Civil Aviation Amendment Bill

I open my contribution this evening by expressing my concerns to the Minister on the way he opened his speech a few moments ago. I did not catch the whole gist of his speech, but I assume that he is forcing us, or compelling us by vote, to sit on Fridays.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Ask me nicely!

Is the Minister not going to put it to a vote?

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Yes, we are.

I think that if the Government has got itself into that sort of a pickle, it would have been appreciated if it had consulted the whips of the parties. We have been to the Business Committee this afternoon, and there was no mention of anything like this. We think that a little bit of trust goes a long way. We do not lack understanding on this side of the House, and I echo the comments of John Key earlier, that this is not the way to do the business. I assume that United Future has rolled over and agreed totally.

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill going to the select committee. Although we do not like sitting on a Friday, we will cooperate with the Government to the degree that the bill gets there and gets thoroughly examined. However, I have to say that we have concerns over the repeal of the Carriage by Air Act. We feel a little bit uncomfortable with what the Government is proposing in this bill, but no doubt that will all come out in the wash at the select committee. But I would like to put on the record that there is something about this part of the bill that does not sit comfortably with us. I was hoping that the United Future members would explain why they are so happy with that part of this bill, because it just does not sit comfortably with New Zealand First at this point in time.

We have no problem with the mutual recognition regime that this bill proposes. We think that is an excellent idea, and we are fully supportive of that being implemented. The bill reads very soundly and, as I say, it makes common sense to us that we can have a law in this country that polices Australian aircraft, and that the Australians have the same law, in Australia, that polices New Zealand aircraft. Our first response is to ask why this did not occur some time ago. It will save costs, and it will be in the interests of the safety of the flying public. We think this is the right road to go down.

We also welcome the part of the bill that deals with unruly passengers. I have personally had the misfortune to fly on two aircraft in my lifetime where an unruly passenger—probably affected by drugs, booze, or both—tried, not to take over the plane like a terrorist would, but tried to become the centre of attention. I can tell members that there were moments when the captain of one particular aircraft got rather agitated by what was going on in the cabin, and it was pretty darn scary. We were flying into London, approaching Heathrow Airport—and, I might add, this was not an Air New Zealand aircraft; it was a foreign aircraft—and a passenger really went berserk. He was suffering, as I said earlier, from the effect of drugs, booze, or both. I can tell members that many of the passengers sitting in their seats did not know what the dickens was going on, and did not know what the dickens to do about it. In the cabin of an aircraft, as all members know, it is quite confined, and it was not possible to crawl across the seats to get at the guy. In the end, it took four or five—it might even have been six—people to haul the guy down. He escaped again, and got into the toilet. We did not know what the dickens he was going to do once he locked himself in the toilet. The captain, at that stage—he was foreign, and English was his second language—broke into his first language and sounded somewhat hysterical, and we were doing loop-the-loops over Heathrow Airport. I can tell members that it was not one of my most pleasant memories of flying.

On a second occasion, I was flying from here to the UK, shortly after I became an MP, I believe. I was going home, with my wife, on a private trip to London—a trip totally paid for by myself and my wife, I might add, so it was at no cost to the taxpayer. On that occasion, someone—a New Zealander, I have to say—who was filled to the brim with duty-free liquor and that sort of thing, went berserk at the tail end of the aircraft. He spilt red wine over everybody, and he, too, took some restraining. The passengers around us were pretty nervous about how to deal with the guy, who was charging up and down the aisles like a madman—even worse than the National Party caucus, I understand.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Can’t be any worse than them.

Cannot be any worse?

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Well, it’s not a dictatorship.

It is not a dictatorship—oh, well. It might be as bad as our caucus has been at times. Again, the issue of unruly passengers is one that is well taken care of in the bill. I raised the issue when a civil aviation amendment bill came up during the last term. I said then that that we should be talking about controlling unruly passengers, and we were promised by the officials that a measure would come to fruition in due course. So we welcome the bill. We think it targets all the areas of concern: disruption, intoxication, interference with the aircraft, offensive behaviour and language, wrongly using electronic devices, etc. There is also a clause dealing with smoking. We think that the Government, in that segment of the bill, has got it right, and we are prepared to support the bill going to the select committee. But we have reservations about the part of the bill that repeals the Carriage by Air Act. We agree that that Act needs looking at, but we have reservations about whether it needs to be totally repealed. On that basis, New Zealand First will support the referral of the bill to the select committee.

