Civil Aviation Amendment Bill

I move, That the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I thank particularly the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the priority that it has given to this bill, and for the improvements it has made to the bill after its introduction. I also thank those who made submissions to the committee. The purpose of the bill is to enable New Zealand to implement the mutual recognition of aviation-related certification between Australia and New Zealand, in order to improve aircraft security, to update the Civil Aviation Act, and, finally, to consolidate civil aviation law. The select committee accepted that these were important objectives, and has made improvements to some clauses.

Many of the submitters were interested in the provisions of the bill relating to unruly passenger offences. A number of amendments have been made to those provisions, to improve the workability of the legislation. In particular, if an offence occurs on a foreign aircraft outside, but en route to, New Zealand, and the pilot in command feels that it requires action, the bill provides for that pilot in command to request action by the New Zealand enforcement authorities. Some submitters felt that the penalty levels for unruly passenger offences were too low. The select committee has, therefore, recommended changes to the penalties that more accurately reflect the seriousness of some of the offences.

The provisions relating to liability for delay were an area of contention for some in the aviation community. The bill transfers the liability provisions for passenger delay from the Carriage by Air Act. That means that if a passenger is delayed, the airline is presumed liable for the delay. Liability is capped at 10 times the fare paid for the journey or the total cost of the damage sustained, whichever is the lesser amount. The airline is not liable for damages for delay for events that are beyond the control of the airline; for example, natural disasters, weather and safety considerations, etc.

Some submitters expressed concern that the aviation sector is being treated differently from other transport modes in that regard. That is the case, but in the absence of satisfactory protection from generic consumer protection legislation, it is appropriate that consumers continue to have that existing right. There was some concern that the provisions regarding delay would apply to adventure operators. The select committee has, therefore, made minor changes to Part 9B, inserted by clause 32, in order to clarify that the bulk of adventure operators are not liable for delay.

Part 1A, inserted by clause 7, provides for the mutual recognition of aviation safety certification between Australia and New Zealand. Under mutual recognition, airlines wishing to operate in Australia will benefit from reduced compliance costs, as they will be able to operate under their New Zealand certification and will not have to obtain separate Australian certification. That means that airlines will no longer face the costs associated with dual certification, such as insurance, accident compensation, and compliance with differing requirements for airline operations.

A similar bill containing reciprocal provisions for Australian airlines has been introduced in the Australian Parliament, which will allow New Zealand airlines the same rights. The target for implementation of the mutual recognition provisions in Australia and New Zealand was 31 December 2003. However, the Australian legislation will not be debated until late in March. Therefore, I intend to table Supplementary Order Paper 180 to bring the mutual recognition provisions into force by Order in Council.

The Supplementary Order Paper will also do a number of other things. It will bring provisions relating to the Aviation Security Service into force the day after the date of assent, it will enable the Australian and New Zealand mutual recognition arrangements to be specified in regulations, and it will refine the provisions for unruly passengers by clarifying that the director of the Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for enforcement, requiring alleged offenders to give their details to enforcement authorities, and enhancing consistency with the Civil Aviation Act and the Summary Offences Act. It will also clarify that certain decisions relating to aviation medical certification are appealable to the district court.

One other matter that I had hoped to have included in the Supplementary Order Paper is the issue of search and rescue—the arrangements that control the National Rescue Coordination Centre. One party only has not approved that matter for introduction in the Supplementary Order Paper, and I would respectfully ask, for the sixth time, the National Party to reconsider that matter, in the hope that it can see fit to join every other party in the House and support that measure, which would greatly improve the provision of search and rescue coordination.

This is important legislation. It covers a variety of issues, and reinforces the Government’s commitment to improving aviation safety by extending the measures to deal with unruly passenger behaviour. It also encourages economic development by removing regulatory barriers to the development of the Australian and New Zealand single aviation market. I commend to this bill, as reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, to the House.

Many times in transport debates I have come to the House fired up, brimming with anger, and ready to rip the Government—or the Labour Party, when it was in Opposition—to shreds. Today is not one of them. This is a pretty stock, standard bill that I think all members would like to see go through. It continues a long process whereby we have been trying to get our real targets into line—the Australians. That is where our opposition lies at this point—not in this Parliament, but across the pond. It has been very, very hard to get Australia to agree on what I think are quite common-sense regimes.

For example, we have always wanted New Zealand engineers and pilots who service Qantas planes in Auckland to be allowed to do similar work on Air New Zealand planes over there—on planes that are certified for use and domicile in New Zealand. There may be members who think that Australians are so different that their engineers, planes, and regime should not be the same as ours—again, I am not one of them. I am really disappointed that it has taken us—both the previous National Government, when I was a part of it, and the Labour Party while it has been in Government—so long to address that. I understand that even with regard to some of this stuff, we nearly had a bail-out from Australia on it. I say to the Australians, if they are listening—and they often listen to my speeches, because I often have a good smack at them—that we should be treating New Zealand and Australia as a single aviation market in toto.

It needs to be pointed out that these changes in the mutual recognition of aviation certification do not go all the way. They apply only to aeroplanes with certain seating capacity and of certain weight. I had better explain that for passenger operations, the changes apply to planes with a capacity of more than 30 passenger seats, or a maximum certificated take-off weight of more than 15,000 kilograms. For cargo operations, they apply to planes with a maximum certificated take-off weight of more than 15,000 kilograms, or a maximum payload of more than 3,410 kilograms. Why?

Harry Duynhoven looks at me in despair—I am sure it has been difficult for him. Why could we not recognise all planes? Why could we not recognise a New Zealand plane that weighed slightly less—with, say, 28 passengers on board? What is the difference between 28 and 30?

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: It’s two.

I know that someone will tell me it is two; but we are quite good at maths, as well. Regarding the Australians, I simply do not understand why we could not have moved to full, open, mutual recognition at some time in the past. I am still getting counselling about some of the ways that the Australians behaved over the single aviation market and the open skies agreement. I still find their attitude to us condescending and disgraceful.

In the last half of this speech, I will address some of the provisions of the bill, and why I think that the National Party will support its passage through the House. First of all, there are a series of amendments about the definition and carriage of dangerous goods. As the world progresses, all sorts of things that we never knew were dangerous have been identified. For example, when I was growing up and at school, I did not know that fertiliser was a bomb. I did not know that we could blow the entire side off a massive skyscraper building with fertiliser. Now everybody knows that.

💬 Peter Brown: You just told them.

Peter Brown obviously does not realise that there was quite a bit of publicity about the Oklahoma book depository and the fact that fertiliser was used as a bomb. If Peter Brown does not keep up with the news, then we should get him an Internet connection, so that he can.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Where would you put it?

I say to Mr Cosgrove that I know where I would plug it, but we will not go there.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Would it be broadband?

It would be broadband, all right. So, for members who are at all interested in this, there are products that were around 20 and 30 years ago that we thought were incredibly benign, and which are now clearly identified as being terribly dangerous. I would imagine that we will need to keep upgrading the lists and definitions of dangerous goods and spray cans that we probably thought were pretty ineffectual but that we now know could puncture a hole in the side of an airliner, and so on.

Some of the rest of the bill deals with the treatment of passengers who are behaving badly. I was lucky enough, before my parliamentary life, to work for an airline and to travel just about full-time on planes overseas. I was away a lot, and saw a number of examples. I remember seeing an Australian rugby team, flying out of London one night, and I would not have liked to be the cabin crew telling them to behave themselves, because those guys were absolutely three sheets to the wind, and their behaviour was—

💬 Brent Catchpole: Been thrashed by the Poms, had they?

No, from what I could understand—although it was impossible to tell quite what they were saying—they had actually won their matches. Never mind. There is some stuff in the bill with regard to penalties for offensive behaviour, etc., etc.

I experienced something on the plane that night that made me laugh. A number of the passengers became very worried, because one of the rugby players tried to open the door of the 747. He took hold of the big handle—he had had enough of the cabin crew being rude, and he wanted to get off. We were somewhere over France at the time, and it would have been an interesting departure. I have good news for members, in case they are at all interested in this absolutely trivial notion: one cannot open a plane’s door when a plane is in flight, because the door on a 747 opens inwards first, and then rotates to go back on out. Because of the pressurisation of a plane, even Charles Atlas is not strong enough to open the door on a plane when it is in flight. The doors do not open outwards. They open inwards firstly, and then outwards. So if in future one sees some idiot racing for the handle of a door, trying to open it, one should feel safe. That person will not be able to do it, no matter how many cornies and Wheaties he has had for breakfast.

The bill goes on, as I said, to deal with intoxicated people, and with demands that there is compliance with the pilot’s instructions. I think that is quite right. The pilot has every right to be in command while in flight. There is not the normal jurisdiction of police and all the other law enforcement agencies around. Again, on aeroplanes I have seen—I think on two occasions—individuals handcuffed by the crew because of behaviour, and so on. The cabin crew do take some pretty abusive stuff along the way.

I know there was a request for a provision by the airlines to remove their liabilities for being unable to carry people because of delays or not being on time, etc. I am pleased the select committee and the Government have not bowed to those requests, because I still think there are some obligations on airlines to make sure they carry passengers. I know for a fact—because I was involved in the design of some of the computer systems—that airlines have a very sophisticated overbooking regime. That is fine; it makes a lot of sense. The airline overbooks by so many people, knowing there will be a cancellation rate, and, hopefully, by the day of the flight the number of bookings is down to just about dead right. But it seems pretty unfair for consumers—consumers who have booked seats, paid for them, and travelled all the way to the airport, to find they cannot go on because the plane is overbooked and full—not to get some form of compensation .

There is some other stuff in the bill. I see that scenic flight operations and air ambulances will not be captured—whatever “captured” quite means. I guess the Minister can tell us about that. I am pleased that the bill complies with the Human Rights Act. I am not quite sure why we need to have civil aviation complying with that Act, but, nonetheless, people will sleep soundly in their beds at night knowing that it does.

There were some matters outside the bill, and I found one of those to be interesting. During the hearing of evidence we were very interested to learn that New Zealand does not have full membership of the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods, which currently has 25 full voting members. Quite frankly, I do not care. The way the United Nations functions these days, I think that it is probably a positive boon that we are not part of the operation, in terms of the bureaucracy and added cost that it makes—although I am sure that Mr Duynhoven will manage to sort it out and get us connected.

Overall, the National Party in Opposition will most certainly, in this case, be supporting the bill—just to reassure anybody out there in drive time who is listening, and who thinks that in Opposition all we do is to argue against things. We do not. We are constructive, we want to assist where we think things are of value, and we most certainly will be supporting this bill right through its passage through the House.

United Future also supports this bill. I will be brief, because Maurice Williamson in his speech has probably just informed us all of everything we need to know. The bill is largely technical in nature, and therefore it is quite uncontroversial. It will, in effect, serve to enhance the safety and economic efficiency of airline travel within New Zealand. The bill gives legislative effect to the Australia - New Zealand Mutual Recognition Agreement. It will enable Australian airlines to operate in New Zealand under the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s certification and safety oversight, while a complementary measure will be passed in the Australian Parliament with regard to New Zealand’s airlines—or so we hope. That will serve to reduce regulatory barriers to aviation activity in Australia—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: They will probably renege.

They will probably renege—and therefore will cut operating costs for New Zealand and Australian airlines, which I think everyone would welcome. So air travellers win, and the airline companies win. Both countries have similar and very robust safety regulating regimes, so this measure does not give rise to any safety concerns.

I think that sometimes we can take airline travel for granted, and it has been a very safe and stable means of travel. But as one who has travelled quite extensively on airlines, I can say that I have also been present when there have been seriously unruly passengers on board. With all of our concerns now about people who have incorrect motives for being on airlines—such as terrorists—I welcome these regulations that bring in restraints. The pilots in command must be able to control the passengers they have on their airlines. Just because we are so used to planes flying safely through the air, we forget they can also be lethal weapons.

Another part of this bill implements new security measures, and is in part a response to the increasing security concerns of airlines, passengers, and Governments in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The legislation allows for the prosecution of passengers who are unruly on New Zealand aircraft, or on other aircraft flying in New Zealand that come from outside New Zealand’s territory. Unruly actions are those—excluding actual hijacking—that may be considered dangerous, such as making threats, using insulting behaviour towards crew, interfering with the aircraft, operating cellphones when told not to, being blatantly drunk, swearing or being abusive, smoking, carrying dangerous goods, and not obeying seating or seat belt instructions. A series of strong penalties is also included.

This bill brings New Zealand’s aviation security laws into line with Australian, Canadian, and British law, and eliminates certain sovereignty-related complications that in the past have made prosecuting foreigners for offences outside New Zealand’s territory difficult. The safety of passengers on airlines travelling both within New Zealand and internationally should be the top priority, and United Future is satisfied that this Civil Aviation Amendment Bill goes a long way towards helping to ensure that. We also approve of the streamlining of provisions relating to liability for a delay in a domestic air service that is within the airline’s control, such as the delay or cancellation of a flight at the last minute, due to a lack of bookings. Airline customers pay enough for air travel without being subject to unwarranted delays and the extra costs those can bring with them, in terms of lost productivity or, simply, of stress. We commend this bill to the House.

I do not need to take my full 10-minute call on this bill, because it looks as though it is going to go through almost unanimously, if not unanimously. I think the bill is worthwhile, and has been a long time coming. The particular area that I am pleased to see addressed is the situation of unruly passengers. I have had the experience of flying on three planes with unruly passengers and, I have to say, it is not pleasant. Before the member says it—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: The New Zealand First caucus?

I think he might have just beaten me to it—it was not my caucus fellows. Flying with unruly passengers is nerve-racking, if not scary, and I think the honourable Paul Adams has just referred to blatantly drunk people. I do not know whether the guy who comes to my mind was blatantly drunk or just high on drugs, but he was throwing his dinner around here, there, and everywhere. He was sitting next to a female passenger and it was very, very difficult for the aircrew to contain him. I was tempted to climb over a few seats to get at him, but I thought that might have made the job more difficult for the flight crew.

Another time, I was on a plane flying back from Greece. There was a full ship’s crew of us. I was a cadet officer in those times—and I was a well-behaved one, before Maurice Williamson tells me anything different—and one of the junior engineers got tanked up on a Greek plane with a Greek captain in charge. That guy locked himself in the toilet just over the top of Heathrow. The captain, first of all in English, appealed for him to come out, and then broke into rather choice language in Greek. We were trying to break down the toilet door to get the guy out, and he was going berserk by the time we got him out and laid him down. We were in the middle of the approach to Heathrow, and God knows what was outside.

So, I am very pleased that this bill will address the situation of unruly passengers. It does a good deal more, as I think my colleagues have explained, and New Zealand First will support the progress of this bill.

The ACT party is also supporting this Civil Aviation Amendment Bill. It is unfortunate that my colleague Rodney Hide is taking TVNZ to task at the moment, as I am sure he would otherwise have loved to come down here and talk about civil aviation. Unlike the National Party, we also support Supplementary Order Paper 180 because—

💬 Peter Brown: Who didn’t?

I was told that the National Party was not supporting the—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: The National Rescue Coordination Centre didn’t.

I want to talk about the National Rescue Coordination Centre for a minute, because the matter could have been introduced in separate legislation. I understand it is slightly unusual for it to be included in this Supplementary Order Paper, but I think it is important to say these things to show the people out there that we do not always fight and delay legislation in this House. If that matter were introduced in separate legislation, it would have considerably delayed the passing of legislation leading to greater coordination of our search and rescue centre.

That matter arose out of the tragedy in Oamaru where, I think, four or five men drowned. There were delays, and there was confusion because of funding mechanisms and the lack of coordination. The review said that if the things now outlined in the Supplementary Order Paper were done, the service would not be so dysfunctional in the future. I am pleased that has been able to be introduced, and is to be passed, in this Supplementary Order Paper.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: National won’t let that happen.

Surely there are sufficient numbers?

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: No, it cannot be put in unless there is approval.

Oh.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: You’re on 1 percent.

I just wonder whether that member is naturally nasty, or whether he goes home and practises every night, because he obviously has not listened to a word that I have been saying. He should clean out his taringa.

The other area of this bill I would like to address is the part that covers offensive language and behaviour, and unruly passengers. We went over that issue when we were hearing submissions in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and we heard from members of the airline crew union. It is interesting to look at how the public perceives airline crew. They get a lot of unwarranted flak. They are perceived as trolley-dollies, lolly-lovers, and waitresses in the sky. In fact, they are responsible for the safety of all passengers, even when there is no emergency. It is true to say that most responsible passengers look to airline crew as the people who will be there when they need help.

Some of the behaviour that airline crew are required to put up—with the language and sexual harassment they are subjected to by passengers—is absolutely outrageous. I do not think it should be tolerated, and I was one of the people who recommended that the fines be increased for a breach of that clause. I am pleased to see that the maximum penalty is now $5,000, because I think there should be a deterrent to passengers behaving like that, when those people are paid to look after us and make sure we are safe.

The other area we amended was the exemption of intoxicated persons on the grounds of medication. We all have stories about intoxicated people on airplanes. They not only upset the other passengers, but make it a nightmare for the aircrew, who cannot throw them off the plane like they can be thrown out of a restaurant. The crew has to put up with them until the end of the flight, and so does everybody else. I thought that exempting an intoxicated person on the grounds of medication was too loose, as someone could come up with any sort of medication they were taking, or any sort of doctor’s certificate. That area has been tightened up to clarify the situation, so that the offence is excusable only if the person is intoxicated as a result of medication that has been prescribed in accordance with medical authorisation.

Hopefully, this bill will be passed and will provide an incentive for people to behave better on aeroplanes and treat the airline crew with more respect than they currently get. It is respect that they deserve. The ACT party supports this bill.

I recall that one of the first pieces of legislation I encountered in my time in Parliament was the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2), which was all about the certification of medical officers for pilots. I see my colleague the Hon Harry Duynhoven in the House. I think he chaired that select committee—brave man that he was—back in those days. The only way to describe the passage of that legislation was a complete nightmare. I hope the passage of this bill is much smoother. It has far less difficult, intricate requirements and definitions in it—something that caught the attention of the Transport and Industrial Relations committee over a very extended period.

I am disappointed that I was unable to hear the contribution of my colleague, the Hon Maurice Williamson, a former Minister of Transport and somebody who knows a great deal about these issues. My mind, unfortunately, was on other matters. Could I begin my contribution by saying that from the way I read the bill there are essentially three elements to it. First, the bill will enable Australian airlines to operate in New Zealand under Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia certification and safety oversight. I suspect that is probably a victory for common sense and open markets, as opposed to—perhaps I could venture to say—the closed shop of the Australian unions. Hopefully, it will enable the type of safety work that previously could not be carried out in New Zealand to be carried out now by our very highly qualified individuals. Any legislation that essentially enables the opening of the skies can only be good in the long run for the consumer. We on the Opposition side of the House have a longstanding and proud history of supporting any legislation that moves in that direction.

I see the other two branches to the bill involve making provision for dealing with unruly passengers, and I would like to spend a bit of time on that as we move through this bill. The other, of course, is to make provision for civil liability for delay in a domestic service. I suspect that that particular legal right—I am looking at Harry Duynhoven now—has always existed, and all this legislation is doing is reinforcing it. [Interruption] That would be my reading of the legislation. I thank Harry Duynhoven for his contribution there.

Let us go back, if we can, not to the issues around the mutual recognition that I know my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson will have covered thoroughly, but to those around unruly passenger offences. When members of the public board a flight for a sporting event—particularly to Australia—it is not uncommon, from time to time, for unruly behaviour to occur. I think that this bill deals particularly with people who recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or persons on an aircraft—and that is important, because we do not want to take away from the ability of passengers to be able to enjoy the flight; we have the occupational safety and health legislation to do that for everything else in our lives.

Section 65F in new Part 5A, inserted by clause 24, is quite an important wee section, because there will be some debate, no doubt, about whether—this is probably why the wording is “recklessly” as opposed to “intentionally”—passengers are able to form the necessary intent in their own minds to act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or a person on an aircraft. The reason that "intentionally" has been taken out of the bill, I would suggest, and replaced with “recklessly or negligently” is so that there is no need for the organisation bringing the charge to have to prove intention on the part of the person looking to act in a way likely to endanger the aircraft or any person on the aircraft. Essentially, we are saying here that an offence—call it a strict-liability offence—in the sense that should the authority deem a person to have acted recklessly or negligently in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, that person is caught. That is it—he or she is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine not exceeding $5,000.

When we move past whether a passenger is able to form that intention, we can see that section 65I in new Part 5A deals directly with the issue of intoxication. It is worth spending just a fraction of time on this, because it is an important issue. Interestingly, I see it states: “Every person (except a person under medical care) commits an offence who (a) is intoxicated and boards an aircraft; or (b) becomes intoxicated on an aircraft.”

Now, it would be interesting to hear from a member of the Government as to who will judge that, and on what basis will it be judged. When we go to section 65I(3) members can see that a person is intoxicated if that person is under the influence of an intoxicating liquor—as opposed to non-intoxicating liquor, I suppose; I am not sure why “intoxicating liquor” is in there—or any other substance, to such an extent as to “be incapable of properly looking after himself or herself.”

That begs the question: if passengers are intoxicated, but the authority deems them to be capable of looking after themselves, how does the authority make a decision as to whether they are capable of looking after somebody else—for example, children who may be travelling with them? No doubt the officials have thought this through, but if such people are intoxicated enough to look only after themselves, but not to look after children or anybody under their supervision or care, are they caught by this provision? It seems to me that it is one thing to be intoxicated and be able to stumble through the flight, but what if the passenger is boarding with others—a disabled cousin, perhaps, under his or her care or supervision? What happens under the bill then? I think that is something that should be given a bit more thought.

Offensive behaviour and language are covered, and I think that is important. Interestingly, under section 65L in new Part 5A every person commits an offence who operates a portable electronic device on board an aircraft and is liable to a fine not exceeding $2,500. I presume that somewhere a portable electronic device is defined to include a cellular telephone. Am I right about that? I am—the officials are nodding. Also, we are not allowed to smoke on aeroplanes. That makes sense—we are not allowed to smoke anywhere else, so why would we be able to smoke on aeroplanes? I am surprised that there is not a “prohibition of fun” clause in this bill as well!

But let us just move on to the last part of the bill, which deals with liability issues and limitations of actions. Nobody who travels frequently by aircraft, whether domestically or internationally, has not had an occasion when his or her plans have been disrupted because of mechanical failure, allegedly, or a flight not making it because of bad weather. We often hear of the airport aviation outfit—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Airways.

That is right, I thank Mr Duynhoven—which says they are down; it cannot tell whether or not an aircraft is in the air. It seems to me that we are looking at legislation that will provide a remedy, in a clear and straightforward way, to those people who have a claim for disruption against the airline. That seems to me to make perfect sense.

So that was a bit of wander through the legislation. Nevertheless, I think I have raised two or three issues that, hopefully, the House and the Government will take some notice of. The Government is not taking notice of much else at the moment, so hopefully it will take notice of me on that point. As my colleague Maurice Williamson has indicated, we will be continuing to support the passage of this legislation.

I rise to support this bill.

This is very important legislation, and National will be supporting it. As members have just heard from the Hon Maurice Williamson, we have over the years viewed the civil aviation legislation as very important. The aviation industry is an integral part of our whole economy and of the way that we do business with overseas countries. The first stop when visitors come into New Zealand is usually an airport, and Auckland International Airport, in particular, is probably the gateway to New Zealand. In fact, I think that airport even has a sign stating that as one goes into the airport complex. That airport is not just an airport but is actually a whole industrial estate, where people arrive or depart.

When we talk about aviation as the means by which we transport goods and people into and out of New Zealand, it is very important to say that we must align ourselves with the other regimes that protect people and property, and make for safe passage. It is interesting to see in the commentary on the bill that it has really been Australia that has not supported the intentions that New Zealand has had for some time. We have asked why it should be, when we have New Zealand engineers, pilots, and flight crew flying Australian aircraft in New Zealand—as in the case of Qantas—that the same regime should not operate in Australia as operates here. Given the close proximity that we have with Australia, and given Closer Economic Relations and the other trade agreements associated with Australia, there should be one set of rules for civil aviation to affect the way that Australians and New Zealanders do business. It is important to carry that through in civil aviation, so when we debate this bill further after this reading we hope that will be allowed to happen.

I want to refer to the commentary on the bill, which, under the heading “Introduction”, states: “The bill aims to remove regulatory barriers to airlines operating under the air services arrangements with Australia by allowing progressive implementation of mutual recognition of aviation certification. This principle will initially be limited to air transport operations using aircraft of a certain seating capacity or weight.” We need to look at that, because this legislation does not apply to all aircraft. A footnote to the commentary states: “For passenger operations, a capacity of more than 30 passenger seats or a maximum certificated take-off weight of more than 15,000kg, and for cargo operations a maximum certificated take-off weight of more than 15,000kg or a maximum payload capacity of more than 3,410kg.” So the principle is actually limited to aircraft that fall into that category, and they are the bigger planes, as one would expect. It is important that we be part of that.

The bill does focus on two issues—it is a twofold bill. This first issue is to improve aviation safety by providing enhanced measures to deal with unruly passengers. I am sure that many of us have travelled on aircraft, and we have wondered how people can react in the way that they do—the language they use, and their behaviour. One often finds that the people concerned have had too much alcohol and once they have had too much alcohol, the abuse can become quite strident. I was on a flight that went from London through to Hong Kong, with a stop-over in New Delhi. I can tell members that the stop-over there relieved a lot of the pressure and the tension at the time. A number of young men on the flight had had far too much to drink, and they were an embarrassment not only to others but to themselves, as it turned out, and their language was absolutely atrocious. The airline staff could do absolutely nothing other than to deny them more alcohol. Such behaviour makes for a very uncomfortable journey when one is in the air for such a length of time. I cannot remember the exact length of time—it might have been 10 or 12 hours—but that certainly was not a flight that I would have wanted to go through again. We know that there are problems with the behaviour of some passengers. Even on smaller flights, where we take it that it may be the first time that some people have ever been on a flight, some passengers do not take other people’s reactions and safety into account, and they think that it is the best thing that can happen to them.

The second part of this bill clarifies what constitutes dangerous goods, and stipulates the level of fines for breaches of those provisions. As was mentioned by the Hon Maurice Williamson earlier on, compounds in fertiliser could actually bring a plane down. I know that if we were to mix hydraulic oil with the fuel in cigarette lighters—I am not a cigarette smoker, but—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: It is called butane.

Mr Duynhoven knows all about this. I am not a chemist, either, so members may want to correct me if am wrong, but I understand that if we were to mix the components of cigarette lighter fuel with hydraulic fluids, then we would have combustion and it could bring down a plane. It is not only an issue of being able to bring a potential bomb onto the plane. Those sorts of things could be in one’s luggage, so an important part of the process is to be able to identify them. If members have been overseas in recent times, they will know about the scrutiny that the airlines demand, especially if people are flying to the United States, where officials are scanning and looking for dangerous goods. Any baggage on any flight going into the United States—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am in the middle of a very important debate and I am having difficulty in hearing myself think.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Would members please quieten down?

💬 Simon Power: I offer my colleague my apologies. I was dealing with some procedural matters, and I yield to him to finish his contribution.

It was such a great speech that I was having difficulty in hearing myself think. But this is a serious matter to debate, because the bill refers to endangering people’s lives and property. The point that I am making here is that one’s baggage could actually bring down one of the planes that I mentioned earlier—planes weighing over 15,000 kilograms—just by having those fluids in one’s possession. Even if those two fluids are in one’s luggage in the hold of the plane and not taken it on in person, if the two fluids were to mix when a plane is up in the air I understand there could be quite an explosion. Mr Duynhoven shakes his head, but I think I am actually right—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: It would be difficult to do. One would have to be on the wing.

One never knows, with regard to those things. Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, it could happen. This bill changes that, and it is now an offence to bring dangerous goods on to an aircraft. That is mentioned in the commentary. That is a very important part of the process.

If members look at other clauses in the bill in relation to actions endangering the safety of aircraft, they will see that the fines are to be increased from $5,000 to $10,000. It is important that we make sure that the punishment fits the crime. In that case, it is a financial figure. If we look at offensive language and behaviour, we see that the increases in the level of the fines are important. Another important issue is referred to on page 6 of the commentary of the bill: the ability of aircrew to restrain unruly passengers. I understand that when planes are outside New Zealand airspace, the crew has not had the opportunity to be able to restrain people. Given the problems that aviation has had with regard to 9/11 and other terrorist activities around the world, the focus must be on the safety of passengers and aircraft. So the clause in relation to restraining unruly passengers is important.

National will support this bill. It is an important bill, and we want to see it pass through the House.

I rise to speak in support of this bill. It is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

On listening to the submitters on this bill and to members in the House, one would get the feeling that flying is an exceedingly hazardous business!

The mutual recognition clause rang some warning bells in my head. I was thinking to myself that if we sign it, can we rely on the Australians to sign it, too? It comes into effect when the Australians have signed appropriate legislation to echo our own.

We discussed at some length whether civil aviation should be liable for delays. Other passenger services do not have to be, but it was thought that air passengers run the risk of having their flights cancelled, and of being put on a later flight, because there are not enough passengers. It seemed not at all unreasonable that if an airline chose to do that, it should meet the expense of accommodating the people so delayed.

The dangerous substances issue was dealt with at some length, and other speakers have spoken about it. We saw a video that showed that certain substances that on their own might be harmless could indeed be dangerous when combined with others. Although some of us would not know that we were taking those substances on board, there are some people who would deliberately smuggle them on board. Tradesmen, for example, who know that it would be too much fuss to get them on the plane in the official way might try to get them on board in their luggage. It is important that if people do that, they are subject to the penalties that go with it.

As for unruly passengers, I myself, having travelled back and forth, have not seen too many, but I believe they do exist. I imagine that unruly behaviour is more likely to happen on international flights. All that is served these days on the other flights is water, and it is pretty hard to get carried away on water, even if it is in a plastic container.

The Greens support the bill. It is one of those pieces of legislation that virtually everybody supports. All the submitters supported it, all the parties supported it, and we are supporting it.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.