Civil Aviation Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Civil Aviation Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you. I move, That the Civil Aviation Bill be now read a second time.

With this bill, the Government aims to repeal and replace both the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Airport Authorities Act 1966 with a single, modern statute that will be a fit-for-purpose legislation platform for safety, security, and economic regulation of civil aviation now and well into the future.

Both of the current Acts have been amended over time, but require a substantial overhaul to reflect the aviation environment of today and prepare for the future. This has meant modernising the legislation to ensure it is clear and operating as intended, removing ambiguity and redundant provisions. This bill uses modern drafting styles that make it easier to understand and apply, and reflects policy changes needed to ensure the legislation remains fit for purpose in years to come.

This bill adopts a stringent approach towards drug or alcohol use in the aviation system. Unfortunately, not all tragedies are preventable, but we know we can reduce the risk of a crash if a zero-tolerance approach towards drug- or alcohol-impaired operators is actively enforced. We know that drug or alcohol use in the transport system, and especially in the aviation sector, is particularly lethal.

Feedback received during the consultation period for this bill before its introduction to the House showed widespread support across the sector for stronger regulation to prevent aviation professionals using drugs or alcohol. The Civil Aviation Bill will introduce changes to address potential impairment by requiring all commercial operators to implement drug and alcohol management plans, including random testing of those working in safety-sensitive activities.

Other changes proposed are as follows: to preserve New Zealand’s national security and interests, the bill clarifies the powers of the Minister of Transport to consider national security risks within the aviation system and to make rules about when national security considerations might need to apply; to improve aviation security, the bill clarifies the powers, protections, and tools aviation security officers have at security-designated aerodromes; it also provides for the declaration of temporary landside security areas at airports, if they are needed to respond to a heightened threat environment.

To account for new and emerging technologies, this bill incorporates amendments for remotely piloted and autonomous aircraft, and clarifies the responsibilities of the operator. It also provides new intervention powers for police and authorised people to respond to serious misuse of such aircraft. To honour our climate change priorities, this bill puts in place an enabling framework to allow New Zealand to meet its obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation Emissions.

To improve the regulation of airports, this bill introduces a modern regulation regime for airports administered by the Secretary for Transport, which includes a requirement for airports to consult on their spatial plans. For some airports, the bill includes a requirement that they set out how they will meet Government agencies’ space requirements, renamed regulatory airport spatial undertaking, or RASU, by select committee.

The bill intentionally limits the statutory basis for airports to set charges to identified aerodrome activities. However, this does not prevent airports from entering into commercial arrangements for charges that are not linked to these activities. Airports can continue to charge for non - aerodrome-related activities on a commercial basis.

To facilitate a growing and competitive aviation sector, the bill also improves the effectiveness of regulatory decision-making by strengthening the process for authorising airline cooperation agreements.

I’d like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the public in shaping this bill. This bill was referred to committee in September 2021 and was reported back to this House in June 2022. The committee received 117 submissions and heard evidence from over 30 submitters. I thank my colleagues on the committee for their time and valuable contributions. The committee proposed changes that reflect a range of perspectives and needs. I support those amendments.

In particular, I am thankful to colleagues from across this House who have worked to improve the way regulatory changes for airports will affect operators and those involved in consultations around RASUs; clarify how just culture is reflected in regulatory practice and how the bill supports that; ensure civil aviation rules have scope to address the adverse impacts of aviation on our communities; and give aviation participants the ability to have decisions that affect them considered by an independent reviewer.

This work has helped to ensure this bill is fit for the modern era of aviation in New Zealand. I also acknowledge the input of the aviation sector and the public. The sector comprises different types and sizes of aviation participants, and the committee saw broad and diverse engagement during consultation. The reported-back bill responds to submitters’ views in a number of ways. In particular, it introduces a more refined regulatory system for security-designated airports that emphasises this Government’s desire to work alongside airports for mutually beneficial arrangements at our border, and a new ability for some people affected by certain decisions made by the Director of Civil Aviation to have those decisions reviewed independently, in addition to existing avenues through the courts.

As a result of consultation, the bill also repeals or amends some provisions, including clarifying that it is not our intention to be able to direct airways to provide services it does not already provide; clarifying how the Public Works Act 1981 applies to airport operators of different kinds; signposting where the bill reflects just culture principles, which offer protections to people giving accident and incident notifications—as submitters pointed out, this was not self-evident.

