Civil Aviation Amendment Bill

I move, That the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I wish to thank members of the House and of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the careful consideration they have given this bill. The bill amends the Civil Aviation Act of 1990 and provides a number of changes that support the objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy: assisting economic development, assisting safety and personal security, and improving access and mobility. It enables New Zealand to implement mutual recognition of aviation-related certification between Australia and New Zealand. It introduces a regime to deal with unruly passengers, and it consolidates civil aviation law.

With regard to mutual recognition, on 20 November 2000 the New Zealand and Australian Ministers of Transport signed a memorandum of understanding on open skies. That reaffirmed the commitment of New Zealand and Australia to adopt mutual recognition of aviation-related safety certification. The mutual recognition provisions in the bill make the legislative changes required to implement this Government to Government commitment. Under mutual recognition, New Zealand 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. Airlines will no longer face the costs associated with dual certification like, for example, insurance, accident compensation, and compliance with differing requirements for airline operations.

The Australian Parliament is considering a similar bill, which is expected to be debated later this month. The mutual recognition provisions in this bill will come into force by Order in Council, once the Australians have passed their legislation.

In recent years there have been a number of high-profile incidents of unruly passenger behaviour on board aircraft. Those incidents range from offensive language and behaviour, to those raising serious safety concerns, such as tampering with smoke detectors. As many of us have experienced, I am sure, such incidents can be distressing and frightening for both passengers and crew. The present law has not been adequate to ensure firm and effective enforcement action, and has not covered unruly behaviour occurring on international flights coming to New Zealand.

Under this bill, a coherent regime of offences and penalties that has an extraterritorial effect comes into force on 1 June 2004. This enables New Zealand to prosecute passengers committing offences on domestic aircraft, and on aircraft of any country flying en route to New Zealand. The new regime brings New Zealand into line with international practice in countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada, and the expectations of the International Civil Aviation Organisation will be met. The bill also brings into force an accelerated infringement offence procedure to ensure that, as much as possible, visitors on a short-term stay in New Zealand do not escape enforcement provisions of the law.

The bill transfers the liability provisions for passenger delay from the Carriage By Air Act of 1967. This 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, or for events that are beyond the control of the airline—for example, natural disasters, weather, and safety considerations. Although some airlines expressed concern over these provisions, the select committee and this House have accepted the need for passengers to continue to have this right.

In addition the bill makes a number of minor amendments to civil aviation legislation to further enhance aviation safety and personal security. It provides for the Aviation Security Service to provide security support services to the police when requested. The Aviation Security Service will provide this support only if in doing so it does not compromise its core airport security services. This provision comes into force the day after the date of the royal assent.

The bill increases the maximum fines for various offences against the Act to ensure that they act as an effective deterrent. This amendment takes account of inflation since 1990 and brings the fines into line with the penalties for similar offences created subsequently. The bill also responds to a need to update, consolidate, and ensure consistency across different legislation. For example, it includes a minor amendment to the definition of dangerous goods to align it more closely with the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation.

In conclusion, this bill reinforces the Government’s commitment to improving aviation safety by extending the measures to deal with unruly passenger behaviour. It encourages economic development by removing regulatory barriers to the development of the Australian and New Zealand single aviation market. It provides benefits to passengers, the airlines, and the public, and supports the objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy.

Finally I would like to thank all the officials, particularly the Ministry of Transport officials: Glen-Marie Burns, Nigel Mouatt, and Lisa Nickson; the Civil Aviation Authority officials; all of those who submitted their views to the select committee, and the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who worked so hard to process the bill in a timely and efficient manner. I also thank the members from the other parties of this House, who have been most supportive of the provisions of this bill.

