Overview
2.1
The committee received 32 submissions to the inquiry from recreational and commercial operators of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), industry advocate groups, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development (the department), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), and other stakeholders.
2.2
Some submissions opposed the application of the unmanned aircraft levy entirely; others supported the fees in principle but raised issues relating to the level of the fees, consequences of the fees or the application of the fees to specific operator groups. Many submitters raised broader issues relating to the RPA registration scheme, privacy and safety. The broader issues are discussed below only insofar as they relate to the unmanned aircraft levy.
Submitter comments
Level and applicability of fees
2.3
The amount of the unmanned aircraft levy and its applicability to different classes of RPA were major issues of contention among submitters. The Explanatory Memorandum (EM) explains:
In line with the Australian Government Charging Framework, registration of RPA (and, from 2022, relevant model aircraft) is a cost recoverable activity. The purpose of the package of legislation is to ensure that commercial and professional users of RPA contribute to the cost of program administration and regulation in order to maintain the integrity and fiscal sustainability of the program over the long term.
2.4
According to the department, 'while the Levy Bill states that the amount of the levy must not be more than $300 and may be a nil amount, the actual levy has not yet been set' and will be 'reconsidered in 2021 and implemented through disallowable regulations'. CASA explained that it was obliged to charge full cost recovery unless authorised for partial cost recovery by the government and that '[w]hen data becomes available on the number of actual registrations, CASA will have more accurate information to assist in determining a recommended levy amount to be applied per RPA (and in 2022, model aircraft)'.
2.5
The department advised that while consultation was still ongoing through a Cost Recovery Implementation Statement, the levy charged on RPA operators would be appropriate to 'a variety of RPA size and weight classes' and be 'fair and commensurate with the services received'. The department further advised that:
Due to the challenges facing the aviation and drone industry as a result of COVID-19, and the relative infancy of the RPA sector, the levy will be set at $0.00 on the commencement of the scheme, and remain at $0.00 until 30 June 2021.
2.6
The reliance on delegated legislation to determine the scope and operation of the scheme and the fees liable was viewed unfavourably by a number submitters, with one concluding that 'CASA is asking industry to sign-up to an unknown'.
2.7
The Australian Miniature Aerosports Society (AMAS) challenged the insistence in the EM that the levy is 'a reasonable, necessary and proportionate requirement in the context of aviation safety', arguing '[it] is impossible to consider a levy reasonable, necessary and proportionate, or otherwise, if the amount has yet to be set'.
2.8
CASA advised that it did not set a fixed amount through an Act of parliament because the pool of RPA would grow over time, potentially resulting in a 'lower levy payable for each RPA'.
2.9
Wing, a drone operator, manufacturer and UAS traffic management services provider, supported the recovery of administrative costs but argued that a 'safe, fair and open regulatory system is best served by fees that reflect the actual cost of services'. Wing pointed to the government's cost recovery guidelines that activities should be 'undertaken at minimum cost' and 'closely linked to the specified activity'. In its submission, CASA outlined administrative activities that would be included in the full cost recovery calculations included staffing, safety promotion of RPA activities, and costs associated with the implementation of digital registration and accreditation systems.
2.10
AMAS sought further information on the criteria on which fees would be applied, such as whether the fees would be based 'on a sliding scale depending on the mass, value, wingspan motor orientation, construction type or the owners' ability to pay'.
2.11
A number of submitters argued that the maximum amount prescribed by the legislation compares unfavourably to other overseas jurisdictions. Ausfilm, an association that markets Australia to international filmmakers, noted that:
In the United Kingdom, the annual fee is £9; in the USA, USD$5.00 is charge per aircraft and is valid for three years; in Ireland, registration costs 5€, and in France, the registration is free and valid for five years.
2.12
Ausfilm was specifically concerned at the impact this would have on research and development:
If the fee is set at an unattractive level, there is a possibility that it will discourage investment in R&D currently being conducted in Australia. Investment in R&D is likely to be sent offshore, as comparable jurisdictions require a minimal fee for drone registration.
2.13
Wing added that a 'costly fee for mandatory regulatory services such as RPA registration may limit participation among Australian operators and diminish the attractiveness of Australia as a market for RPAS investment and innovation'.
2.14
CASA advised the committee that it is 'aware that registration systems are less expensive in a number of other countries' but that 'it is difficult to fairly compare them to Australia as the number of RPAS subject to the levy remains unknown and the funding, operating models and cost recovery requirements are different for each country'.