So with those improvements coming as a result of a sound select committee process, the Government strongly supports the bill, as reported back, and I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Civil Aviation Bill.

I acknowledge the Minister and I acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee, actually. It’s been one of those select committee process which I think has been quite collegial and where we’ve been able to work closely together to ensure that this bill is in the best possible position going forward. I also want to acknowledge and thank the submitters from the various parts of the aviation sector who have, I think, through their help, actually helped make this bill a better bill by actually bringing to us on the committee the issues which actually really matter to them to make sure that this bill will actually work. So I want to acknowledge everyone who submitted and everyone who spoke to the select committee and provided information, which has been incredibly informative as we’ve gone through.

So I just want to run through a few of the key issues from the National Party’s perspective which have been addressed in the piece of legislation, and then conclude with an issue which I think is ongoing and needs to have some more consideration.

The first is the issue which has been raised already regarding the Public Works Act provisions. The bill in its original form, in our view, put far too much power in the hands of Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) to be able to decide where land was surplus to requirements, rather than that decision being made by the actual landowner. That has been changed, which is good. It now puts the process of facilitating the land transfer in LINZ’s hand, but the decision as to whether the land is surplus to requirements remains with the landowner, which is where that decision should be sitting, rather than with LINZ, basically, being able to come in and make those decisions for airports. It would, effectively, put a lot of airports—we’ve heard this through the select committee—in a very uncertain position where a Government body would be able to make decisions, potentially, as to whether something was surplus to requirements when those airports, as they said in their submissions, have to make long-term decisions, and have to have land for long-term decisions around future runways or future aprons or future development, which goes much further than the next three or five years, but sometimes 20, 30, 40, 50 years. So what is surplus land is a decision that needs to be kept with the airports.

The other area in which there was a lot of concern—from the airports, in particular—was around regulatory undertakings, or the enforceable regulatory undertakings, which has been amended. It now requires a more consultative approach, rather than a dictatorial approach. The bill, in its original form, effectively allowed those Government departments which operated airports around security or biosecurity, effectively to come and tell the airport exactly how much land or space they needed, and the airports would have to comply with that. Of course, airports build for those services, but, at the same time, there needs to be a more consultative approach because of the fact that they operate within constraints. So this has been changed to create a more consultative approach, which I think is better for airports and puts less power in the hands of those Government departments, but there still is a backstop there, if there is no ability to be able to actually form some sort of compromise.

The issues around operating commercially, that has been addressed by the Minister. But, of course, it still allows airports to be able to operate and charge how they see fit for non-aerodrome activities, keeping that exempt from the regulatory element. Of course, that’s a fair way of doing things, because airports have significant commercial interests which are outside of just simply the aerodrome activities that they operate, and, of course, they are competing with other landowners in the vicinity, and, of course, they should be able to make those decisions based on commercial reality, rather than upon regulatory environments.

And then, we’ve had a range of issues which were raised by pilots in regards to the review of directors’ decisions. There’s been a change which allows for those to be independently reviewed. Of course, that’s important because there was a significant concern raised by pilots around some of the decisions made by the Civil Aviation Authority whereby they were having their licences revoked for various reasons, whereas they could continue to have their licence approved in other jurisdictions, which, of course, led to a grey area here in New Zealand. So this independent review, at least, will provide for some accountability or overview of the Civil Aviation Authority. However, I do note that that doesn’t go as far as those submitters would have liked, in that they would have preferred that those decisions would have been effectively implemented, rather than simply just being a review with the decision then going back to the Civil Aviation Authority. So I do note that that doesn’t go as far as some of the submitters do want.

