Civil Aviation Amendment Bill

Members will have noted from the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill that Part 2, “Amendments to principal Act and related provisions”, which is the substantive part of the bill, is extremely complex. I want to point out the practice that the Government has developed of trying to force legislation through the Committee. Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, which consists of the commencement and purpose provisions only, has two clauses, and in Part 2 one would think, on the face of it, there are 35 clauses. But there are many more than that, because what the Government is doing nowadays—and it is a habit it has been developing over time—is including within a part a whole series of subparts. So, for instance, Part 2 includes Part 1A, “ANZA mutual recognition”, Part 5A, “Unruly passenger offences”, and—oh, we do have Ms Coddington here today, to continue discussing the interesting point that she made last week on that—and Part 9B, “Domestic carriage by air”. Each of those parts has at least 20 clauses in it. So there is the Government’s extraordinary practice of trying to truncate the debate by the way that it structures bills. I would like to have some sort of assurance from the Chair that the Opposition will have a proper opportunity to explore what is really three parts contained within one: Part 1A, Part 5A, and Part 9B. I want to talk to each of those issues separately, because each is substantial in its own right.

In this contribution I shall refer specifically to Part 1A, which is the “ANZA Mutual Recognition Bill” or the Australia - New Zealand aviation mutual recognition provisions. Under those provisions is a goal that has been sought by successive Governments over many, many years: to achieve a single trans-Tasman aviation market. I think all members would acknowledge that goal is a desirable outcome, and I also note that the Prime Minister is travelling to Australia today—

💬 Hon David Carter: Another jaunt.

Another jaunt. I understand that one of the objectives of the visit is to develop or expand a common market—if one will, the integration of the two economies—and I certainly see these mutual recognition provisions in the light of that. One has to ask oneself, however, whether the Prime Minister, in her discussions with Mr Howard, will be proposing a truncation and shortening of the competition provisions of the two nations, so as to effectively force Air New Zealand into Qantas. We all know that that is the outcome desired by the current Government, and indeed last week, when members were discussing this bill, the Minister said that issue had to be addressed by his colleague Dr Cullen. Opposition members took the view that that answer implied yes, that is exactly what the Government’s intent is, and that these provisions are intended to be essentially the cover for that. In the guise of establishing a single trans-Tasman market, the Government’s real intention is to establish, in essence, a truncation of our competition laws so that the merger of the two companies will proceed without a proper examination. So, that is the first point I raise.

The second point I would like an answer on from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, is this. I note from the commentary on the bill by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the single market is intended to relate to aircraft of a certain size and weight. The bill itself refers to aircraft of, I think, 15,000 kilograms. In short, it applies to major transport aircraft that would only be operated by Air New Zealand, Qantas, and Virgin Blue Airlines, I guess, as well. I am not aware of any other internal carriers that would wish to operate in both markets and that have such aircraft.

I move, That the question be now put.

Like my colleague, I think this debate needs to be fully canvassed before it is brought to a conclusion. I want to remind the Committee about the critical elements of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill. Essentially it amends the Civil Aviation Act and sets the framework that will enable the legislation, among other things, to enforce temporary stop notices and introduce penalties for behaviour that is unbecoming. In my last speech, I spoke about the appropriateness of the fines regime that this bill calls for. In particular, I spoke about the fines for individuals, ranging from $2,000 up to $10,000, and for corporations, where the fines range up to $100,000. For individuals, the fines regime canvasses a range of offences, including smoking, not wearing seatbelts when instructed to, and offensive language, etc. Part 5A deals with that issue.

I may be old-fashioned, but I for one think it is about time that we had the teeth to deal with that type of behaviour. Drunken behaviour on aeroplanes is a safety issue, and it is something that I do not think is very becoming. Having said that, I do not share the view of the ACT member who took a call and talked about shooting people between the eyes. I do not want to be associated with that type of behaviour, which I think is pretty extreme. In fact, I think it is very extreme, because I am not sure that that member could shoot people between the eyes at 25 paces anyway, without putting the whole plane down.

💬 Deborah Coddington: Try me.

I do not want to try her—that is my point. One thing I can assure the Committee about is that I will not reach for a drink when that member is on the plane with me!

In new Part 1A that is to be inserted into the principal Act, new section 11H deals with temporary stop notices, and I want to talk about that issue in a little more detail. Essentially, the bill empowers the New Zealand Director of Civil Aviation to issue a temporary stop notice if he or she considers that there is a serious risk to civil aviation safety. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, may also recall that a few years ago, the Australian equivalent of the New Zealand Director of Civil Aviation grounded the entire Ansett Australia jet fleet, on the basis that the company could not demonstrate that its safety record was up to scratch. As someone who flies a lot—and all members fly a lot—I would hate to think that we would get on an airline that could not readily demonstrate that its safety standards were up to date. I will not say that that action by the director of civil aviation in Australia brought the Ansett airline down, but it certainly dented public confidence in it very significantly. The Ansett executives, I believe, thought that they would get a huge amount of public sympathy for their position because, by grounding the fleet just on the Easter break, large numbers of the travelling public were disadvantaged or had their travel plans disrupted. But essentially the travelling public said that no, their safety was more important than the disruption to their travel.

I believe that the essence of what the temporary stop notice provision is trying to achieve is extremely important. That type of authority does work. Of course, I understand the need for profitability in any business, but it is more important, I say, that profitability should not come at the expense of the travelling public. National strongly supports the initiative for this component of the Act. I might also have said in a previous call that I thought the contribution made by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in working together to frame this legislation was first-class. I commend its members.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No. I am cognisant that a number of schedules are included in this debate, as well.

I had the pleasure of sitting in on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when this bill was proceeding through the committee, and I was privy to the reason that we are obviously supporting this legislation: the benefits that can happen on the commercial front, with mutual recognition between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in Australia and the New Zealand authorities. If we look at the changes that are likely to happen in aviation in the next decade or so in New Zealand, I suspect that we will see that these provisions will be very beneficial in allowing New Zealand companies that choose to operate a domestic service in Australia to have some real benefits and to make cost savings.

One of the things we see in the aviation industry is a move to having more niche players. We have seen that with the entry into the industry of companies like Virgin Blue Airlines and Freedom Air, and it can be seen now in Australia through Jetstar. On a point-to-point basis, airlines are choosing to cut out a certain segment of the industry and to make a good return on that segment, without being a full-service provider. In fact, if we look for a holistic sort of airline, then probably the only player we can see attempting to do that in New Zealand circles nowadays is Emirates Airline, which is definitely looking to take on Singapore Airlines as a full-service, multinational provider. With that in mind, I think it is quite possible we will see New Zealand carriers established and running services that may include a small segment within Australia or a domestic service in Australia.

These provisions are good provisions, and National supports any legislation that will reduce compliance costs and make doing business more friendly. We would like to see the Government respond with a cut in the corporate tax rate, rather than the garbage we currently see coming from the Minister for Small Business, which is fluffed-up. I know that Harry Duynhoven, the Minister in the chair, would support a lower corporate tax regime for all the companies that are likely to be in this sector. I am sure that when this amendment bill is passed, he will go straight up to the office of the Minister of Finance on the seventh floor and beg a meeting with him, to discuss that very point.

💬 Darren Hughes: The member has done the tour.

It is lovely to have the new junior Government whip in the Committee, and I congratulate him on his rapid advancement through Labour’s ranks. I hope he has as many members around him in the years to come as he has now, although I am very sceptical as to whether he will have that.

I move on to new Part 5A, inserted by clause 24 in Part 2, to talk for a moment about unruly passengers. As I prepared for this wonderful address today, I was looking back at my remarks some months ago about unruly passengers. We have all had our own experiences of unruly passengers—

💬 Hon David Carter: Judith Tizard has been playing up.

Well, we have had false accusations about members of Parliament—that they have been unruly on planes. Those accusations are not correct, but we have seen unruly passengers and the kinds of situations whereby people go up to the Koru lounge, get absolutely laced up and then get on an aircraft. Of course they become a real problem—certainly during international travel when the flights are long. It is a well-documented medical fact, known even in the banking industry—and I come from an investment banking position in my former career; I am not a medical person—that if one consumes alcohol at 10,000 or 30,000 feet above sea level, it is far more likely to have an impact of greater magnitude than if one were just to have a quiet glass of wine at home. It is actually no different from the effect of a spa pool, which is one of the reasons that if this legislation were to propose having spa pools on a plane, at 35,000 feet above sea level, I would be totally opposed to that—to the drinking of alcohol in a spa pool on a plane.

I want to move on to the far more important issue of unruly passengers, and I point out to the Committee—

💬 Hon Member: Good point.

It is a very good point, and it has not been raised before in this debate, which is where I am making an extreme contribution. New clause 65A, “Application of this Part”, which is inserted by clause 24, sets out exactly who an unruly passenger is. Quite correctly, the provision points out that the situation applies: “(a) on an aircraft in New Zealand, regardless of the nationality of the aircraft:”. That is very important. [Interruption] That is right. If any of us, for instance, were on an airline of any nationality—whether it is Emirates Airline, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific Airways, or Qantas—and were unruly, the issue is not whether we are New Zealanders but whether the plane is in New Zealand or on its way having embarked from New Zealand, regardless of the nationality of the aircraft. At the select committee we took some time with the officials.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to clauses 4 and 7 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and Part 2 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to schedule 2, and the following amendments in his name be agreed to:

to omit from the heading to Part 1 the words “31 December 2003 or earlier and substitute the word “a”; and

to omit from the heading to Part 2 the word “March” and substitute the word “June”.

Amendments agreed to, and schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to schedule 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 Title