Senator MACKAY (10:09 AM) —The opposition will not be supporting Senator Brown's disallowance motion. But I would like to make it very clear to Senator Brown that this was not a decision taken lightly or in haste. We put a considerable amount of time and effort into coming to a position on this motion, and the shadow minister I am representing has asked me to convey her thanks to Senator Brown for accommodating our desire to ensure we were fully briefed on this important issue.

We are not supporting the disallowance, because we have accepted the advice of CASA that to do so will result in a less safe situation at Australia's non-controlled aerodromes. Aviation regulations coming before the Senate almost always involve technical matters—and none of us pretend to be experts in airspace management or aviation safety. Last week, the opposition moved to disallow another technical aviation regulation—but we did so not so much on the technical arguments but on the grounds of CASA's failure to consult with those most affected by the proposed changes and what we saw as a failure to follow due process.

As I said, the opposition did not come to our position on this disallowance lightly. When you look at the history of this issue and at what occurs in the United States and Britain, it is very clear that it is preferable to have some level of staffed communications services on the ground at non-controlled aerodromes. That was the model Dick Smith was advancing when he was chair of CASA and, in our view, that remains the best model. It does not have to be an air traffic control tower; it can range from a service that is staffed several hours a day to one that is staffed only during peak periods or when regular public transport—RPT—operations are taking place. It does not have to be an air traffic controller providing the service but it does have to be a person with a sufficient level of training to do the job.

The issue, as always, is: who bears the cost of such a service? The inability to resolve that issue seems to be at the heart of this particular problem. I note that BASI's regional airline safety study, released in May of this year, noted that the most frequent comments on the topic of the greatest safety problem facing regional airlines were: the inadequacy of see and avoid as a primary means of separating aircraft, particularly at the speeds of modern turboprop aircraft; pilots flying under visual flight rules were not sufficiently aware of the procedures used by pilots flying under instrument flight rules and were therefore unable to perceive a confliction and take appropriate action; and, finally, lack of information available to IFR pilots about VFR aircraft, as the air traffic system no longer provided such details and many VFR pilots were not using correct radio procedures.

BASI concluded that `current procedures for maintaining separation between IFR regional airline aircraft and VFR aircraft at non-controlled aerodromes are inadequate and a significant collision risk exists'. So that is the problem CASA must address. CASA say they intend to move towards a unicom style system. In fact, they set off down this path last year when they introduced conditions on RPT operators flying aircraft with more than nine seats to non-controlled aerodromes. These conditions meant that the airlines would be able to operate to such aerodromes only if a `third party communications system' was provided. This requirement could be met by the provision of one of the following: an aerodrome frequency response unit—known as a beep-back unit, as already mentioned; a unicom—universal communications radio service, as already mentioned; or certified air-ground radio service. Basically, these conditions were designed to increase safety at non-controlled aerodromes—to ensure, at the very least, that all pilots selected and confirmed correct frequencies at these aerodromes.

CASA also initially required a staffed radio communications service for the conduct of visual straight-in approaches at non-controlled aerodromes. This would have meant that the airlines would be exempted from having to join the traffic pattern—or the circuit—at these aerodromes, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, if they provided either a unicom radio service or a certified air-ground radio service. In effect, the airlines were given the option of putting in such a service or doing nothing. In response to that, the regional airlines told CASA that they had no intention of providing such services, that they would not seek the exemption for a straight-in approach, and would join the circuit. CASA's view was that having much faster and bigger RPT aircraft in the circuit with smaller, slower aircraft was less safe than permitting them to continue to do straight-in approaches.

So CASA has put in an intervening step that allows the airlines to carry out straight-in approaches, provided they meet a series of conditions: visual conditions must prevail—with visibility of at least 5 kilometres, vertical distance from cloud of at least 1,000 feet and horizontal distance from cloud of at least 1.5 kilometres; the aircraft must have two pilots; the pilot in command must have obtained information on the wind direction and runways in use from an automatic weather station or radio contact with a company agent or an aircraft operating at the aerodrome or by visual observation; and the pilot in command must advise other aircraft when established on final approach and must give way to any other aircraft in the traffic pattern which is on base leg or final approach for any runway. Beep-back units will be used to ensure all pilots operating out of a non-controlled aerodrome have selected—and are using—the correct frequency.

If we disallow these changes, we will return to the situation where the airlines have the option of doing nothing—and that means joining the traffic pattern, and that means reduced safety. Now, we are not saying that this is a particularly satisfactory outcome overall. We take the view that if something is considered to be safer—and staffed services are considered to be safer, obviously—then that is the option that should ultimately be pursued. We expect CASA to pursue that option and to pursue it quickly and vigorously. I ask the parliamentary secretary to give the Senate a very concrete and solid undertaking that it will occur and that the current situation is an interim step along that path.

I would also be interested in hearing, through the parliamentary secretary, the minister's view on the proposals put forward by the Community and Public Sector Union for the introduction of an aerodrome flight information service to improve services at or near busy regional aerodromes. I would like to know whether the minister sees this as an initiative worth pursuing. If not, why not? What is wrong with a proposal that seeks to place a comprehensive traffic service on the ground at these aerodromes? Why could that not be achieved? In Labor's view, part of the problem lies in the shift away from seeing air safety as a public responsibility and towards a policy of cost recovery. We find it hard to see why, if these services make non-controlled aerodromes safer, they should not be provided by Airservices Australia and paid for partly by industry and partly by the public.

In essence, we can only agree with Senator Brown that the original requirements for third party communications at non-controlled aerodromes have been watered down. We can only state that we believe a staffed service, in one guise or another, is a safer option—certainly at the busiest aerodromes. But we have accepted the advice that to disallow Senator Brown's notice of motion would mean reverting to a less safe situation than currently applies.