Senator O'BRIEN (1:00 PM) —Today I want to speak about aviation safety. Firstly, I want to draw the attention of the Senate to the charter letter written by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, to the board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 30 September last year. The letter was designed to give the board a better understanding of the broader government policy framework in which the agency operates. The minister said that his letter should be treated as strategic guidance. In that letter Mr Anderson made specific references to air services in remote regions. He said:

It appears to me that CASA has always confronted the potentially competing objectives of ensuring the provision of regional air services while at the same time ensuring those services meet the safety standards required of low capacity regular public transport operators. In the past, the balance between these two objectives may have been tipped in favour of maintaining a service at the expense of ensuring proper safety standards are met. That was certainly the case with Monarch, Seaview and Aquatic Air and it may well be the case with Whyalla Airlines, though that is yet to be determined.

It should be noted that the Director of CASA, Mr Toller, went to the issue of CASA's approach to safety and regional regular public transport operators in a letter to air operating certificate holders in August 1998. He said that for too long some CASA staff had accommodated marginal operators. He said:

This is in sharp contrast with the tone of Mr Anderson's letter to the CASA board last September. Specifically he gave strong emphasis to the potentially negative impact of CASA's enforcement decisions on the maintenance of regional air services and `the severe effect of those decisions on the economic and social life of those communities'. CASA continues to be caught between the tough line outlined by Mr Toller in his letter and political pressure from the government—I mean that in the broadest sense—to ensure that regional operators are able to keep operating.

There is now further evidence that the safety standards set out in Mr Toller's letter are not being upheld by the authority. I fear that some operators have been kept in the air, despite their failure to properly meet the safety standards required of them. I am concerned that the problems highlighted in Mr Toller's letter of August 1998 remain and the deteriorating economic climate in many areas of regional Australia is further limiting the ability of many of these operators to meet the safety standards required of them. Add to this mix the political pressure to look after services in the bush and we are facing an alarming combination of factors, all working against aviation safety.

I have a copy of a letter from the authority to Captain K.E. Brougham, the chief pilot of Whyalla Airlines. It was dated 26 December 1997. The contents of that letter are alarming, to say the least. I will not go through the contents of this letter in detail because it runs to nine pages but I will simply make a couple of points. The contents of this letter, which go to the detail of what appear in some cases to be deliberate breaches by the company of air safety regulations, surely raise the question of the suspension of its air operating certificate, not simply the cancellation of Captain Brougham's chief pilot certificate. Further, while there should not, in principle, be a basic incompatibility where one person is both the principal and also chief pilot of a regular public transport airline, the circumstances of Whyalla Airlines suggest that in reality there is. An airline operator also being the company's chief pilot and often its maintenance controller saves money but has the potential to create a conflict that is not in the best interests of safety.

Many small regional operators are financially marginal at best. It is a tough business. The role of the chief pilot is to ensure that the airline operates in a safe manner and meets all the obligations imposed on it by the Civil Aviation Act and civil aviation regulations. The owner of the company obviously wants to keep the business operating and providing a service to passengers. In difficult market conditions, commercial pressures have the potential to conflict with the operational and maintenance standards. Based on the letter from the authority to Whyalla Airlines at the end of 1997, that potential conflict appears to have become a reality. For example, it appears that an aircraft licensed for only charter operations was used to provide regular public transport services on at least 15 occasions. It also appears that the operator failed to monitor operational standards, maintain training records and supervise the training and checking of flight crew. The letter also highlighted problems relating to load control. It stated:

Later it says:

All these standards and procedures are essential for safe operations but also take time and cost money. When things are tight, meeting those obligations comes under pressure and in the case of Whyalla Airlines, at least in 1997, they were not met. The letter lists the following breaches of regulations by Whyalla Airlines under the control of Captain Brougham as chief pilot: 17 instances where the load or trim sheet was not completed; two instances where passengers' names were left off the passenger list; 17 instances where the take-off weight was not calculated; three instances where the maximum allowable weight was exceeded; two instances where centre of gravity limits were exceeded; 34 instances where the aircraft take-off weight was incorrectly calculated; and 19 instances where an invalid or superseded trim sheet was used.