I intend to take only a brief call. Although the bill deals with the security of passengers, and with acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, or lawful and unlawful behaviour, on an aircraft, there are other important provisions that relate to civil liability for delay in a domestic service and bring this law into the area of conformity, in particular with the accident compensation scheme—transfers them from that Act to this legislation.

There are other important provisions in this bill that contribute to aspects of the New Zealand Transport Strategy—for example, in assisting economic development, which is so important in this country; assisting personal safety and security; and improving access and mobility, which is an important aspect that is sometimes overlooked with regard to the travelling public but is certainly something this Government has paid a great deal of attention to. I support this bill, and I look forward to its rapid passage through the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member, I inform the House that the ACT party will get the next call. ACT has indicated it wishes to split its 10-minute call—one call to the honourable member Deborah Coddington, and the other to the honourable member Stephen Franks.

The ACT party supports the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, but speaking as one who is on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I point out that ACT does not believe there is a need for urgency in dealing with this bill. That select committee is already overloaded with legislation. If the Government keeps piling on legislation in urgency, that is when we get the passing of laws that are faulty and have to be decided by the courts.

This bill is an enlightened piece of legislation. I am interested to see that the general policy statement states that the Government released the New Zealand Transport Strategy, and that the provisions of this bill contribute to the objectives of that strategy. One of the objectives of the transport strategy is stated as being “assisting economic development”. I have to say that this is the only piece of legislation relating to that transport strategy that, at this stage, does promote economic development. This bill does recognise that increased competition will benefit consumers and will have the potential to lower the cost of airfares for international travellers, and that will be a good thing. After listening to the speeches made tonight, I think that there must be unruly passengers on damn near every aircraft that flies around the world, because we all seem to have a story about unruly passengers.

💬 Peter Brown: It’s the same guy!

Peter Brown says it is the same guy—and it is Peter Brown! Well, Peter Brown was on the last flight I took to London, and we experienced a case of air rage, as it is called. It is very, very frightening when six passengers have to restrain a passenger, handcuff the person to the seat, and when, for the rest of the flight, they hear someone raving, swearing, and carrying on. One of the issues concerning increased penalties for unruly passengers is that one would hope that when this bill is passed there will be advertising and education, as well as signs to act as deterrents to those people who believe they can climb on board an aircraft and make the flight hell for everybody else. It is impossible for security screening to pick which passengers will be unruly, even though security staff X-ray baggage, and so on. One cannot just look at people, decide who is going to be unruly, and exclude them. This bill probably will not stop air rage but, hopefully, it will go a long way towards reducing it.

I notice that one of the other benefits of this legislation is that it will reverse the burden of proof regarding mental injury. I will be interested in watching this issue when the bill comes to the select committee, because, so far, the bill refers to mental injury only where it is caused to other passengers who might be sitting in a plane and see somebody sucked out. John Key mentioned a flight—I think it was a United Airlines flight—during which the top of the plane was ripped off. I remember that the parents of one of the passengers—a New Zealand guy—spent a considerable amount of time trying to find out why that plane was faulty and why that accident happened. They went to huge lengths to overturn the finding—I think it was in America—which was sort of a whitewash. The mental anguish and injury that those parents suffered was quite considerable. I am not saying that the mental injury clause should be extended, but I think this issue is something that should be canvassed at the select committee, and I will be interested in looking at that.