The other point I wanted to just touch on is in regards to some of the other issues, which was a key issue raised around aviation security. I note that the ACT Party in their minority view made a point around aviation security and whether that should simply remain with the Civil Aviation Authority. I do think it’s an issue which does need to be looked into. I’m not sure if I agree with the ACT Party’s minority view which, effectively, said to create another body to review the decisions of aviation security. But I do agree with the principle, in that I think there is an issue here. This has been highlighted in recent months with the International Civil Aviation Organisation report, which has not been publicly released yet, but which, I understand, has raised significant issues around aviation security in New Zealand. The issue that I do think needs to be looked at is whether it is appropriate for the Civil Aviation Authority and the Aviation Security Service to, effectively, be within the same agency and reporting to themselves, and whether there needs to be some separation, as we see in other countries. What we’ve seen is that there’s clearly a number of issues, which will be highlighted and they will become public at some point, around how our aviation security has not been keeping pace with our international requirements. That has put significant pressure on airport security at all of our international airports and, from what I’m hearing, has been a significant issue and poses significant risk, actually, to New Zealand as a country, in terms of being able to attract international airlines to continue to fly here and to have confidence in our aviation security. So this is an issue which is real, it’s now. The ICAO report and what it says will have to be released at some point. The question the Minister—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It hasn’t finished; you can’t release what hasn’t finished.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Minister says that it can’t be released yet because it’s not finished. Well, the information will be publicly released as to what was wrong and what needed to be fixed, because that will become very apparent. The issue there is around whether our aviation security service were keeping pace with the international requirements which New Zealand has signed up to, or whether they were asleep at the wheel. That’s something which I know a lot of pilots and airlines have a significant concern about.

So National will continue to support this piece of legislation as it goes through the House. We look forward to it being progressed, because it is a significant reform which has been in train now for nine years. We look forward to it being progressed, being passed into legislation, and being implemented to help support our aviation sector, which has had an incredibly tough last three years, which needs better regulation so that it can be more productive to help grow New Zealand, to grow our economy, to grow highly productive, high-paying jobs. They’re the people who do the work. They’re the ones who help our economy grow. They’re the ones who will move New Zealand forward. The job of Government is not to get in the way; it’s to make sure that we have the conditions for them to succeed, to grow, and to be successful in New Zealand, because that’s ultimately what creates a strong economy, which helps to be able to pay for the public services which New Zealanders ultimately rely on.

So we look forward to supporting the bill. We thank again the committee and all the members of the committee for the work that they’ve done and the constructive approach they’ve been able to take on this, and, again, most importantly, we thank the submitters for putting forward their views on this issue. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I start by just acknowledging the Opposition spokesperson for transport, Simeon Brown, for supporting this particular bill and, as I understand it, for a change of heart and a U-turn this morning on supporting the Government’s Clean Car Discount, which they opposed for a very long time. So it’s great to see that they have come to their senses—it is important that we reduce emissions amongst our transport fleet. So a full U-turn from the Opposition is welcomed by us today, and it’s potentially a good sign of the great work of our Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the consensus that we achieved together.

But coming back to the Civil Aviation Bill today, can I acknowledge all of our members and colleagues in the House that worked on this particular bill, and also the chair at the time, Greg O’Connor. It was great to hear what was over 117 written submissions coming in on this bill, and, as a select committee, we heard 30 submissions in person.

I guess what’s important in this is that we continue to reconnect Aotearoa New Zealand with the world, and the civil aviation sector is a very big part of that. In order to boost innovation, safety, productivity, and help achieve our climate goals, we are progressing our civil aviation laws to ensure that we are developing our civil aviation infrastructure and creating long-term benefits and support for consumers, for travellers, for industry, and, of course, most importantly, for our wider Aotearoa New Zealand economy.

The Civil Aviation Bill would repeal and replace both the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Airport Authorities Act of 1966. After significant consultation and the work that we did as a select committee to hear these submissions and consider them, there is no doubt that it has been widely agreed that investment in developing the civil aviation sector is fundamental to achieving these long-term benefits and our overall goals.

One particular submission that I did want to acknowledge is the contribution made by the country’s major airport, Auckland Airport, home of Tāmaki Makaurau, and this has been reflected in the inclusion—and recommendation from the select committee—in clause 231, which retains an airport operator’s ability to set charges. As Auckland Airport highlighted in their submission, aeronautical prices have remained stable and are competitive with other peer airports. Since 2013, in real terms, Auckland Airport domestic passenger charges have increased by just 65c per passenger, while international passenger charges have fallen by 10 percent. Landing charges have also decreased by 11 percent in real terms over this period for commercial passenger aircraft.