In light of the history of both Captain Brougham and his airline, it is important that the minister establish the basis on which his chief pilot certificate was reinstated earlier this year. To say that his certificate was reinstated simply because his attitude to safety had improved is far from satisfactory. The information released to date suggests Captain Brougham should never have been reinstated to the position of chief pilot. The minister must also establish why Whyalla Airlines did not at least have its AOC suspended at the end of 1997. I understand that the suspension of its AOC was the subject of lively debate in the authority at the time. The minister must also make public his role, the role of his office and the role of the authority in keeping this airline operating and reinstating Captain Brougham's chief pilot licence earlier this year, given his record.

There have been a number of reports in the media about the interests of politicians in the CASA scrutiny of Whyalla Airlines. The integrity of investigations into the Whyalla Airlines crash is extremely important and any political involvement in the regulation of the airline either supporting the operator or expressing concern must be fully disclosed from the outset. Of particular significance are letters written by the federal member for Grey to CASA and to the federal government. Media reports have suggested that there may be other letters of this nature on the files of CASA or in the minister's office. I support the call by my colleague Mr Ferguson for Mr Anderson to disclose details of all communication and correspondence between politicians and CASA in relation to the regulation of Whyalla Airlines. As Mr Ferguson stated in a recent media release, these records must be released publicly to ensure that all decisions taken in relation to this operator were taken in accordance with the rules. I also note that the member for Grey, Mr Wakelin, has released correspondence relating to Whyalla Airlines for the years 1997 and 1998. It is important that he also release all correspondence relating to this company for the period from 1 January 1999 until today.

As I said earlier, I am concerned the approach taken by the authority to Whyalla Airlines is not an isolated incident. Following an investigation into the operation of a company called Carpentaria Helicopters, a brief was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions on 27 October last year. However, on 22 November the Assistant Director (Aviation Safety Compliance) wrote to the DPP outlining the administrative action taken by CASA and asking the DPP to reconsider the matter and stay prosecution proceedings. The DPP then advised CASA on 15 February that, despite that request to stay prosecution, it still planned to proceed with action against the company. It is disturbing to say the least that, having gone through the process of investigating this operator and I assume finding admissible and reliable evidence of a serious contravention of the law and referring that matter to the DPP, there would then be an attempt to withdraw that reference.

I am also seeking an explanation as to why, having gone through a long and detailed investigation of the Albury based operator Air Facilities and determining at Assistant Director (Aviation Safety Compliance) level that its AOC should be suspended, the authority again suddenly changed its mind. As I have said in this place before, there may be a rational explanation for CASA's action in this regard, but it has failed on two occasions to provide that explanation satisfactorily. I was then given little choice but to follow the course that I have, and the majority of senators in this place have endorsed that action.

I also have concerns about the relationship between CASA and a company called Professional Helicopter Services. I understand that on 6 October 1998 the authority wrote to this company issuing a notice to show cause why its maintenance certificate should not be cancelled. I also understand that CASA wrote a second notice to show cause letter to this company in relation to its air operating certificate on the same day. I further understand that there was an informal conference between the company and CASA on 2 December in Melbourne and both show cause notices were withdrawn by the authority on 14 December. I placed a number of questions on notice in relation to this matter and I will make no further comment until I have received the minister's response, which is due on 15 July. On this occasion it is very important the minister answer the question within the 30-day limit as required under the standing orders.

Senator Mackay —Best of luck!

Senator O'BRIEN —Firstly, can I say I do not think this should be a matter of luck, in response to Senator Mackay's interjection. This is an important matter and information should not be withheld. I do not always find myself in agreement with Mr Dick Smith, but on the importance of aviation safety and the failure of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, to do his job, Mr Smith is dead right. On 6 January this year, Mr Smith wrote to Mr Anderson. He commenced his letter with the following sentence:

He continued:

Mr Smith also revealed that in a discussion with Mr Anderson, the minister said he did not want to be bothered with questions about CASA in the parliament and wanted the authority to stay out of the headlines. Mr Anderson's failure to do his job properly has had just the opposite effect, with CASA finding itself in the headlines for months on end for all the wrong reasons. So in relation to regional airline operators, CASA's role is not to ensure those airlines continue to operate, as was implied in Mr Anderson's charter letter; its role is to ensure that they fly safely and in accordance with the law. Mr Anderson should make that very clear to the CASA board as a matter of urgency.