Interview – Senator Warwick Parer

A: Well our attitude to aviation is to promote and foster aviation which has never been the attitude of the present government. The government has tended to go for a tops down programme where they have directed the industry very much in a bureaucratic sense without any credible attempt at consultation. Since I’ve had the shadow ministry I have consulted with the major airlines, with the regional airlines, and with the general aviation people based at airports such as Archerfield, Bankstown, Parafield and so on. I was interested really in a cooperative arrangement rather than an aggressive dictatorial arrangement which is sadly what we have today.

Q: Probably the most contentious issue for the present government in aviation terms is the worsening noise debacle at Sydney airport. Would the Coalition move quickly to operate KSA as a true three runway airport and would you review the arrival/departure modes of operation to eliminate much of the low level multi suburb overflying that has been a blight for much of Sydney for more than a year now?

A: The problem with Sydney Airport is a catastrophe for the people of Sydney and it was brought about entirely by the Government with a policy decision made in 1989. At the time that decision was made purely for political reasons, it wasn’t safety, even though it’s being talked about today. It was never a major issue at the time, it was a straight political decision. What we have said and what we will do is that on election to government we will give the AirServices Australia (ASA) people three active runways. A little over a year ago there were two active runways, a new runway was opened in November 1994 and the ASA people were then given a one and seven eighths runway airport, it was just crazy. Now in the process of doing that it meant that flightpaths were concentrated purely on a north/south axis, but also the flightpaths themselves were such that they then traversed a whole swathe of suburban Sydney which they never did in the past.

The purpose of our reopening the East-West runway is not to tell the experts at ASA how to do their job but to give them three active runways and tell them they have to come up with a sensible solution based on the three competing ends, and those three competing ends are safety, capacity and noise. Informal advice given to me from within ASA, and I’ll say informal because they don’t dare say anything publicly on this because of fear of retribution by a very aggressive minister, is that they would support that view and in fact the same advice was given to us from the pilots and the air traffic controllers. In fact, the air traffic controllers made a statement and said that they couldn’t be involved in political issues but it only needed the political will to be able to reopen the East-West runway for day to day operation, that safety wasn’t an issue.

Q: Would you revise the rules regarding the nighttime operation of freighters other than the BAe 146’s which are now the only curfew period jets allowed into KSA. As you would know, 737s and many other aircraft are just as quiet but are presently prohibited from using Australia’s most important airport due to this ruling.

A: No we wouldn’t. We’ve supported the recent legislation that went through on curfews. In fact the curfew legislation that we passed was a slight variation to a bill introduced by John Howard, the amendment to the bill was put in because of the absolute distrust of the Minister and the Keating Government. There was concern that because curfews were in regulation the minister could, with a stroke of a pen, change that curfew and to give some measure of trust back to the people, John Howard brought the bill amendments in so that we would be sure that any change to the curfew would only occur after appropriate debate through legislation.

Q: What about the restrictions being applied to the small number of arrivals allowed between 5am and 6am, where long haul 747s land from the south, approaching over Botany Bay and don’t use reverse thrust.

A: We basically support the regulations as they are now embodied in legislation.

Q: So does that mean the continuation of restrictions during that 5am to 6am period?

A: Yes.

Q: Apart from Sydney Airport, the Government seems to have created a nightmare regards its overall airport selloff programme. Now that the numerous problems with hiving off the individual airports has been revealed, and nothing will happen prior to the election, would a Coalition Government move to follow the same course or opt instead for privatising the existing FAC as a going and highly profitable entity?

A: I might say that from the outset that even though privatisation aspects are the province of Bronwyn Bishop, we do talk very frequently about this because there is a great deal of overlap. Our view would be that we would go down the same route, though bear in mind that in Opposition we don’t have access to the crucial Government scoping study. In government we would of course have access to that. So with that reservation stated, we would at this stage go along with the privatisation process. I would also point out that the motives of privatisation are different. It should be remembered that ALP policy going back for decades opposed privatisation, it was always the Liberal party that supported privatisation and the motive we had was to increase the efficiency of airports, which would be to the benefit of the consumer. The Labour party’s motives for privatisation, and it doesn’t matter if it’s the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas or the airport, is simply to get their hands on the money.

Q: You don’t think it would be better to go the way of privatising the entire FAC as a going concern compared with breaking up all the airports and selling them individually?

A: I think to a large extent, that certainly was an option, but I think that its got to the stage now that the FAC, and the morale is really in a terrible state because of the actions of Minister Brereton, is starting to disintegrate. We have seen the Chief Executive officer go, the board was forced to resign, the Minister has now placed his own hand picked people onto those boards including a person who was the Prime Minister’s campaign manager for 10 years, Mr Peter Sams, and so I think that probably that particular option has disappeared. I still think that the FAC did a first class job. I think they had the technical expertise that was equal to the best in the world and I would imagine with the sale of the airports those particular people would have no problem in being quickly snapped up by the purchasers of the various airports.

Q: If the airports are sold off individually, what would happen to the generally unprofitable but nationally important GA airfields such as the Parafields, Jandakots and Moorabbins etc under Coalition rule?

A: Well it varies from airport to airport. That’s a matter that has to be addressed quite separately. There are some of those airports in fact that can be viably sold if you look at the revenues of those airports and you exclude the depreciation from them you will see a cashflow position which puts a realistic value on them. The valuation of an airport must be on the basis of it remaining primarily as an airport with it’s valuation based on profitability rather than the original valuations which in some cases are ridiculous. There would be an opportunity I would suggest for quite a number of those airports to be purchased but nothing like at the present, and somewhat theoretical, book value of their assets.

Q: So you would tend to agree with a lot of people in the industry that suggest that debts incurred in establishing the original value of the airports are a little unrealistic?

A: Well I think the whole thing was totally unrealistic from the word go. What happened was that the Government engaged itself in a money making exercise. All the airports were paid for by the taxpayers of the past. When the FAC was launched in 1988, an imaginary debt was created, a debt that wasn’t there before and the FAC was given that debt. I think it was around $600m or so and then the FAC was told to go out and expand the airports but don’t come back over budget. Now with the sale of the airports, they will be able to get that debt back. Some of those asset valuations at the time were just figures that popped out of the air, but that is really all fiction because any prospective purchaser of any of the airports is going to look at the cashflow and potential profitability and consequently base their offers on that, not on the theoretical Government contrived asset value.

What we have said and what we will do is that on election to government we will give the AirServices Australia (ASA) people three active runways.

Q: The boards of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), AirServices Australia (ASA) and the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) comprise 18 people, only two of which have any practical real world aviation experience. What are your thoughts on this and would you move to provide a higher level of industry representation and expertise on these boards under a Coalition Government?

A: We are absolutely determined that the boards of the various aviation authorities will be made up of competent people of aviation experience, it’s as simple as that. It will not be a ‘jobs for mates’ situation.

Q: Are you happy with the way the new CASA and ASA have been established. Many within the industry complain that it’s all just window dressing, different names but the same long faces and hence long term problems. What are your thoughts on this?

A: I agree with the split because one was a regulatory authority and the other was an authority that was responsible for the profit making side. However, they have got a long way to go. I think that the structures are correct but I think there has to be a lot of latitude in the changes within those organisations and I think those particular people who have now been appointed must be given the opportunity to be able to change the culture so there is a more cooperative attitude between the industry and the authorities rather than the confrontations that had developed over the years. There was a complete breakdown in trust between the industry and the authorities and I think that has to be repaired and its going to take time and a lot of effort from all concerned.

Q: Will the Coalition be looking at privatising AirServices Australia at some point in the future?

A: It’s not on the top of our priorities list. I think there are more important things to consider. I think that the sale of the airports is certainly a major one. There are some aspects of AirServices which would lend themselves to that down the track, but I don’t think it’s a priority.

Q: What do you think of the Morris Enquiry and the Seaview Enquiry – do you think they will achieve anything – will for instance their reports be taken on board by the Coalition for consideration?

A: Naturally the reports will be taken on board. However I think that the Seaview enquiry at this stage has not really progressed to the stage that it will achieve an awful lot. One of the problems with the whole business of the Seaview enquiry was that it came a short time after the Monarch crash and it also highlighted the lack of interest shown in the aviation industry by Minister Brereton. He then went through a whole series of knee jerk reactions and many CAA people lost their jobs. My belief is that a number of them were just tokens to say “well I’m doing my job”. It’s really a knee jerk reaction to the problem as I saw it at the time and I was particularly concerned that because of the inaction of the Minister that it built up in the community a complete distrust of aviation. Aviation is about the safest means of travel in Australia, in the world, and yet there is a community feeling about that suddenly flying is unsafe, and I think that is the worst thing that happened in this minister’s role as Minister for Aviation.

What about the Morris Enquiry?

A: Well I think the Morris enquiry is doing a pretty good job. It would be just interesting to see the sort of report it brings down, but naturally it would be wrong for any government not to take notice of what it promotes, but I think ultimately the decision as to what is supported and what isn’t supported is a government decision.

