wasting resources in storing it.

Unless such goods are forfeited to the state under legislation relating to property used in the commission of an offence, CASA under the current legislation is required to store the goods indefinitely, and this obviously is expensive and unnecessary. The amendments proposed will permit a CASA investigator to apply to the court for an order that the goods be destroyed where the owner cannot be located or has refused to take possession of the goods. That is the first provision, and it is one of the key provisions—that is, the ability to destroy goods after they have been held for 60 days or so. It is a simple regulatory requirement—no big deal. Despite a political address, I am very pleased to hear the shadow minister say that the opposition supports these proposals, as rightly it should.

The second part relates to the regulations. The existing act contains various references to the `civil aviation regulations'. These references will be changed to `the regulations' or `regulations made under this act' or similar. Other changes of terminology will also need to be made to enable the incorporation of overseas standards and requirements. The new regulations will be based to a large degree on the federal aviation regulations of the USA, and I think that is appropriate because the USA is a very large regulatory body which dominates the air services scene. So to coordinate our requirements in line with the American situation is, of course, appropriate.

The act is being amended to permit the sub-delegation of power to CASA to make decisions of a legislative nature in a similar manner to the US Federal Aviation Administration. So, obviously, this requires streamlining of the current act in line with overseas developments. The principles underlying the new regulations require that, firstly, they are harmonised internationally with the USA federal aviation regulations and the European joint aviation regulations so there is a coordination of the two key bodies, the US requirements and the European requirements; secondly, that they are clear, concise and understandable; thirdly, that they have a safety outcome approach—and, of course, CASA is obviously given that key responsibility; fourthly, that they enforceable; fifthly, that they avoid over-regulation; and, sixthly, that they are consistent with the role of CASA.

It is envisaged that the various parts of the new Civil Aviation Regulations will be phased in over the period 1999 to 2003. Each part will issued in the form of a notice of proposed rule making, to which interested parties may respond. With the advent of these new regulations the principal act can be amended appropriately, so a number of the provisions in the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 are designed to give effect to this.

The third major aspect to the bill—firstly, we have the ability to destroy goods and, secondly, there is the regulatory aspect—is the fees that can be charged by CASA. Under this part of the bill is the clarification of CASA's ability to classify the fees charged by CASA under the Civil Aviation (Fees) Regulations as debt due to CASA. Where regulations made under the act require the payment of a fee and the fee is not paid by the due date, then a late fee can be imposed. The provision which enables the making of regulations which prescribe limited late payment penalties to be imposed is also included.

The fourth aspect of the bill is design standards. The regulatory changes will, by giving CASA the power to make design standards, streamline many of the current CASA requirements and assist the manufacture of aircraft in Australia, which will be seen as obviously of great benefit to the industry itself and which also will encourage manufacture of various components and parts as part of some of the major aircraft types which are produced offshore. I am sure that members of the House have noted that a lot of the major aircraft components which are produced under the Boeing label or the Airbus label are actually produced in Australia—and that can be parts of the wing tips, aircraft windows or tail rudders. A whole range of parts is produced in Australia. These design standards are going to make it easier for parts to be produced in Australia and, obviously, that will assist in the encouragement of the aviation manufacturing sector in Australia—even though that is small, I think it is appropriate that we provide those standards.

In summary, the bill is primarily of a machinery nature, providing for new parts 21 to 35 of the new Civil Aviation Regulations. It has been the subject of lobbying by the industry itself, by members of the aviation industry. It provides the new regulations, as we have seen, to harmonise with international civil aviation laws. It enables CASA to issue design standards for unusual aircraft and to provide guidelines for the production of these aircraft parts in Australia. It provides new powers for the destruction or the retention of goods seized by CASA during the course of investigating breaches of the Civil Aviation Act and regulations. And, finally, it clarifies the power of CASA to impose fees.

So I am very happy to support this bill, a bill which is basically a machinery bill that cleans up the Civil Aviation Act and which certainly brings it into line with civil aviation requirements in other jurisdictions in the international marketplace, particularly in Europe and in the USA. I commend the bill to the House.