Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the disallowance of the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1). I want to make the point initially that, as all of us in this chamber travel often, we do not need to be lectured by Senator Ludwig on aspects of airline safety. We all have a keen interest in ensuring that airline safety is at its maximum at all times for everybody in this country, both aircrew and passengers. We certainly would not dispute the right of the government of the day to legislate to ensure this, but neither does this go to that point.

I congratulate the Chair of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. I have learnt enormously under her chairship. I draw attention to a point made already in the chamber this morning, and that is that this matter could have been dealt with expeditiously and quickly had the responsible minister taken the advice and the suggestion of the Hon. Warren Truss and dealt with this matter prior to it actually coming before us. It is not a difficult matter to finally resolve and it is disappointing that the time of the Senate is being taken this morning on this particular matter. I do not wish to repeat at length comments made already by Senator Xenophon and others, except to say this goes to a principle of equity, the principle of equity being that pilots were to have removed from them the right to determine who would be in the cockpit of their aircraft but, worse than that, criminal liability was to transfer from the airline operator to the pilot for actions over which they did not have a say and were not consulted. I have not long been in the Senate. I have long been an employer and an employee, and I certainly looked at this and said to myself: is this fair? If I were in that position, firstly, I would have been denied the opportunity to be informed of or to have commented on something that was going to affect me and, secondly, criminal liability was going to transfer to me from my employer for actions over which I had no control. I certainly took the position that that was not fair and should be dealt with.

Senator Ronaldson made some comments about the pilots. A position put to me was that, under these regulations, a pilot could fly an aircraft from Los Angeles to Sydney and then be a passenger on another aircraft of the same company from Sydney to his or her home in Melbourne and be an ineligible person. How they could be an ineligible person and not be allowed to be in the cockpit at the request of the pilot of that aircraft was just simply beyond me.

We did what the regulations required, and that was to consult with the association. Criminal liability has been outlined by Senator Ronaldson. We looked at the 50 penalty points associated with, for example, the door to the cockpit being left open. We could potentially have a situation in which a member of aircrew goes into the cockpit and the pilot, who at the time might be very busy in the midst of a storm, tells that person from the aircrew, ‘Make sure you close the door on the way out because I’m busy doing something else, I’m strapped into my seat, I’m concentrating on the instruments,’ and that person, whether deliberately or inadvertently, fails to close the cockpit door. Under these regulations, we have a scenario in which the pilot would then be criminally liable for the fact that the door had not been closed. Criminal liability, of course, turns to that person losing their employment and losing their future capacity to be able to fly commercial aircraft.

I say again, without taking more time of the Senate, that this could all have been dealt with outside this chamber had common sense prevailed. I am sure common sense will prevail so that we can return to the scenario of the government enacting correct regulations in this matter.