The pricing certainty provided by this bill supports investment and has provided stakeholders with the confidence that they need to continue investing in Auckland’s airport and Auckland’s infrastructure and ensuring the continuation of the economic benefits of our tourism industry. So I just want to acknowledge everyone’s work on this particular bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to rise and take a call on the Civil Aviation Bill—quite a chunky piece of legislation here—as reported back from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, finally coming through to, now, its second reading. It’s been some 9-odd years in the making since this piece of reform work began under the last National Government ultimately looking to try and streamline, to improve engagement amongst stakeholders, to better define a system that enables the participants to work within that framework in a manner that maximises their freedom and their flexibility whilst also ensuring, of course, we have a robust system to minimise any risks within our civil aviation sector. Ultimately, I mean, the clear purpose here is a safe and secure civil aviation system in New Zealand.

That being said, of course, we need to acknowledge that there are significant advances—particularly over the last few years—around the technological change in this space, some of the different systems that are coming in around unmanned aerial vehicles, the UAVs—or drones or autonomous vehicles or whatever label people want to put on them. Effectively, we are seeing a significant change in the civil aviation landscape, and, therefore, we need to ensure that we are providing a legislative framework that still caters for the variability that we are seeing and, indeed, the potential that we still yet haven’t discovered. And part of the challenge with any piece of legislation, of course, is providing that prescriptive framework but also enabling an industry to innovate, to take up new technologies, and to drive productivity within their businesses; so having the flexibility within the framework that enables that.

I think—for me—that is one of the biggest challenges when we look at the broader productivity within New Zealand. It is declining, and that is a worrying trend. As a country, we have so much opportunity to be driving massive productivity gains and becoming, well, more successful economically off the back of our innovation and the amazing thinking and development and work that’s going on here in the 597,000-odd amazing businesses we have around New Zealand. And so we really need to ensure that this sort of legislation does cater for that type of innovation.

Alongside that, of course, we need to make sure that we are meeting our international obligations. And that’s one of the key aspects of this bill as well, in terms of security requirements internationally but also around emissions. So we had the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation legislation come through—in January 2021, I believe, that came into effect. And now part of this legislation is ensuring that we are complying or meeting our obligations under that requirement as well. But, as I say, those international security challenges unfortunately continue to evolve, and we see ongoing threats around the globe in the aviation sector. Whether it be terrorism or other acts that could be potentially undertaken in different jurisdictions, we have to try and provide a framework where, of course, we allow for normal operations but significantly minimise the risk of anything untoward happening and impacting those participants within the civil aviation sectors in whichever country they may be.

But, ultimately, here, what we are achieving is a better integration with other stakeholders, and I would really like to thank the submitters that gave their feedback on how that can better be facilitated, because, ultimately, again, anything we can do to streamline helps to improve the opportunity and reduce that red tape, compliance, and bureaucracy. One of my pet projects is getting rid of that as much as possible to enable business to get on and do what they need to do to take on those opportunities, to take investment risks, to try something new, to develop a new project—whatever it may be that they are in business for. They’re not in business for red tape and compliance. That has a place in terms of establishing those frameworks, but, ultimately, reducing that is really important. And so some aspects of this bill where there’s better integration around the spatial-planning considerations, for example, and engagement with other stakeholders—locally but also regionally and nationally—are important ways, I think, to help streamline the overall system and ensure that we are getting effective results.

Of course, alongside that as well are the safety aspects that I’ve touched on. We had the terrible tragedy with the Carterton balloon disaster back in 2012, some 10 years ago already—amazing. And so part of this bill is looking to address some of the risks around health and safety or drug and alcohol abuse within the civil aviation sector as well—so looking, again, to improve the experience or reduce the risk for those participants. And so on that basis, we support those considerations as well.

But, for me, it really comes back to that basis of how do we get a fit for purpose piece of legislation that provides the safeguards we expect but also enables the freedom of operation as much as possible within that environment for those participants. And I think it’s of particular importance in the civil aviation sector, given that we have seen such an explosion of growth within the technology space in particular over the last 10 years. And I’m confident that will continue.

As part of my role as spokesperson for defence, I’ve met with a number of different drone or unmanned vehicle companies who are looking at doing some incredibly innovative stuff—some already operating in New Zealand and some still in the start-up phase—and it’s inspirational; there’s some incredible work going on out there, and we just need to make sure that we’re providing a framework that enables them to take on those growth opportunities and that they’re not being overly burdened with compliance and red tape, particularly around getting into markets, getting their product launched, and being able to conduct those flight plans with drones in particular. That’s an area where there are some real challenges, because, as I say, we want to enable that business, but, alongside that, we do actually need to be mindful of potential impacts on civilians, everyday people, going about their daily function—their expectations and rights to privacy, and, of course, any potential environmental impacts that may come from a significant uptake of different technologies, whatever that may be, in the civil aviation sector.