The only other issue I would like to flag, which I will also be interested in when it comes to the select committee, is clause 31, which covers the function and duties of the Aviation Security Service. It means that the Commissioner of Police will be able to use aviation security to assist the police on the basis of a security threat. As it stands, I feel that that provision is a bit loosely drafted. I understand the intention is for a situation like APEC, or a visiting dignitary, and when it is not going to compromise aviation security at the airport, the Commissioner of Police can say: “All hands on deck”. We will be looking at that issue.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I intend to speak to a proposed motion to amend the resolution to commit the bill to select committee. Is that a matter on which I may move as of right, or do I require to seek leave for that purpose?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member needs only to hand the amendment in at the table.

Thank you; then I will speak to it. The purpose of this motion, which I think I have advised each party of now, is simply to ensure that the referral to select committee is on the ordinary terms for a select committee, with the ordinary deadline. There has been no indication, that I am aware of, that this bill is of particular urgency that should truncate time, or that should put the committee in the difficulty of sitting while the House is sitting, with all the adjustments and problems that can cause, particularly for smaller parties whose members are thereby obliged sometimes to choose between doing their duty properly at a committee, and attending in the House and taking part in debate on other matters where the committee members are involved. Of course, it is not only a problem for smaller parties, but it is probably often more acute for them. The motion would be an amendment that would omit the words after the reference to the select committee, so that the proposed suspension of Standing Order 196 would not proceed and the committee would not be given an express instruction that it should or could meet while the House is sitting or after the normal sitting hours of the House, without the leave of the committee.

As I said, this is not intended to signify any particular concern about the content of this bill. We would give it the careful consideration that the ACT party gives to all bills. We regard the quality of legislation as the responsibility of all members, but we take particularly good care because of our respect for the rule of law. If law is to be strictly enforced or observed, then it should be as sparse and as unobtrusive as possible. But we do not wish that to extend to suspending the normal proceedings of select committees. We are prompted in this by the surprise that the motion on the previous bill should have suspended that Standing Order. We would be very pleased if any member of the Government could explain why this was appended to the motion to refer to select committee, both for the previous bill and this bill. If this is a practice that the Government intends to adopt, then it needs more than simple adoption; it needs explanation of some kind.

I understand from our whip that the Business Committee has not discussed this matter. Therefore it must relate to something that the Government has decided unilaterally. If so, it would be very helpful to know exactly why. Is it related to these two particular bills, or is it intended by the Government that this become a standing practice? If it does that, it is essentially saying that the Standing Orders are being amended by default.

With regard to the previous bill, the Government might understand that we are particularly concerned because that bill has been foreshadowed for the entire time I have been in Parliament. It follows from a bill that the Minister of Justice introduced in 1997. It is a massive bill, and if this is to be a practice, then I think that the experience of being on the select committee will be very much more burdensome, and less satisfying and less useful to members of the House. So we ask whether the Government does or does not intend this. Is it some oversight or some procedural experiment? We ask that the Government take the time, in a call, to explain whether it has a particular reason, whether it is related to this bill, the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, or whether we just happen to be in the first stage of a change in practice by the Government.

If the amendment that we have moved is accepted, the select committee motion would revert to the normal select committee motion, which means that we are not attempting to frustrate the Government or infringe the Government’s rights or expectations, at all.

The Green Party, as with all other parties in this House, is happy to support this legislation going to the select committee. But I would like to start by saying how deeply unhappy we are with the procedural motion that has been sprung upon us tonight that would suspend the normal procedures of the House and require the select committee considering this bill and the previous bill to meet at all hours, virtually, of the day and night and during the proceedings of the House. As other colleagues have said previously, we can see no reason that this should be sprung upon us. We are aware that there was a Business Committee meeting this afternoon. We are unable to understand why, if there were some good reasons, this was not raised at the Business Committee.

I am very grateful to the ACT member for having moved his motion, which I hope will be supported, that would, basically, seek to amend the proposal. Otherwise, the way it is all rolled up into a composite motion, it may have required us to vote against the entire move of this bill to the select committee. In fact, we are perfectly happy that the bill goes to the select committee, but we are deeply unhappy with this suspending of normal procedures that has been sprung on us at the last minute. May I also say that we are very unhappy that the Government denied us leave to change our vote on the procedural motion on the previous bill.