As the Minister quite correctly pointed out to the House before, the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill will amend the Civil Aviation Act 1990. I think it is worth noting that this bill is probably even more pertinent and more important than the 1990 legislation was. I say that because we have seen a dramatic change in the number of New Zealanders who are flying and using aircraft as a form of travel. That, in large part, has come about because of the reduction in cost to the travelling public. We have seen an explosion of low-cost, point-to-point airlines, and that has made international and domestic travel far more accessible to the average New Zealander. This bill will have far more significance to them, and I think a great many New Zealanders will take the opportunity to review this bill, which would be a wise choice on their part.

I will talk about the mutual recognition provisions with Australia, which appear in Part 1. I think it is a very positive step that New Zealand carriers will not require Civil Aviation Safety Authority approval in Australia should they be flying domestically. Similarly, here in New Zealand we will be recognising the provisions in Australia. Mutual recognition is something that we have been moving to in a number of fields as we look to have closer and closer economic relations with Australia. Only a few months ago the Minister of Finance in New Zealand and the Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello, were in talks about how we could move New Zealand towards the harmonisation of one common market with Australia, which would really be an extension on the great work undertaken by the National Government to put through CER 20 years ago. This is the kind of thing that is an important step. I only wish that the Minister of Finance, who, no doubt, is very supportive of this bill, would look to do the same thing on corporate taxation and have mutual recognition and harmonisation with the rate in Australia, at 30c in the dollar, instead of imposing the current 33c tax rate on New Zealand businesses. [Interruption] That is right, and there are a number of ways in which we could look to align our provisions with Australia.

I will touch on the issue of disorderly and unruly passenger behaviour. As we have seen an international increase in the numbers of people travelling, so too have we seen an international increase in the number of instances of unruly behaviour. Some of them start with relatively minor and inoffensive comments, where someone is a little bit too boisterous on an aircraft. Maybe they have travelled from Auckland to Wellington to watch the Blues undertake one of their brilliant matches against the Hurricanes.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Not this time.

I know that the Wellington-based member over there, the member for the Rimutaka electorate, will be looking, but I say he should have confidence and faith. In the same way that the country has faith in the National Party to come again and be a strong and great Government, I have tremendous faith in the Auckland Blues that they will deliver the goods for Auckland down here in the “cake tin”.

I am talking about the kind of situation where people on an aircraft might have a few too many drinks and become a little unruly. But the serious aspect of this is really the fact that we saw on 9/11 a situation that changed the world when aircraft were literally used as flying bombs in an international terrorism war. We saw the same sort of thing, regrettably, in Madrid a few days ago. I think the question of unruly passenger behaviour, and how to control that situation, has seen a number of airlines internationally call for a situation where one cannot, for instance, gather around the toilet on a plane. So I think we may see amendments to the civil aviation legislation over time to reflect a growing unease from the public in general about people who are travelling on aircraft and operating in a way that is, shall we say, less than normal or less than consistent. People may be looking to the legislation to bring about change.

I do want to talk for a moment about the issue of dangerous goods. A number of submitters commented to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, on which I sat, with regard to dangerous goods and the clarification of the definition. I think the bill moves a long way to recognising and defining that situation more clearly, as it does, I might add, in the area of intoxicated passengers. A reasonable discussion took place on that issue. What, for example, is meant by “intoxicated”? For some people it is more alcohol consumption than others, which may reflect in their behaviour. Quite a lot of work has been done in that area.

I note that in section 65A and the like, inserted by clause 24, there is an increase in the fines applicable for unruly behaviour. We in the National Party support heavier fines. We believe that these are very serious times that we live in. I think that aircraft, as we saw in the 9/11 incident, have a whole new meaning. We felt that that was necessary and important to make sure that the public understood the severity of not treating aircraft in the right manner. At the end of the day some unruly passenger who, for whatever reason, decides to try to open a door when the plane is in flight, presents a tremendous hazard to all the other passengers on board, who are clearly honourable, respectable, and law-abiding citizens.

