Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I take on board the question that has just been put to me. I have not read that report so, at this stage, I cannot give a specific response to it. However, I am certainly concerned about airport security. On that basis I will continue my remarks on this bill. When anyone boards an aircraft they place their complete trust in the airline and aircraft crew. If problems arise, passengers are completely reliant on the safety procedures that have been put in place by the airline industry and by the government. It has become evident that those procedures, other safety systems and precautionary measures in place must be strengthened.

The Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 is important because it improves aviation safety on two fronts. Firstly, it strengthens Australia’s national security procedures in respect of the aviation industry, with particular reference to antiterrorist arrangements. Secondly, the legislation improves general aviation safety by requiring airline operators to report incidents which may identify a possible safety issue relating to the aircraft. Importantly, the legislation doubles the penalty for failing to report an immediately reportable matter from six months to 12 months imprisonment. The significance of that amendment is that it will immediately remove the current statutory 12-month limitation period for prosecuting that offence, thereby closing a loophole that could presently prevent a prosecution.

It was that loophole that prevented any prosecution with respect to the Lockhart River airline accident in 2005, in which all 15 people on board a Transair Metroliner died. An Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation showed that Transair had failed to report 25 safety incidents in the two years leading up to the crash. Seven were serious matters, such as the cabin pressurisation warning. The likelihood of prosecution will, without question, raise the compliance level of aircraft operators within the airline industry. This is an important change in the legislation. The increase in the imprisonment period from six to 12 months, I believe, will make a lot of difference in ensuring that the compliance that we all expect and believe ought to be out there is actually carried out by those who operate aircraft. The additional amendment which arose from the Lockhart River investigation relates to amending part IIIB of the Civil Aviation Act to allow the copying and disclosure of cockpit voice recorder information for cockpit voice recorder testing and maintenance.

Because of the global financial crisis, it is inevitable that the airline industry will also be financially affected and will look to cut costs. We saw that even before the global financial crisis was exposed last year, with aircraft maintenance standards being questioned. In fact, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority released a press release on 1 September last year alluding to concerns that they had in respect of some maintenance procedures. At the time, I wrote to the authority to ask them what procedures and processes they had in place. I thank them for the response that they sent me, which certainly assured me that they had all of the appropriate procedures available to them in place at the time. The amendments in this bill relating to both the reporting requirements and the cockpit voice recorder information will ensure a greater level of accountability on the part of aircraft operators and thereby lead to an increased level of confidence in the industry by passengers. Maintenance standards need to be upheld, and the ability of authorities to ensure that maintenance standards are being upheld will be greatly enhanced by this provision.

I now turn to the issue of aviation safety and security procedures for airports and aircraft. The events of 11 September 2001 in the US have forever changed aviation security arrangements around the world. Regrettably, but by necessity, they have caused additional inconvenience to the majority of travellers, who are law abiding. What the security arrangements have similarly brought is considerable peace of mind to airline passengers. Again, it has become clear that, as a result of changing circumstances, the existing security arrangements should be strengthened, and that is what these amendments do. Firstly, the limited scope under which the secretary can collect security compliance information needs to be expanded. The kind of information that may be requested by the secretary will be prescribed by regulation. Secondly, the secretary needs to be able to—and, under these amendments, will be able to—delegate his powers and functions under the Aviation Transport Security Act to certain employees within the department. Why this was never allowed in the act surprises me. It seems to be a common-sense provision.

Regrettably, we live in times when terrorist actions are all too frequent. Terrorist acts have already cost the lives of thousands of innocent people, including two people who are personally known to me; one being Andrew Knox, who was in the twin towers building when it was attacked on 11 September 2001, and the other being Angela Golotta, who was killed in the Bali bombings of 2002. Both were young people with promising futures ahead of them, both were completely innocent victims of terrorist acts and both died horrific deaths. I have spoken to the family members of both of those people on occasion and, whilst I certainly do not want to go over the events of the time, I can say that neither of the two families have ever recovered from their deaths. It is one thing, perhaps, to lose your life in what we might consider normal circumstances, but it is another to lose your life in horrific circumstances where you truly are an innocent victim of the circumstance.

We will never be able to absolutely guarantee the safety of airline passengers, regardless of what measures are implemented. There are many other things that perhaps need to be done and should be done and I am sure, in time, as they emerge, they will be done. Having been the mayor of the city in which the Parafield Airport is located, I am aware of two separate incidents which could have ended up in absolute disaster. In one, one of the aircraft was sabotaged. Fortunately it was not able to get off the ground because of the extent of the sabotage. In another, the aircraft in fact did crash after having left the ground. It landed on a main road at a busy time of the day. For some miraculous reason, it did not hit a car or anyone else who was on the road. Both of those events could have been prevented, and I have to say that the airport authorities in that location immediately took steps to try to ensure that such events would not occur again or at least that it was far more difficult for them to occur again. We can never absolutely guarantee safety, but, where we are aware that there are perhaps deficiencies in the processes and the precautions that we have taken, we have an obligation in the interests of the community that we represent to do something about it. This amendment bill does that, and for that reason I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context