Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

In the past the Greens have supported Senator Xenophon in disallowance and we will be doing so again. I also sought a briefing on this from the government, to reconsider the matter, and I too find it very disturbing that the Australian and International Pilots Association oppose this particular change. These are the people who fly constantly. These are the people who put their own lives on the line every day as they take to the air. I am sure that if they thought there was a loophole in safety they would be in here clamouring to have it fixed.

The main issue that the pilots are most concerned about is the exclusion of licensed company pilots from the list of people who can travel on the flight deck of their companies’ aircraft. Admittedly, the airline can be approached to give permission for one of its own pilots to travel in the jump seat, and it was put to me that this is a loophole. A terrorist could train as a pilot, get employed as a company pilot and therefore be able to get access to the cockpit. But if a terrorist trained as a pilot and became a company pilot, why would he or she attempt to hijack the aircraft from the jump seat? Why would they not just do it on a day when they were flying the plane, when they had control and were in charge? Why would they wait until they were in the jump seat? Yes, there is always the risk that somebody might train as a pilot and become licensed to an airline. But they then have access to the cockpit every day that they go to work for that airline, so I cannot see that that actually deals with the issue. More particularly, it goes to the issue of determining the profile of the people you train and employ as pilots in the first place rather than to this regulation.

Another issue is the shift of criminal responsibility from the airlines to the pilot in command in relation to safety breaches, in particular, to the shutting of the door. Again, this comes down to the issue that if the door is not properly shut who is responsible? Should the pilot be criminally responsible for breaches of the safety regulations or should it be the airline? As the Australian and International Pilots Association make very clear it is a long-held international aviation principle that the airline is ultimately responsible for the actions of its pilots. The shifting of criminal responsibility to the pilot in command is, in my view, not the appropriate way to go and could be exploited by an airline to get out of doing what it should be doing in taking responsibility in the event that an incident of some kind occurs.

I am aware, as everybody is, that there are pilots who are travelling backwards and forwards to places—sometimes on duty, sometimes off duty—who use the jump seat. Sometimes you could regard it as a perk of the airline if they are off duty and they are going on holidays or whatever.  But that is an issue for the airline to deal with if a licensed pilot of the airline is using a jump seat as a perk. It is a question for the airline as to how it regards the behaviour of its pilots and whether it is appropriate. In relation to how an airline may manage that particular issue it is not up to governments to determine or to judge what is a perk and what is and what is not allowable.

My focus is entirely on the safety of the aircraft and its passengers, on ensuring that an airline always has to take criminal responsibility for anything that occurs in relation to that airline. I just cannot believe that the Australian and International Pilots Association will not be supporting these regulations if it has real concerns about a loophole for security reasons. I am aware that the government is going ahead with these regulations because it has advice from its security people about loopholes, but I am afraid I just cannot see that these regulations will do anything to address the security issue. I think it goes much further back in terms of whom you are training and whom you are employing as pilots. That is where the real scrutiny is needed—psychological profiles et cetera in relation to that—rather than trying to shift criminal responsibility or trying to take away these long-held aviation principles. That is why I, on behalf of the Greens, take the position that I do.