I do not want to take much more of the House’s time, except to say that we will be supporting the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill wholeheartedly. We are pleased to see its passage through the House. I know that the Hon Harry Duynhoven has worked hard on it. We were a little disappointed that the Australians, having come to this mutual recognition and agreement, were very, very slow at the final hurdle. New Zealanders, rightly so, have a general hesitancy in the area of aviation after the open skies arrangement with Australia fell over some years ago. So we are pleased to see that the Australians will get over the line on this, and we want to make sure, rightly so, as the Minister said, that they sign, shall we say, equally, as the pen is drying on our Act over here. We support the legislation, and we look forward to seeing its swift passage through the House

I am very pleased to speak in this debate also. As a previous Minister of Transport, I have had some involvement in a number of these matters. It is good for New Zealand airlines and good for New Zealand that, through this bill, we have another step forward in the mutual recognition area. As John Key said, there were a few nervous moments at the end, but we got there, and good work was done by the select committee in making sure that this bill is fit for purpose.

I am also extremely pleased about the provisions for dealing with unruly passengers, and I pass on a word of congratulations to the flight attendants union. Terry Law, who, at the time, was head of that organisation, did a wonderful job of lobbying Parliament to make sure that that part of the law was put in place. It has taken some time, but we finally got there, too, and I know that a lot of flight attendants will be very pleased that they have this law to protect them and the travelling public.

I endorse the speeches made by the previous speakers, and I am pleased to see, finally, this bill get to its third reading stage.

It is with pleasure I stand to take a call on this bill for New Zealand First. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, who has been a very good Minister to deal with on this bill. He has explained many of the concerns we had during the passage of this bill, and I commend him for that.

A large part of the bill is to do with mutual cooperation between the airlines of Australia and New Zealand. It is also to do with mutual recognition by the two countries of legislation that deals with aviation between the two countries, and within both New Zealand and Australia. Both Qantas and Air New Zealand get the benefit of that when flying between and flying within the two countries.

The bill carries on an aviation tradition that is worldwide—that is, it makes the pilot in complete control and command of the aircraft. It also gives the crew the power, under the command of the pilot, to deal with any unruly passengers. It is the issue of unruly passengers that I particularly note. There has been a growing trend for passengers on aircraft to get out of control. It used to be known as altitude sickness or tropical sickness, but it seems to be more and more prevalent. Whether it is the result of too much alcohol or some other aspect of the passengers’ health, they do tend to get out of control on occasions. I think giving the crew control, under the command of the pilot, so that they can deal with those passengers in a firm way is sound practice. The passengers can then be dealt with very, very firmly in those circumstances. There is nothing worse than being trapped in an aircraft with a passenger getting out of control, and feeling a little helpless.

But I do say that in no circumstances should any weapon of self-defence be taken on aircraft by passengers. That is the biggest concern I have—that anybody at all would have weapons on an aircraft. If such a person happens to be the one who becomes unruly, then we have all sorts of major issues. It was noted in the select committee that air marshals should be trained in New Zealand to deal with unruly passengers. We should have, it was suggested, 100 air marshals ready to participate. Whether they actually take part is still under discussion, but we should at least have them trained and ready to take part, if there is any need to have air marshals on board aircraft to deal with unruly passengers and, certainly, any dangerous situations.

Another area that was highlighted during the select committee consideration was the carriage of dangerous goods on board an aircraft. There are different types of dangerous goods. Some passengers carry dangerous goods on board quite oblivious to the dangers of them. They are quite often just normal, innocent-looking household products, but when mixed they can have a devastating effect, and a very explosive effect. So the carriage of those goods is rightly banned. The additional fines that have been put in place to penalise those people should be a wake-up call for people never to do it at all. They should learn what they can take on board an aircraft, and definitely never be able to take dangerous goods on board. There is another type of passenger who flouts that restriction—what is commonly known as a dangerous-goods salesman—and carries dangerous goods on board an aircraft. He or she just flouts the airline’s conditions and prescriptions.