So there is a balancing act there, but, ultimately, less regulation is typically a better outcome. What we’ve got here proposes a raft of changes that will, I think, streamline that. And so on that basis, the National Party has supported it, and we look forward to seeing this bill continue to progress through the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, it’s a pleasure to take just a short call to make a contribution to the Civil Aviation Bill in its second reading. Can I also lend my voice and say thank you to those who submitted to us—really informative presentations—and, as well, to the officials who guided us through. I also agree with Mr Brown, who spoke earlier, around this being a really collegial and constructive select committee process.

As others have said, in essence, this bill brings our civil aviation laws into the 21st century. It’s about simplifying and modernising civil aviation law and about enhancing our safety, our security, and, as others have said, the economic regulation of the civil aviation system.

This bill replaces the Civil Aviation Act 1990, and also the Airport Authorities Act 1966, and brings these together to have just one modernised civil aviation system.

As my colleagues have also said, this bill will also set out the responsibilities for the operation of new and emerging technologies. It also provides new intervention powers, specifically regarding the misuse of remotely piloted aircrafts. It gives the Minister of Transport the ability to make rules where national security considerations may apply. It also empowers the commercial aviation sector when managing the risk of drug and alcohol impairment, which is really critical. This makes clear the powers, protections, and tools available to aviation security officers. It clarifies our just culture and also ensures that we are meeting the obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organisation Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for international aviation. These changes are part of the bigger plan Labour has to reconnect Aotearoa New Zealand with the rest of the world, and it supports the aviation sector, and for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I’m sorry to break the very fragile consensus that appears to have broken out in the House this morning, but I do think, as we’ve all found in our time in this place, that having the opportunity to be the squeaky wheel gives us the opportunity to draw attention to some really important issues. So throughout my speech this morning, I’ll be laying down why the Greens at present cannot support this bill in its present form.

We did, of course, foreshadow that at what I would like to agree with other speakers was an incredibly collegial and collaborative transport select committee process and stage. I want to particularly shout out to the officials who dealt with many annoying questions about what was actually being proposed in this legislation and how that compared to the current regulatory framework, how that interacts with the likes of the Resource Management Act (RMA), Auckland Council planning regulation, and otherwise.

But this is not a small bill. I’ve seen a few in my five years here and I do need to acknowledge, as others have also said, that this does go a long way to updating our civil aviation law. But as I’ve already acknowledged, it leaves a huge gap. The huge missed opportunity, which is reflected in the Greens’ differing view in the select committee report, points particularly to three key things: that being our opportunity to take action proactively and baking that in now with regard to the climate, also with regard to community impacts, and, finally, around conservation.

As far as that goes, I’d really like to draw the attention of anyone who happens to be tuning in to the submissions of the Waiheke Local Board to Quiet Sky Waiheke as well, and to the Federated Mountain Clubs. All of those reflect things that have been pushed for for a really long time as well by the likes of Quiet Sky Waitematā, by the Waiheke Local Board, Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board, and by the Waitematā Local Board.

I think again, just to kind of unpack all of this, what civil aviation law has tended to focus on—and we see that reflected in the bill in its present form—is our airports, understandably. It’s where we tend to think of airspaces and we tend to think of aircrafts coming in and landing. But the kind of missing piece of this law as presently drafted is in thinking about those community and conservation spaces where an increasing number of private aircrafts are utilising that shared airspace, the airspace of all of us above our homes, above our forests, and above our open and shared space that all of us like to enjoy.

So to give a little bit of an illustration about how all of this stuff interacts—because I never thought that I’d know so much about the interaction between the RMA, the unitary plan, the Hauraki Gulf district plan, and civil aviation law—we currently have a situation which some may have seen presented in the media as concern about the proliferation of, particularly, private helicopter pads in the Hauraki islands. So to unpack this, we kind of have two main, core kinds of pieces of legislation that don’t really talk to each other very well. The first is the RMA and from that comes the Auckland unitary plan and also the Hauraki Islands District Plan. Of course, here I’m speaking primarily about Tāmaki-makau-rau because, of course, that is the home of Auckland Central.

