The Chief Minister on his regular talkback slot on Friday, March 8 correctly made the point that the primary responsibility for regulating remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), or ‘drones’, lies with the Commonwealth, and in particular the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

But this is only part of the story. The public expects that all levels of government work together to identify where regulatory gaps exist and move to fill them accordingly – regardless of jurisdiction.

Commercial drones are an emerging and disruptive technology that is here to stay, with the potential to significantly enhance the lives of many in our community. However, much like other examples of disruptive technologies over the years, it needs to have the correct policy and regulatory settings to operate in.

I have met with many people in the community on this issue, and I sympathise with the concerns they raised with me including noise, privacy and who is responsible for the operation of drones.

The current regulatory vacuum in the drones space was highlighted by Project Wing’s chief executive James Burgess. I understand Project Wing’s frustration, as a company trying to lead in this space, with having to operate without knowing what the rules will be.

If we applied the same level of oversight to the automotive world, it would surely be far simpler to import left hand drive vehicles into Australia and drive them on whatever side of the road the motorist feels comfortable.

This is obviously an absurd example, but it is not too far removed from the regulatory environment that Project Wing (or indeed any other potential commercial drone operator) currently find themselves in.

The ongoing public debate sparked by the Project Wing trial has not focused on these issues. Instead, it has conflated issues relating to the operation of the technology itself, such as noise and amenity, with issues surrounding the ongoing commercial viability of the service, such as what items should be delivered and when.

This has had the effect of pitting people in our community against each other - those who feel the noise and disruption of the current trial are not appropriate, against those who feel the service is a useful amenity to their lives – leaving out some critical, innovative uses of the technology. For example, the surveillance of power lines and the monitoring of ongoing environmental damage.

One only has to look at the recent shooting down of the Evo Energy drone as reported in The Canberra Times on February 17, to see exactly what results when the Government acts as a cheerleader and not as a thought leader.
Much like its piecemeal approach to the adoption of electric vehicles, the Commonwealth Government has again not shown any leadership in the RPAS space, despite the identification of these issues by the Parliament on many occasions.

For example, surveillance and privacy, were first raised by the Parliament as far back as 2014. Then in October 2016, the Senate referred a number of RPAS issues to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (RRAT).

The committee had quite a wide-ranging brief, however most relevant to the current debate they were asked to investigate:

The committee produced a comprehensive report at the end of July 2018 covering most aspects of the operation of commercial and recreational drones, however the Government is yet to respond or establish the framework.

“The committee is mindful that the concerns raised in the 2014 House of Representatives report regarding surveillance laws pertaining to RPAS use remain largely unaddressed.”

This neglect, across all levels of government, of the regulatory issues surrounding drones has led to technology outpacing the regulatory environment and the outcome we are experiencing here in the ACT.

The Chief Minister and the ACT Government have a seat at the COAG table.

If the Chief Minister, as he stated on radio, wants the ACT to provide valuable feedback on the operation of RPAS in a city-state environment he would be well advised to start by combining the lessons from the Legislative Assembly committee with the RRAT report and put forward for public consultation a comprehensive package that covers the required Commonwealth, State and local regulatory and legislative changes.

It is imperative we have effective regulation, especially on issues such as registration, insurance, noise, privacy and the use of the radio spectrum for at least all commercial RPAS operators as well as developing consumer regulation for recreational RPAS operators.

Given the ability of drones to fly across jurisdictional borders, and of drones sold in one jurisdiction to be used in another, regulation needs to be developed consistently Australia-wide. Consideration also should be given to the role of the National Capital Authority in regulating the parliamentary triangle within the ACT.

It is only by having consistent, Australia-wide, and internationally harmonised regulations and an effective enforcement regime that we can give certainty to both commercial companies looking to develop technologies and our residents concerned about the amenity of where they live. Following the current trial, the ACT’s representatives at both a local and national level should be able to assist in developing this regime.

In a jurisdiction with the depth of policy and regulatory understanding such as the ACT, this should be a straightforward task and one well worthy of public debate.

David Smith is a Senator for the ACT.