I turn now to the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill itself. We support the various clauses in the bill. I will spare members my own stories of civil disobedience on airlines. Fortunately, my experiences have not been as dire as some that have been recorded. I am very pleased that the regulations covering unruly passengers also include such things as persons operating portable electronic devices. I think that is important. We know that people operating cellphones can in fact interrupt the safety of the aircraft, yet we see people on aircraft who insist on using them. So I think that provision is really excellent, and we are absolutely delighted with those proposals in the bill. Indeed, they are long overdue.

We do have some concerns about the repeal of the Carriage by Air Act and its replacement with the Consumer Guarantees Act. We are not convinced that the Consumer Guarantees Act will give consumers the same degree of protection that was granted to them by the Carriage by Air Act, which is being repealed. But this is the sort of technical detail that can be thrashed out at the select committee. I notice that other members have also expressed concerns about that, so, hopefully, this is an issue that the select committee will address.

We are happy, too, with the provisions for the mutual recognition of aviation safety certification between Australia and New Zealand. We are very pleased that in this bill we have opted for mutual recognition with Australia, not harmonisation. As Associate Minister of Transport, Harry Duynhoven, who originally introduced this bill, said in his press release: “We have decided on mutual recognition, not harmonisation.” We are very pleased with that. We think that mutual recognition between Australia and New Zealand makes a lot of sense, as compared with harmonisation. We are deeply opposed to harmonisation, which ultimately involves relinquishing our sovereignty, and we cannot understand why the Government is pursuing harmonisation rather than mutual recognition in other areas, such as the regulations surrounding dietary supplements. We hope that we will carry on the tradition of mutual recognition, as this bill does, and not try to move towards harmonisation, which always seems to mean New Zealand adopting Australian legislation and Australian rules, and us giving up our sovereignty. So we are very happy with that, as well.

Indeed, as I said, apart from our concerns about repealing the Carriage by Air Act, we are perfectly happy to support this bill. The only thing I would say is that, basically, this bill is a bit of a hotchpotch of different bits and pieces of the Civil Aviation Act that are being amended. It seems to us that there is one important issue that we ought to be addressing in this legislation, with regard to runway safety, and that is the fact that at present we are not implementing the rules of the International Civil Aviation Organization in respect of, for example, airport runway safety ends. Our airport runway safety ends do not comply with international regulations, and we think that this bill would be a sensible place to try to look at ensuring, perhaps in the purpose of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, that there is a requirement to implement those obligations, including the ones relating to runway safety.

So there are issues, like those, that we believe ought to be covered in this omnibus civil aviation bill, but we are happy with it as far as it goes. But we are deeply unhappy with the idea of the select committee being required to meet at all hours of the day and night, and while the House is sitting. As we are a small party this would be a real burden on us, and we will be opposing the motion. We hope that it will be defeated. We will then be able to support the bill going to the select committee.

I am pleased to support this bill. Its provisions contribute to aspects of the New Zealand transport strategy, assist economic development through the mutual recognition between Australia and New Zealand of each other’s air safety approvals, assist personal safety and security by the measures dealing with unruly passengers, and improve access and mobility. I commend this bill to the House.

The Hon Paul Swain should take a deep breath and reflect on all the objections raised by Opposition parties to the procedural motion. I looked at that when this legislation was first introduced to Parliament on 1 July. If the Labour Government believes that this legislation is so urgent that it requires the select committee to sit on Fridays, etc., why did it not organise its business a lot better by referring the legislation to the select committee a month ago? I certainly felt that it was mean of the Labour Government to deny the plea from the Green Party to change its vote on the procedural motion. After all, it happened very quickly, and if one had not been paying 100 percent attention, one might not have picked up the fact that the Minister had sneaked in a procedural motion that would override the Standing Orders of the House. The Green Party should be given the opportunity to change its vote on that procedural motion, on the grounds that it was not aware of the proper wording of the motion.

