Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I don’t know about ‘lucky day’ on today of all days! I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5737 revised together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (line 29), at the end of paragraph 32AP(3A)(b), add:

       ; and (iv)    the crew members in relation to the CVR information have given their consent in writing, after the CVR recording was made, for the copying or disclosure of the CVR information for the purposes of checking whether the equipment used to make the recording is functioning and reliable.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 29), after item 11, add:

11A  After subsection 32AP(3A)

Insert:

      (3B)    If crew members have declined to give their consent in writing under subparagraph (3A)(b)(iv) to two consecutive requests within a 12-month period in relation to checking particular equipment:

             (a)    the condition of consent under that subparagraph does not apply to the next such request in relation to the same equipment; and

             (b)    crew members must be notified in writing of those circumstances.

Our airline pilots do a magnificent job and play a key role in, and take responsibility for, having some of the safest skies in the world and the best safety record in the world. The contentious issue for them is the provision relating to cockpit voice recordings. They want an opportunity to give their consent in writing after a recording is made. Checks are made to ensure that the equipment is operating appropriately on each plane owned by an Australian based company.

The issue here is one of privacy. What has been put to me by the airline pilots—and I have had some very useful discussions with Guy Maclean from the Australian and International Pilots Association—is that their workplace is different to any other workplace. The government has said: ‘What is wrong with simply handing in a recording from pilots for the purposes of checking? It is the same as taxidriver recordings.’ With respect to the government, there is a fundamental difference. The nature of the workplace—that is, the cockpit—is quite different. These pilots may be in the cockpit for 14 hours. They have no protection in relation to the content of the conversations that may be listened to by engineers simply for the purpose of checking. There is an understandable nervousness that if in the course of a flight they discuss a personal matter or an operational issue that does not relate to safety—for instance, about the management of the airline they work for—that could cause them some significant and considerable embarrassment. They have very real concerns about that.

The point made by the airline pilots association is that these amendments would provide a provision where consent needs to be sought for the cockpit voice recording to be listened to. If that consent is not given on the first occasion, a second attempt can be made with a subsequent crew in relation to the cockpit voice recording—it is specific to the equipment. If that is not given within a 12-month period, on the third occasion—in the very unlikely event that you have already failed to gain consent twice—that would have to be listened to by the engineers to check the equipment. It gives a safeguard in relation to privacy.

The airline pilots make the point that the amendments will not pose any administrative costs or logistical burden on operations. The authority can easily be obtained post-flight in circumstances where engineers already seek multiple authorisation signatures from the flight crew. Obtaining approval to copy and review CVR data for maintenance purposes will simply be incorporated within existing processes. The Australian and International Pilots Association say:

… this advance notice is indeed appropriate and is supported by pilots. However, while useful as a “heads-up” advance notice is only half of the required protection; it provides absolutely no protection for content of subsequent actual conversations. At the beginning of a long flight one cannot forecast the range or content of future conversation or reasonably be expected to be guarded with respect to such content over an extended period. Indeed, this requirement may alter the communication dynamic within a multi-crew environment and diminish safety by inhibiting free flowing and open communications.

So that sums it up pretty well and I think the airline pilots do have an important point to make there. This is about enhancing, and not in any way compromising, safety, and I believe the privacy concerns of the airline pilots are legitimate. I can indicate that if this amendment is not supported, as appears to be likely, then I will not be seeking to divide in relation to this and I will proceed to my fallback position, which is amendment (3).