2.15
Submitters also commented on fees for specific types of RPAs and their operators. A summary of these views is below.
Recreational model aircraft
2.16
AMAS pointed out that under the levy bill there are ‘no apparent protections to stop individual recreational model aircraft being charged $300 for registration’. Submitters argued that the registration fees for recreational model aircraft should be kept as low as possible and ‘preferably nil’. As it was not uncommon for hobbyists to own ’10, 20, 30 or even more models’, one submitter maintained that high fees ‘could easily run into thousands of dollars and put many out of the hobby’.
2.17
Numerous submitters suggested that small recreational RPA or model aircraft be exempted by the scheme or that recreational registration fees be subsidised by the levy for commercial operators. RPA advocacy group the Australian Association for Unmanned Systems (AAUS) argued that:
CASA’s registration levy model needs to incentivize maximum registration uptake from RPAS users including relevant recreational users. It therefore follows that costs need to be held as low as possible
Commercial RPAs
2.18
Businesses can apply for a remotely piloted aircraft operator's certificate (ReOC) to allow them to operate as a drone service provider, employ remote pilots and fly outside the standard operating conditions.
2.19
Submitters from companies that held ReOCs pointed out that they were already licenced and had their drones registered with CASA. Commercial RPA operators argued that they have spent ‘considerable time and money to become licenced’, understand their responsibilities and it is ‘generally not the licenced commercial operators who are out there doing the wrong thing’. Rather the problem lies with people ’who are not licenced and have no intention of following the rules’. These people will lie outside the unmanned aircraft registration system and will not pay fees, yet the fees will burden licenced operators. The Ripper Group agreed:
We believe a fairer price model needs to be proposed for commercial operators as these operators are the ones that have gone through the required training, have the required licenses and company registrations, have insurance, usually are fully compliant with the rules and regulations, yet seem to receive the most criticism and also seem to be looking at the highest registration costs. We believe it is not fair to penalise those who do the right thing with high costs.
2.20
Many commercial operators advised that due to rapidly evolving RPA technology, the need to use specific RPA for a specific task, or simply as backup to provide a reliable service, many businesses frequently updated or maintained a fleet of models. Commercial operators were concerned that owners would be unfairly penalised for owning a diverse range of aircraft, even if some were used infrequently. Furthermore unmanned aircraft levies would create a disincentive for operators to update models, with wider economic and safety implications.
2.21
Wing argued that applying fees on each RPA could constrain operations such as delivery services that used many aircraft simultaneously and could inhibit the growth of scalable RPA operations. Domino's Pizza Enterprises considered the proposed registration fee of up to $300 as 'proportionate for commercial usage' although supported waiving registration fees for non-commercial users.
2.22
Many commercial RPA operators were concerned that high fees were ‘going to send some small operators to the wall’. AAUS argued that a 'flat fee cost recovery model has the potential to be unfair to operators that operate many small drones for modest revenue compared to an operator that operates a low quantity large drones for high revenue'. Drone manufacturer DJI agreed that many drone operations are at an ' early phase of proof of concept or small scale commercial rollout' and that during the COVID crisis a number of operators had ceased to trade'.
2.23
Some commercial operators suggested that the fees should be the same for commercial operators and recreational purposes as the administrative cost to the regulator in processing the registration would be the same or less for commercial operators 'who have already paid thousands of dollars to CASA'.
Exemptions
2.24
Some submitters requested levy exemptions for RPAs used in specific circumstances.
2.25
The Ripper Group argued in favour of fee exemptions for emergency services and reductions for search and rescue:
We believe that these UAV’s that are on call for the saving of life should not be required to pay exorbitant costs for registration. These UAV’s should be seen as emergency services - yes should pay some registration but this should be a substantially discounted cost.
2.26
The Ripper Group, the Association of Australian Certified UAV Operators (ACUO), Victorian UAS and DJI also supported commercial fee reductions for RPA training schools.
2.27
Air Affairs Australia owns and operates unmanned aerial targets (UATs) on behalf of the Australian Defence Force which are shot down and destroyed in military restricted airspace as part of weapons trials, evaluations and training exercises. Air Affairs Australia requested that UATs be exempted from the levy or that a single registration fee be applied to the target drones operated by Air Affairs Australia.