As my colleague Mr John Key has indicated, National will support the bill’s referral to a select committee. We certainly support the three key changes introduced by this legislation. The first change is to enable Australian airlines to operate in New Zealand under the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority certification and safety oversight. We understand that a complementary measure will then be passed by the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia. It makes a lot of sense to us to enable the avoidance of duplicate aviation requirements and the need to build extra training education in both countries The particular part that would attract most public attention relates to unruly passenger behaviour. I doubt whether anybody in the House would raise an objection to the introduction of that part. Indeed, I have seen flight attendants express delight over its introduction, because they reckon that cabin crews have been coping with offensive and insulting behaviour from passengers for years, which, if repeated on the ground, would be illegal. Certainly, the National Party is very happy to support that part.

I also want to raise technical aspects of some of the clauses. Hopefully, the select committee will examine those in detail. Some of the unruly behaviour that will be ruled as illegal—we will not oppose that—is disruptive conduct towards a crew member. The second category is interference with an aircraft. It is stated that any person who tampers or interferes with any aircraft or its equipment commits an offence and will be liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000. The intention of that clause, obviously, is to deal with people who would interrupt the flight schedule or interfere with the technical equipment that is necessary for the plane to operate effectively. I wonder what might happen in unfortunate circumstances where, as we all know occurs, children get really excited about the audio-visual equipment on international aircraft. One would want to know that the interpretation of that provision would not be carried too far.

The other provision that needs to be debated a little bit more relates to intoxicated persons not being permitted on aircraft. I certainly would accept that, but the provision refers to a person committing an offence who is intoxicated and boards an aircraft, or becomes intoxicated on an aircraft. We come to a bit of a dilemma, because any person who has had experience of international air flights in particular, waiting for an international air flight in the lounge, would have been subject to the temptation of lots of free alcohol. I wonder whether the lounge staff or airline will take precautions to make sure that an individual will not give in to those temptations. Of course, intoxicated persons should be stopped from boarding an aircraft. I would hope that the airport or airline staff would have the authority to stop those individuals from boarding an aircraft, and I presume a fine would be imposed at that juncture. They should not even be allowed to board the aircraft.

The second issue is that they would also commit an offence if they became intoxicated on an aircraft. Once again, when people are subjected to free drinks on an aircraft, measures need to be looked at in terms of educating or warning individuals when they are faced with the temptation of the abundant availability of alcoholic drinks.

The other issue I raise is about the operation of portable electronic devices not being permitted. We are all very clear that cellphones, etc., should not be allowed to operate on an aircraft. However, I wonder about the situation with laptops. Increasingly, people are carrying on with their work using word-processing facilities. They may not be allowed to connect to the Internet, but certainly, lots of people are carrying laptops on to aircraft and they might be using those for word-processing functions or to clear their email during a long-haul flight. So it is a question whether the reference to portable electronic devices also applies to laptops in those circumstances, because certainly on domestic flights it is quite common for passengers to continue to do their work. All those provisions need clarification.

I was interested to note that the introduction of references to unruly behaviour was largely because, according to the introductory note to the legislation, the increasing number of threats of terrorist activity in New Zealand and worldwide has focused attention on the need to ensure that appropriate security measures are available in this country. I am very pleased to hear that. When our Prime Minister, Helen Clark, mentioned that New Zealand exists in a benign environment, a lot of us became concerned that we might be lured into complacency. Certainly it should be acknowledged that particularly after September 11 we are faced with an increasing number of threats of terrorist activity, so every measure should be taken to ensure that international passengers feel safe to fly. As the National spokesperson on tourism, I certainly think that the measures introduced by this legislation are eminently sensible. New Zealand is enjoying growth in tourism, and we want to ensure that every measure is taken to enhance that growth. We will support this bill going to a select committee.

Before I express New Zealand First’s support of this bill, I express our concern about the need for urgency in dealing with it, and, particularly, the need for select committees to sit on Fridays and to late hours. I do not see that it is necessary for this bill, and I have great concern as to the reasons that the Government would want to do that. If the Minister could convince us, perhaps we would agree, but so far the Minister has not been able to convince us that such action is necessary.