Q: How do you feel your Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in Sydney went?

A: As you know, we reported only recently. We received over 5200 submissions to the enquiry and the vast majority of those were not the usual form letters, they were individual letters as well as of course the official ones you’d expect from the airlines, ASA and the FAC, but the vast majority were from people individually writing letters. We had a total of 14 hearings, mainly in Sydney and in areas as diverse as Leichhardt, Kurnell, Hunters Hill, Lane Cove, Pymble and so on. We weren’t in the first report able to cover the entire terms of reference, but we were able to cover the bits in relation to aircraft noise, the reasons for the problem and what should be done in the future to make sure this does not happen again. This is particularly relevant to Badgerys Creek, because the people in Sydney believe that they were deceived and lied to by the Government and you won’t convince them otherwise. As a result of that you now have all the people around Badgerys Creek, who two years ago were very happy with a new major airport going out there, now saying, “Hey, hang on, if they deceived them in Sydney then we may be being deceived here”.

Q: At the last election your party was promoting the concept of an Aviation Council, a body that would bring together all of the various aviation industry associations so as to allow a better joint consultative approach to Government. Is this still on the agenda and if so can you tell us something about how it would operate. If not, what sort of relationship and how much consultation would you have with the individual bodies?

A: Well, in my shadow ministry role I spend an awful lot of time talking with all those particular bodies and its been done in what I believe to be a very cooperative basis. A lot of things have come out of those consultations and I think the most important thing that was made apparent was the severe breakdown in communications that has occurred between the various authorities and the numerous aviation industry associations. I would like to see a genuine aviation council, not just a phoney one. You would be aware that there have been a few of these in the past. Mostly they didn’t have any teeth and they were never really listened to but I would be very happy to have a grouping of representatives made up from all the aviation bodies around Australia. We could then develop a working relationship between Government and all segments of aviation based upon what I said earlier in this interview, that their is a real need in Australia to foster and promote aviation.

Q: Would the Coalition be any more in touch with the real problems of General Aviation than the present regime. And if so, how?

A: Well, we have been so far. We have consulted widely with the general aviation industry, I think that I personally am very much aware of their particular problems, not only in regards to GA at the various airports but also with groups like the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA), who tell me that for the first time ever they have someone in politics who listens and they also tell me that they would be very enthusiastic to see us in government and to be able to continue that relationship.

Q: Aviation has always been little more than a milch cow for this and indeed most governments, here and overseas. Presently at Sydney you have so many taxes that it is getting incomprehensible – the peak period surcharge, general noise levy tax, Stage 2 tax, and an ever increasing departure tax for those travelling abroad. Would the Coalition continue with these taxes which in Sydney’s case, are aimed at boosting the sale value of KSA, funding the home insulation/acquisition programme and forcing through financial pressure the ultimate relocation of operations to Badgerys Creek?

A: One of the things we have said is that we will have no new taxes. The other thing that we will do is to pursue a total examination of charges. There are two or three aspects of this. One of course is the general aviation area where there are conflicting views about the equity of charges made on general aviation. I think there are ways to come up with a more equitable charging regime and this of course will then be related back to the general consultations that we talked about earlier in regards to aviation councils, etc. I would like to get to please everyone, we all know that, but more realistically I would like to get to a situation where people believe that the charges being imposed are equitable. Now as regards to various airport charges, if there are avenues there to consolidate those in a way that would make it easier, less regulatory we’d go that route.

Q: Finally, what do you think are the greatest differences between the ALP’s aviation policies and your own?

A: Well basically our policy is one of cooperation with the aviation industry whereas the present Government’s attitude has certainly been based on the dictatorial approach, “a take it or leave it, this is what you get whether you like it or not” attitude. The major airlines in my belief have been muscled in certain areas by the Government in the past six months, particularly in regards to Sydney Airport and there seems to be a general fear in the whole aviation industry that if they step out of line then something bad will happen to them. Now we would not do that. It goes back again to the comment I made before that we believe that aviation has been neglected in Australia for quite a number of years. Look at areas like experimental aircraft. It seems a great pity to me that Australia, always one of the great pioneering countries nowadays has difficulties when developing an aircraft manufacturing industry and it’s amazing that there are still quite a few around who are able to do that despite the restrictions that are placed on them. With a more supportive approach we would be encouraging them to get back into the game.

Footnote: In the interest of balanced reporting and to better appreciate the ALP aviation viewpoint, present and future, we requested an interview with Transport Minister Laurie Brereton. We are still awaiting the courtesy of a response.