Registration and levy system
2.28
Several industry participants made suggestions for changes in the registration and levy system. Some submitters queried the application of unmanned aircraft levies to individual drones, arguing instead for a system of charging drone operators or entities. A further suggested that the fee should confer RPA operators with a benefit such as third party insurance coverage.
2.29
Victorian UAV argued that 'if a registration fee is needed then it should be calculated on the hours the aircraft has flown in the prior 12 month period' to avoid operators being liable for large fees for aircraft that are rarely used.
2.30
While not opposing the unmanned aircraft levy per se, the Australian Privacy Foundation argued that the bills ‘put the revenue cart in front of the policy horse’ by instituting a fee system before a coherent national strategy on RPA privacy concerns including the use and protection of registration scheme data.
Registration compliance
2.31
An important principle for the cost structure of unmanned aircraft levies identified by submitters was that fees should promote compliance with the registration system. Wing noted that a 'costly or recurring fee may result in lower compliance among small commercial operators or recreational operators', with implications for the ability to trace operators and deter 'reckless of unlawful behaviour'. Some submitters also suggested that registration and payment at point of sale would result in greater compliance than self-registration.
2.32
Submitters also advised the committee of issues with operators of RPAs in the sub-2kg category:
The people who operate in it do not care for the rules, they know it is very hard, almost impossible for CASA to regulate the category and people operating in it … The people who are already breaking the laws are not going to stop and start following them now because they might have to pay a registration fee.
2.33
One submitter argued that the ability to readily reconfigure RPAs undermined the intent of the bills:
Most of the components of an RPA or model aircraft can and are interchanged far more frequently than for other forms of aviation. This includes key airframe members and structural components, along with motors and other propulsion and control components and onboard electronics.
Implementing an aircraft-based registration model would result in a ‘ship of Theseus’ style conundrum where the regulator would have to identify what component constitutes the ‘essential’ or ‘inalienable’ part of the aircraft …
2.34
Swoop Aero and DJI supported the decision to make the first year of registration free of charge to 'get as many operators into the system in the first instance to get a thorough account of drone numbers, and to initiate a culture of compliance with the ongoing registration scheme'.
2.35
The department, in its submission, reported that the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel Technical Working Group had advised CASA that 'a reasonable fee will maximise safety benefits through encouraging increased compliance rates'.
Safety
2.36
A number of submitters took exception to the implication in the EM that the unmanned aircraft levy contributed to the safe use of RPA, with AMAS maintaining that there was 'no demonstrated, direct or indirect correlation between any levy and aviation safety'. Many submitters pointed to the lack of confirmed collisions between RPA and manned aircraft or incidents resulting in major injuries or fatalities.
2.37
Users of recreational model aircraft stated that model aircraft are flown in safe locations such as model aircraft clubs, and that there was an insufficient body of evidence to demonstrate that the hobby is dangerous. The Model Aeronautical Association of Australia noted that '[c]onsideration of available evidence and statistics MUST be considered by CASA when considering if/how much the fee would be for Model Aircraft operators when implemented to ensure the greatest possible uptake for the registration scheme'.
2.38
Drone manufacturer DJI argued that a high levy could 'potentially undermine the safety benefits that are the main reason for imposing registration'.
Committee view
2.39
The committee affirms that the RPA registration scheme promotes transparency, safety and responsibility in the operation of RPAs for the benefit of the community.
2.40
The committee supports the intent of the bills to provide a legislative mechanism to enable the recovery of costs associated with the administration of an RPA registration scheme. It further notes that charging the non-government sector for regulatory activities is consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework.
2.41
The committee concurs with the concerns of submitters about the reliance on delegated legislation to set the levels of the unmanned aircraft levy and the difficulty this has posed for making definitive comments on the bills. However, the committee accepts the department's explanation that setting the unmanned aircraft levy costs by regulation would provide the necessary flexibility to respond to rapidly evolving technologies and a changeable regulatory environment.
2.42
Regarding the fees themselves, the committee is confident that the department, in consultation with industry participants, will deliver on its assurances that the levy charge on RPA operators from 2021 will be 'fair and commensurate with the services received'. Nevertheless, the committee urges the department and CASA to consider suggestions from submitters that some RPAs be exempt or receive special consideration from the unmanned aircraft levy.
2.43
The committee recommends the Senate pass the bills.
Chair