New Zealand First supports the majority of the provisions in this bill. One of its provisions that I like is the extension of the open skies agreement, particularly the seventh freedom, of traffic rights. We already have the fifth and sixth freedoms, for passenger and freight pickups and drop-offs in multiple ports in the destination country, and the seventh freedom takes it a step further in allowing an airline to begin and end a flight in a country without passing through its home country. That is a concept that will allow for an increase in tourism.

One issue that I would like to raise is the agreement between the Australian Minister of Transport and the New Zealand Minister of Transport in 2002. They agreed, on the grounds of safety and ease of access, on the two countries working together and passing legislation that would allow air operators certified in one country to operate in the other country without having to go through the process of getting a new operator’s certificate in that country. That is a good result. However, it does remind me of the problem when Ansett Australia was owned by Air New Zealand, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia suddenly closed Ansett Australia down, for the reason, it said, that it was unsafe. I would hate to see those powers passed on and used, particularly when one considers that the explanatory note to this bill gives a lot of weight to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia—the same authority that closed Ansett down. I would hate to think that it would have far more powers to shut Air New Zealand down within New Zealand boundaries, because that would go against the sovereignty of our State. To allow an authority that has a mutual agreement with a country the extreme powers to do that—in particular, the power to shut down an airline that originates from another area—would be a concern.

The Government of Australia does agree to that mutual arrangement, but I would like to make sure that, before we finally agree to allowing this bill to pass, we are certain that the Australians are going to mirror our bill. If they do not, we have allowed them to have the upper hand. I would hate to see that, because tourism in New Zealand is very important, and our airline is a very, very important aspect of that tourism. To have an overbearing regulation that would limit tourism and direct it to Australia would be a gross overuse of the powers in this legislation.

A number of members have talked about the provisions relating to unruly passengers. Unruly passengers on aircraft are a frightening concept. I have had a first-hand experience, not on an aircraft, but on a tour bus on which a passenger suddenly got out of his seat carrying a knife. It would be much the same as on an aircraft, except that the bus was able to stop while I attempted to disarm the passenger. With 45 passengers on board—it was a fully laden bus—it was not an easy feat. It came down to a lot of calm talking, and we eventually persuaded the passenger to give up the knife.

Alcohol at altitude has a much more damaging effect on the brain and actions, because it takes effect rapidly and a person gets out of control, if he or she is that way inclined; that is one of the problems on aircraft. If the passenger with the knife had been so inclined, I suspect we would have had a far more sinister situation, at the end of the day. In that circumstance, we were lucky and were able to disarm the person.

New Zealand First has reservations about civil liabilities for delay, because when an aircraft is delayed there are often ongoing connections that it is necessary for a passenger to make in order to carry on to another destination. If an airline abdicates its responsibility to get passengers to their destination, that is one thing, but it is a weakness in this bill to allow the airline carte blanche with regard to its reliability in getting them there, with no responsibility to look after passengers because they have missed their ongoing flights. The select committee really needs to look at that aspect and make sure that it is not giving the airlines unnecessary powers or freedom to neglect their passengers and not be responsible for their well-being, whether or not they are outside their own countries. If that support is not in the mechanisms in the legislation, we will be letting them down. The passengers are an important aspect.

In summary, New Zealand First supports the open skies agreement. Under the open skies agreement, Air New Zealand and Qantas have often had code-share agreements, so it is a case of allowing a little bit more freedom in that.

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh, come on.

I hear Jill Pettis piping up over there. She wants me to hurry up and finish. I say to her that she takes very short calls, but we have some very grave concerns about a few aspects of this legislation. We are supporting the bill for her party, but she should give us the due of allowing us to express our concerns where we see them. I would like to make sure that the select committee has the opportunity to listen to our concerns and not be shut down by her comments. I recap on the issue of unruly passengers: we do find that it is most important to support the flight crew and make sure that unruly passengers are curtailed, or even stopped in their tracks before they become a problem, but our main concern is civil aviation liability.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, that the committee finally report on the bill by 30 November 2003, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

I move, That all the words after the word “Committee” be omitted.