From the RMA, the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the Hauraki Islands District Plan, we have, effectively, the process that people go through to get consents for these private helicopter pads. As soon as those private helicopter pads are consented for, the genie is, effectively, out of the bottle for the utilisation of the private aircraft that utilise those helicopter pads and their consents. They’re supposed to be governed by Auckland Council, who don’t have the resources, as my many discussions with outgoing mayor Phil Goff and incoming mayor Wayne Brown have indicated. That then leaves a space for the Civil Aviation Authority.

The Civil Aviation Authority under the current legislation—as reflected and carried through into the new legislation that we are debating today—provides the Civil Aviation Authority with the opportunity to create what are called “special use airspaces”. That is, effectively, governance of, through introduction of new criteria, and monitoring of special airspaces that are designated. However, in my interactions with the Civil Aviation Authority and through the likes of the applications from the Waiheke Local Board and Quiet Sky Waiheke, what we have found is that the Civil Aviation Authority actually just doesn’t have the resources to do this stuff, particularly in these private airspaces.

We also have the opportunity to set noise abatement rules, and again, this is something which I put to officials throughout the select committee stage, asking them actually quite explicitly. As is reflected in advice which has subsequently been tabled and available for all to view publicly, the noise abatement rules, which have been asked to be strengthened by these community and conservation organisations, actually, as officials tell us, are not any stronger in this new legislation. In fact, they are about the same.

So this is where we get to the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are on the Table from the Greens. The one in my name is, basically, trying to shift that focus from the kind of voluntary state where the Minister “may make” noise abatement rules and instead moves that into a space where the Minister “must make” those noise abatement roles, considering the community and the conservation efforts in those areas. There are also two SOPs in the name of my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter around those environmental and climate impacts. But this is kind of the unfortunate situation that we’re posed with.

I want to acknowledge the Minister in his willingness to meet with me and to talk through these issues. I’d note that he said that he thinks that there is still the opportunity to address them through that kind of voluntary scheme. But none the less, in its current form, we, unfortunately, are not able to support it and hope that at the committee of the whole House stage we are able to make these amendments to improve things not just for those who are out in the islands like Waiheke and Aotea / Great Barrier, where we’re experiencing this proliferation of helicopter pads, but also, notably, for those of us who live in the city centre, where I’d note that 45,000 people live within the motorway boundaries in Auckland Central, and, to that effect, as we consider more and more housing density, there is a real need to consider the use of the airspaces above that dense housing. If any of us have been on the Facebook community pages of our communities—particularly in Auckland—we’ve probably heard quite a bit about the use of helicopters in those community and neighbourhood spaces.

So just again, to summarise, I’m really grateful for the engagement of the Minister on this so far. But there’s a lot further to go when it comes to, particularly, the integration of consideration of the climate, of conservation, and of our communities, and the Greens will keep fighting that fight.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, the ACT Party supports this bill. It’s an opportunity to reform a clunky and out-of-date regulatory framework and improve it, bringing civil aviation operations and the regulation of safety and activities into the 21st century.

But one of the things that we heard from Aviation New Zealand and other submitters on behalf of general aviation—which is your small aircraft, your tourism operators, your helicopter operators, agricultural contractors, as well as the commercial operators—is that it’s not just a regulatory change that’s needed. It’s actually a cultural change, in the way that an organisation like the Civil Aviation Authority manages the sector and manages risk, and the way that they treat people who operate in the sector, who’ve got skin in the game, who’ve invested in aircraft, who’ve invested in people and training and safe systems of work. That requires a behavioural change to develop a culture of mutual respect between the regulator and the industry, and that’s something that many in the aviation sector pointed to and said that they would like to see an improvement in the culture as well as the regulations.

So we hope that the Minister of Transport and his delegates focus very much on improving the workplace culture, the organisational culture, so that it respects the investments that individuals and businesses have made in aviation and plant and equipment, as well as the improvement in safe and efficient operations.

Now, this bill avoids that terrible compromise that so many other bills bought to the House by this Government make, where they aim to reform some regulatory process to make it easier to operate and then they add all of these crazy different things to the mix—like saving us from climate change, or some other social engineering concept. Well, fortunately, those in the Ministry of Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority were able to resist the woke climate dogma advocated by the current Minister of Transport, and stick to their knitting—which is to improve the safe and efficient operation of our aviation sector. Imagine if that same philosophy was adopted to our roading network! Safe and efficient operation, instead of wheeling out climate fairies; climate alarmism every time we try to invest in infrastructure and get ahead in New Zealand.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Can the member come back to the bill? In the second reading—come back to the bill, thank you.

SIMON COURT: Certainly. So we need to consider aviation as a wealth-generating activity that promotes tourism, promotes commerce, and promotes lifestyles that can be improved and enhanced through general aviation, commercial aviation, and new technology like unmanned aerial vehicles—commonly known as drones. So we hope the new regulatory framework enables that. But of course, the Green Party showed how much they loathe success and envy wealth, with their proposal to target helicopter movements and operators delivering people to places like Waiheke Island. The Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick brought up the concern she has with helicopter operations above dense housing areas—helicopter operations above dense housing areas. Well, perhaps that member of Parliament lives in an area without crime. I live in West Auckland, and helicopter operations above dense urban areas are something that we’re entirely familiar with in places like Te Atatū Peninsula, where we regularly have one of the three Police Eagle helicopters operating over our suburb in an attempt to detect, control, and apprehend people committing crime—which has gone up enormously under this Government.

Now, ACT’s concerns about this bill have always been to express the concerns of those who operate in the aviation sector who’ve made investments in plant and equipment, in aircraft, in operations, in training—because they are passionate about the aviation sector. Whether it’s about flying, whether it’s about aviation electronics, engineers, people who maintain and service aircraft—or those people who are involved in using newer technologies like unmanned aerial vehicles, who want to employ that equipment for agriculture, for surveying things like infrastructure, assets like transmission lines which extend across the backbone of New Zealand, which is a country with a geography like Chile: mountainous, forested. Hardly anyone lives in New Zealand, and yet it’s almost impossible to stand up a case for drones—unmanned aerial vehicles—to operate out of sight of the controller. Now, what this means is that instead of helicopters flying the transmission lines or going to survey assets like dams around New Zealand, out of sight of the person controlling the drone—you can programme them to follow a route and actually inspect assets, collect data, collect information about how close trees are getting to the powerlines, for example.

Now, what we’ve heard from organisations that operate in the unmanned aerial vehicle or drone sector is that they are waiting, sometimes for months and months and months, to even get an acknowledgment for their application to use drones for the most basic activities currently operated by helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. They point out that these vehicles are unmanned—much safer. Most of them are electric; they have low or zero emissions. And if it turns out that you could use these aircraft to, say, monitor what the Russians are doing in Ukraine, then of course you’d expect to be able to use them to monitor what’s happening to our assets like powerlines and dams in New Zealand. So ACT hopes that not just the regulatory environment changes but the culture and behaviour of the people working at civil aviation—who are tasked with reviewing applications from unmanned aerial vehicle operators—also changes; that they update their attitude and culture and behaviour along with the update in regulation. Because it’s those kinds of activities that are going to unlock wealth and opportunity all around New Zealand.

Then there’s the “just culture”. We heard, at select committee, that many involved in the aviation sector were concerned by the concept of a just culture, where you can report safety concerns; maybe even a breach of the rules, maybe something you saw that wasn’t right—but without fear of being prosecuted by WorkSafe; without fear it would be used against you, that it might affect your job, your career. So what we understand is that changes have been made to the original legislation that was proposed, which reflect how important a just culture that rewards reporting, safety breaches, incidents, near misses—rewards that behaviour instead of punishes it.

We also heard from the aviation sector how concerned they were that there was no capacity in the original bill that was tabled at select committee for an independent review of the Director of Civil Aviation’s decisions. ACT is proud that we’ve advocated for an independent review process to be incorporated in this amended bill, and it has been. So we hope that the aviation sector now has access to a fairer process if they have concerns.

Then we come to the efficient operation of aviation security services in New Zealand. Now, ACT has heard that there are many, many agencies—and we heard this at committee, from airport operators—many agencies such as Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Customs, Police, and of course Aviation Security, who operated airports and who these airport operators are required to give space to. But MPI, Customs, and Police all have their own independent reviewers that report back to Parliament on their performance. Aviation Security is operated by the Civil Aviation Authority and only reports through to the director. The Director of Civil Aviation is the only person or organisation that monitors Aviation Security’s performance. So what ACT is proposing is an independent review, just like all those others who operated airports, which could be by the Office of the Auditor General or a similar Officer of Parliament.

So, overall, ACT supports the bill—we support the intention of the bill. What we now expect is that the Minister and his delegates will instruct the Civil Aviation Authority and those administering the bill to update their culture, their behaviours, and the way that they deliver services to the industry. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. I was on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for this bill and it’s a piece of work which really is all about the overarching reboot of an aviation law that suits our new time.

One of those pieces of work was about “just culture”, which has been talked about by another member, and that was one that really impressed me because I’d worked in the industry as a lawyer and I had seen the introduction of “just culture” at Air New Zealand and it had been a really effective tool, but a gnarly one—quite difficult. We came across the same problem, in this bill, of the words of the bill not quite matching what we were intending. We got it right, I think. That was really with the help of submitters—we had some fantastic submitters on this bill. We had submitters who told us about “just culture”. We had submitters who told us about things like helicopters—and I definitely reject the idea that those people are just grasping or are worried about envy, they are worried, obviously, about their own communities. Some of those things fitted within the scheme of the bill; some will need to be pursued outside of it.

Another one that came up was fatigue. It was not within the scope of the bill, but it is something that I will definitely take away from the process and consider in this industry. But what we did do was fix a lot of problems that were national problems. We have a really beautiful piece of work here, and I commend this bill to the House.

I call Nicola Grigg—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like my colleagues, I also rise in support of the second reading of the Civil Aviation Bill. As my colleagues have mentioned already, this is a bill that seeks to modernise and consolidate a couple of pieces of existing legislation. On this side of the House we do like to support any attempt to streamline and modernise and systemise the statute book. In this instance we are consolidating the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Airport Authorities Act, which is somewhat older, having been passed into law in 1966.

As is often the case in this Parliament when good bills progress through, it was founded on the work of the former National Government. I remember working for Simon Bridges when he was the Minister of Transport and this work had begun to get under way with a very fulsome review of the aviation security environment around New Zealand. It is very pleasing to see that large parts of this bill as reported back by the select committee do focus on the security of our airports, our aprons, our airside areas, and, of course, the airplanes themselves. As I’ve read in the legislative statement, the uncertainty of the global environment and the ever-evolving nature of terrorist threats mean that our airport security systems should be keeping up with the best in the world, and I think that any future evolution of legislative pieces like this should be founded on that very premise.

A number of people have made note of the clauses that attribute directly to the rapidly increasing use of unmanned aircraft. I know that around Canterbury particularly there is a real prevalence in this use of aircraft not just by civilians for fun but also increasingly for commercial measures. We see regional councils using unmanned aircraft. We see our search and rescue operators using unmanned aircraft. They are increasingly in our skies and they do need to be moderated. This bill will provide the legal framework to give the Civil Aviation Authority some teeth, some legal standing in terms of enforcement where people breach these very, very important safety rules. We’ve seen a number of occasions already in Canterbury in recent years where commercial planes have been grounded because there is an unmanned aircraft or a drone flying around.

We do like to support, as I said, legislation that is practical and has been driven, as in this case, by the grassroots up. It’s been requested by the aviation sector for a number of years. I think it’s been five years in development, and I think that the quality of this bill is very reflective of that. We like to support bills that are driven by the grassroots up, driven by the end-user who will actually be able to put it into practice as opposed to, I think, this top-down approach that we do see all too often from this Government.

I understand from my colleagues who sat in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that we did have some initial concerns when the bill was first brought before the House, but I am pleased to see that they have seemingly been ironed out by the select committee process. So I do congratulate the committee on the extensive work that it has carried out, particularly with industry and—most importantly, I think—security agencies. The changes have been not just regulatory but also with security at front of mind, and I have noted the recommendation to amend particularly clause 23(d), which clarifies the security responsibilities within New Zealand airports and gives the Civil Aviation Authority oversight of the Aviation Security Service. When there have been times of threat—and I think we can all think back to the incident that occurred at the Blenheim airport a number of years ago—there must be a systemised process in place to deal with those life-threatening or even threatening events with immediacy.

So, all in all, the National Party does support progressive, positive, useful bills like this, and we look forward to seeing its continuation through the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Civil Aviation Bill. It’s a bill that brings and updates our civil aviation laws into the 21st century. It also strengthens our aviation laws and security rules to keep New Zealanders safe while they’re in the air and on the ground. Of particular note is the strengthening of the management of the risk of drug and alcohol impairment, which is something we should all support. So, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Wednesday)