Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What measures will the government employ to enhance aviation security, and have there been any recent setbacks?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hindmarsh for the question and for his ongoing interest in aviation issues. Today in the Senate the opposition supported the disallowance of important aviation security regulations which restrict who can enter the cockpit of an aircraft. The Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2009 were brought in to close a dangerous loophole in our aviation security laws on the advice of the appropriate aviation security authorities. The regulations made it clear that the cockpit is reserved for persons with an operational, safety, security or training need.

Hardened cockpit doors and restricting cockpit access are the last lines of defence to stop terrorists taking control of a plane. Stringent rules must apply to who can open the hardened cockpit door and enter the cockpit. The regulations were enacted in March and have been in place and effective since then. These regulations closed a loophole in the Aviation Transport Security Regulations. The previous government knew that this loophole existed in late 2005. Indeed, the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services stated in a letter to the pilots union on 16 November of that year:

It is Government policy that only those people with a genuine safety, security or operational need have access to the flight deck.

The previous government knew there was a loophole but they took no action to fix it because the pilots union successfully lobbied the Howard government.

Now that these regulations have been disallowed by the opposition, along with the Greens and the Independents, the legislation regarding cockpit access will return to the state it was prior to the commencement of the regulations which were in place from 12 March of this year. There will be no effective legal restrictions on who can enter a cockpit. There will be no penalties for unauthorised access to the cockpit. Access to the cockpit will effectively be left to industry self-regulation. I am of the view that the government, not the pilots on the plane, should decide regulation on aviation security and safety. That is my view and that is the view of the airlines. It is completely unsatisfactory for such an important measure in such a vital security regime to rely on industry self-regulation. The rules on who can open hardened cockpit doors and enter the cockpit should be set by the parliament, not left to the discretion of pilots and their union.

The events in Mexico overnight and the prosecutions in Britain earlier this week remind us that terrorists are targeting planes. I went out of my way, including by making a phone call to the Leader of the Opposition this morning, to secure opposition support for this sensible measure. But I was told that the problem was that we were seeking to impose strict liability. You bet we were! When it comes to security we have to be strict in our liability. The regulations ensure that a pilot can let a person into the cockpit to protect the safety or security of the plane or its passengers. Where there is a medical or other emergency, a pilot’s judgment to let a person access the cockpit was not limited at all by this regulation.

Of course, when it comes to strict liability offences that apply to pilots this is not a one-off. Civil Aviation Regulations are many. No. 133 says that a pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight if certain requirements are not met. That is very broad. Then No. 140: a pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over a prohibited area. And No. 149: a pilot in command of an aircraft in flight must now tow anything unless authorised to do so by CASA.

Do you think any of them are less important than who has access to the cockpit? CAR 138, 141, 157, 161, 163, 171—all strict liability provisions supported on a bipartisan basis by this parliament. I urge the opposition to come to its senses, support the reintroduction of this regulation and take the advice of the aviation security experts and of the department which made the same recommendations to the previous minister. But he failed to act. I table the examples of strict liability offences.