Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill

I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a second time.

Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bills are passed by the House each year so as to validate confirmable instruments—the category of secondary legislation that requires annual approval by the House to remain in force. These bills are typically pretty uncontroversial, and they’re reflected in the fact that the Standing Orders only provide for their second readings to be debated, although they do normally have a select committee hearing in the intervening period.

The purpose of this bill is to confirm the Civil Aviation (Safety) Levies Amendment Order 2017, confirmation of which should have been included in the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3), which was introduced in May 2017 and reported to the House by the Regulations Review Committee just before the election. The order will be revoked on 30 June unless it is confirmed by an Act of Parliament before then.

The Civil Aviation (Safety) Levies Amendment Order 2017 changed the basis on which levies are recovered from the aviation industry to pay for the functions of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). It implemented the outcome of the funding review, and focused on recovering the CAA’s funding more appropriately from the people who benefit from their services and those whose actions give rise to it. The revocation of the order would create considerable administrative difficulties for the Civil Aviation Authority, given that systems and processes have been set up for the new scheme, and would create significant confusion for operators in the aviation industry, which is why I have agreed to set aside House time for the bill to be passed.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the Leader of the House has well outlined the purpose of having a bill like this. It contains a number of other things that are sort of interesting but not quite so pressing as the aviation fee structure.

I think it’s worth noting that a lot of that fee structure is not just about commercial aircraft that cart people from one end of the country to the other, or from our shores to other destinations; it’s also about all of the categories of aviation—adventure tourism, various commercial activities like top-dressing or aerial photography, or whatever it might be. Of course, we know—as I mentioned with adventure tourism—there are a range of things that people now engage in because of their desire to have the adrenaline rush, I suppose, that require aircraft to be involved. So the main reason for the confirmation is it should have been included earlier—that’s acknowledged—but it would be unfortunate if we went through a stage where there was no oversight of some of that activity, which, of course, is very visible because of the requirement that they pay their fees and, therefore, come under the purview of the Civil Aviation Authority.

Bills like this don’t come before the House very frequently, and I think it’s important to recognise that when they do, there is generally a large amount of goodwill expressed from both sides of the House, generally. There are moments, of course, when that looks like it’s waning, but I think we can all get over that and move forward.

The bill, of course, in this case has got that, you would say, catch-up position in it, but one that I think is necessary. I wouldn’t want anyone to think that there hadn’t been appropriate scrutiny of that. It’s interesting, actually, that the levies have been subject to a complaint that’s been brought to the Regulations Review Committee, and that the committee has considered a lot of that and will be shortly engaging with those people who brought along that concern, about where to progress from here. But what was interesting in that was the recognition by all of those people that these regimes are necessary, although no one likes to think that there is unreasonable impost being put into the economy by way of these sorts of fees. I think most of those who are operators recognise that there is surety in their organisation or in their activity when it comes to public scrutiny of that activity, which can be encapsulated in their being able to point to a particular authority that sits on the wall of the office, or wherever they might like to keep it.

So this legislation, the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill, is one that we do support on this side of the House.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading