Civil Aviation Amendment Bill

It is intriguing, is it not, that we have this rather odd situation of debating the parts and then going back to clause 1, the title? I must confess I am not sure whether that is one of the wisest of all possible amendments to the Standing Orders, because, generally speaking, it is better to have the beginning at the beginning, and the end at the end—not the other way round. Maybe that is an issue the Standing Orders Committee might revisit.

The bill is called the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, and one of the problems with titles like that is it does not describe what is really happening in the bill. As has been indicated in the preceding debate, we are really presiding over quite a major change to our legislation—in particular, the establishment of the single aviation market. So I suggest to the Minister that in future rather than simply calling this bill the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, it would be more appropriate to call it the “Civil Aviation (Single Trans-Tasman Market) Amendment Bill”.

I am not suggesting that we need to put an amendment into the bill for that purpose, but it is not as if it is a minor amendment. I can understand the issues about unruly passengers, and about domestic carriages in the schedules. Those sorts of things have traditionally been expected in an amendment bill of this nature.

The single market is really a major economic instrument, and would make a major change to the economies of the two nations. We all know that the aviation sector is significant in the two economies—in the order of 2 to 3 percent of the gross domestic product of each economy—and one would think that an integration of the two markets to, in essence, a single market, ought to be acknowledged by specific legislation and indicated in the title itself. The Minister might say that that is not strictly necessary, but I remind him of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act, which was drafted in such a fashion as to draw the attention of the nation specifically to the significance of the changes, and submissions were sought along those lines.

On the face of it, the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill seems innocuous, but it creates this major economic change. In essence, there are two parts to this bill. There are clauses that we would customarily expect to see in civil aviation Acts in respect of the operation of airlines—about unruly passengers, about the powers of the captain and crew, about safety, and so forth.

That is not really the intent, however, of this bill. The bill is intended to put in place a major economic change, not a safety change—and in many ways it has been dressed up, through the device of amending legislation, as a safety issue. Many of the provisions relate to safety, rather than to the single market, and I can see that Mr Peck is concerned about the balance of these things—

💬 Hon David Carter: He is certainly more concerned about the balance than he is about school closures in his own patch.

That is certainly true, and I would have thought that someone who is cognisant of economic impacts, including those in his own community, would want to see legislation named appropriately so that it draws the attention of the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of concerned citizens in New Zealand who want real direction from this Government.

They want to know, for instance, whether this Government plans to match the living standards of Australia. What structures does it have in place to integrate the economies of the two nations to achieve that? Calling this legislation the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is not sufficient.

I want to discuss the title of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, and I want to follow on from the comments made by my esteemed colleague Dr Wayne Mapp, who is quite an authority in this area.

💬 Hon Member: He’s a pilot.

Yes, he is a private pilot. I can publicly say on record that he is one of the few pilots in the Chamber that I would take great pleasure in flying with. Dr Mapp is an “attention to details” sort of man, and I have great respect for his ability to command an aircraft.

In relation to the title of the bill, I think Dr Mapp made some quite good points. This is quite important legislation. As members will be aware, it is legislation that National is supporting, for the reasons I outlined in my speech regarding Part 2. [Interruption] Yes, that is right. The spa pool was a minor sort of distraction.

I want to talk about the issue of safety. I think that the word “safety” could be included in the title of the bill, because one of the things that the bill attempts to do, as the public has had the opportunity to read, is make quite significant changes to the demarcation of, and fines for, unruly passengers—defining who is unruly, and under what conditions passengers would be deemed unruly—and for very good reasons.

All of us who have been on aircraft know the danger that could be involved if an unruly passenger who was drugged up, or drinking, or not in full control of his or her thought processes and faculties, were to somehow get command of an aircraft or interfere with its safety systems. Because safety is so heavily highlighted in this legislation, I think it would serve Parliament and the people of New Zealand well for the title to be something like the “Civil Aviation Safety Amendment Bill”, or the “Civil Aviation Safety Bill”.

Secondly, a very important point raised was that this legislation was negotiated over for a very long period of time between officials in New Zealand and Australia. The Minister, Harry Duynhoven, will know what I speak of when I say that at the very last moment it appeared as if the Australians, having negotiated an issue of mutual recognition with New Zealand, then seemed to be backing away from those conditions. Without wishing to take in vain the name of our good friends across the Tasman, we all know that a similar sort of thing occurred with the open skies arrangement, which ultimately probably led to Air New Zealand’s purchase of Ansett, which ultimately led to the demise of Air New Zealand and its renationalisation. So it is quite a significant issue.

I think the Australian officials balked at the last moment as they looked over the precipice at what could be great legislation for mutual recognition. Only through the intervention, I understand, of the Minister and his officials in New Zealand did the Australian officials finally see the light of day and see that they were putting the kangaroo well ahead of the kiwi, which is not a position we like. The issue of mutual recognition is not flagged in the title, and I think that it should be.

💬 Hon David Carter: Move an amendment.

I think an amendment would make sense. The Minister may wish to take a few moments to reflect on whether the “Civil Aviation Safety and Mutual Recognition Amendment Act” is not a far more inclusive title for members of the public and of the industry. They will be quite significantly affected—I think positively—by this legislation, although some members of the public may have concerns regarding safety and the fines. Some of the fines are now in the order of $10,000—they are not insignificant fines. Members on this side of the Chamber argued pretty vigorously that those fines should be increased, because of the risks to the travelling public of New Zealand.

One of the things I am pretty sorry about is that there is no clause to allow random drug-testing of employees working for an airline. I would have thought that although it is largely an employment relations issue, the Minister would see that it makes a lot of sense to have such a clause in the bill. Without wishing to discuss details, members of the public will be aware that Air New Zealand is currently involved in a court case to be given the right to randomly drug test its employees. Internationally, random drug testing has been the case, and for very good reason.

We are not suggesting that Air New Zealand has any issue it is specifically trying to deal with, but we are certainly seeing—[Interruption]. That is right. The question is whether we would want Nandor Tanczos piloting a plane.

The name of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is a little bit misleading, because it is more than just a civil aviation bill—it is more about a mutual cooperation with the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority. This bill has developed over time because of the closeness of the two airline parties. Qantas has been travelling in and out of New Zealand for many years, in association with Air New Zealand. For a long time, the airlines code-shared aircraft across the Tasman, in a mutual situation, and cooperated in many other ways on international routes further afield—to the United States, and to other destinations. This bill has come about by a mutual desire to cooperate.

I have spoken to the Minister, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, about the mutual cooperation, and about a similar bill that is going through Parliament in Australia. It appears that that bill has been delayed, and is a little bit behind our bill. My concern is that we may be getting ahead of ourselves in putting this bill in place. The Minister assures me that it is not the case, but I would hate to see this bill get out of step with the Australian bill, because we have not seen the final details of that bill. The name of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is a little bit misleading, and perhaps John Key’s suggestion of the “Civil Aviation (Mutual Recognition) Bill” might have been a better title for it. So the title could be the “Mutual Recognition (Civil Aviation) Bill”.

Then again, the bill goes further than that. It deals with a lot more of the safety aspects of travelling on aircraft, and therefore perhaps the “Civil Aviation (Mutual Safety and Cooperation with Australia) Bill” might be a closer match. So with the Minister assuring me that this bill is not getting out of step with the Australian one—and I hope he is keeping a very close eye on our Australian partners so that they will not do the dirty on us and pull the wool over our eyes by changing the final aspect of their bill—I summarise by saying that New Zealand First supports the bill in its current form and we hope that it stays in step with Australia and the whole idea of mutual cooperation.

I move, That the question be now put.

I appreciate your confidence and I think it will be well rewarded in the next 4 minutes and 57 seconds.

💬 Darren Hughes: I doubt that.

I see that other members in the Chamber are obviously expressing similar confidence and I will try not to disappoint in the next 4 minutes and 50 seconds.

I want to follow on from the point I was making just a little bit earlier about the issue related to safety and mutual recognition, and also the issue that within the bill there is no containment at all for drug testing and for testing of employees working in the civil aviation industry. There should be. That would be a wonderful addition to this bill, and we would be able to add something to the title of this bill that would reflect it.

As I was saying before, it is quite a serious international issue. We have seen examples of pilots working for Virgin—I think that was one example internationally, and we have seen others—who have been flying planes while drunk or intoxicated. They have not had 12 hours between the bottle and the throttle—or whatever the particular conditions are—and they have been in command of a 747. I think anybody who has had the opportunity to see someone who is heavily intoxicated, or anyone who has been under the influence of drugs—and I know that some members of the New Zealand Parliament have had first-hand experience of that—would not necessarily want that person in command of anything, and certainly not in command of a 747 where 350 passengers’ lives are in danger. However, the issue goes slightly deeper and further than that. It is not only an issue for pilots or co-pilots, it is an issue that might surface with, for example, engineers. That is a great example. There could be engineering staff who are intoxicated—

💬 Brent Catchpole: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like you to look back at Hansard to see whether the member speaking made a reference to members of Parliament being involved with drugs.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, he did. I thank the member for bringing that to my attention. I was just thinking about that. It was actually a personal reflection—

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, I point out that it is a well-documented fact that one of the members of Parliament, Mr Nandor Tanczos—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is also a personal reflection against members of the House and that is not in keeping with the standards that one would expect in this Parliament. It is my job as the Chair to uphold the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, which have been crafted by well over 100 years of parliamentary democracy in this country. I think it would be in order if the member withdrew or desisted.

I am happy to withdraw that remark. I should, of course, have referred by name to the specific member who has publicly said that he takes drugs. That is obviously Mr Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party who has said that, for religious reasons, he takes marijuana on a monthly basis. That is a well-known fact. Would we want Mr Tanczos in command of an aircraft after taking drugs? I think the answer to that question, certainly in my case, is no.

I will return to the point in question, which is that this issue is not related only to pilots. It can include engineers and people who are working on the commands of these aircraft. So my point is simply that the issue of drug testing is not contained within the bill—

💬 Larry Baldock: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member but I need some clarification from you regarding the purpose of this debate. I understood that the Standing Orders had changed and we were now dealing with the title. I have been listening for almost 4 minutes and have not heard the member suggest an alternative title, or even refer to the title at all. Can you clarify that for me?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes. I think that is a very good point to raise because there is some confusion amongst members, given the change to the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders in relation to the title debate state that when debating the preliminary clauses at the end, members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the Committee’s consideration of the bill. It is almost like a summing up, or a conclusion, so it has changed somewhat.

I apologise to the honourable member if I was expanding my thought processes on too great a level, but I was simply trying to make the point that these are very serious issues and I had hoped that he would understand the full gravity of them. If he did, then drug testing could be included in this bill in an amendment, and we would put it in the title. We could have a wonderful title: “Civil Aviation (Safety, Mutual Recognition, and Random Drug Testing in the Aviation Industry) Bill”. I accept that this title is a little longer than the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, but it would be a bill that would not only have a title that would be far easier for the public to understand, but also it would serve the very purpose of Parliament, which is to pass legislation that would be in the best interests of the travelling public of New Zealand and, of course, the industry and those people involved in it.

National supports the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill. We would like to see a title that was a little more inclusive and reflective of the position so that the public, when they go about their daily, weekly, or monthly flying activities—it could be holidays—could go to this legislation quickly and with ease and look up the particular fine that may be applicable to them should they be disorderly on an aircraft. It would also mean that they could travel with confidence, because I think it is unlikely that when we board an aircraft in the weeks, months, and years ahead, we will have the air hostess or purser on the aircraft say: “Ladies and gentlemen, located in the seat pocket in front of you are safety instructions and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill.”

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.