Finally, I would like to touch on the airlines’ liability for delays. This bill highlights the necessity to deal with airlines and make them responsible for delays. Carrying on an old tradition, many airlines have been known to cancel a flight, to consolidate the numbers of passengers on board. It has been a practice in the airline industry for probably as long as the airline industry has been in existence. Another practice airlines use, and this is also a long-term tradition, is to overbook passengers. Airlines overbook by quite a substantial percentage. They overbook by something like 20 percent of their passenger loading, as they anticipate they will get a no-show rate of somewhere between 20 and 25 percent. The danger with that practice is that when all the passengers turn up, the airlines have a problem trying to accommodate all of them on an aircraft. Therefore, the airlines need to be responsible for any delays encountered by passengers because of overbooking. If there is any deliberate attempt to cause a delay, then, obviously, the airline should be responsible.

The airlines should not be responsible for delays caused by the weather. We know, from the airport here in Wellington, that those delays are not necessarily caused by high winds. They are often caused because there is a lack of wind; low cloud or fog rolls in from the sea, and does not dissipate from the airfield, and therefore the aircraft are unable to take off or land. I suppose we could call those circumstances an act of God, but the situation is beyond the airlines’ control. The safety aspect is paramount. It is the pilot’s decision whether to take off or land in those circumstances, and the airlines should not be held responsible for any delays.

I conclude by saying that New Zealand First supports this bill’s third reading. We certainly agree with aspects of it. We hope the Australian bill, when it is finalised, meshes neatly with the bill we have. It is intended to, so let us see whether the final product from the Australian Parliament is as we expect. New Zealand First supports the third reading of this bill.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party. We support the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, and have supported it all the way through. Like one of my colleagues before me, I commend the Hon Harry Duynhoven for the amount of work he put into keeping all members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee well informed as to what the bill was proposing and what it would do. The bill repeals the Carriage by Air Act 1967 and it also amends the Civil Aviation Act 1990.

Three main issues are dealt with in this bill. The first issue, that of mutual recognition, has taken a while to get here. For several years we have had some of the most open skies in the world, but airlines have been unable to take full advantage of that situation because of the duplication of commitments they had to make, in both New Zealand and Australia, which involved high cost and complexity in obtaining and maintaining separate safety certifications from each country. So that set up a barrier, and this bill is now going to break down that barrier. One hopes that the reduction in compliance costs, on which I congratulate this Government, will be passed on to consumers, in terms of cheaper air fares and more accessible travel for all. I will not speak for very long on this bill because we support it.

The second issue is that of unruly passengers. In earlier debates on this bill I made some suggestions, which some people considered were a little over the top. But I do think we should consider that in a world that is not as safe as it used to be, the more we disarm those charged with taking care of us, the more power we give to our enemies. If we consider some airlines, we see that the Israeli airline with armed marshals on its flights has one of the safest records, yet it is probably one of the airlines that hundreds of thousands of people in the world want to blow out of the skies.

Like Mr Gosche, I commend the members of the union who came before the select committee and explained to us a lot of the things they have to put up with concerning unruly passengers. Those people are not there just to hand out tea and coffee and demonstrate safety procedures; they have to take care of everybody’s safety on flights. When they do not have the power to deal with people who are behaving in a way that can bring down a whole airline—for instance, using a cellphone or not complying with simple instructions during take-off and landing—it makes their job so much harder. When things do go wrong, all passengers rely on them and look to them for guidance. Therefore, it is good we have increased the fines so that there is more of a deterrent for those who think it is OK to get on an aircraft and behave as badly as they behave in restaurants. As someone who has worked as a waitress for many years, I wish there was legislation that could perhaps persuade people to behave in restaurants, as well.

One final thing I would like to talk about, and what really concerns me, is the issue that although we pass good legislation like this, which is empowered with making people safer, the Civil Aviation Authority came before the select committee this morning in a public hearing with some interesting answers from its director to questions; we heard from that organisation, which is charged with keeping our airlines safe, the general consensus that people would rather take the train. That is something that really needs to be looked at. However, I am pleased to support this bill.

United Future is pleased to also support the third reading of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill. Civil aviation is one of the few areas of our lives in New Zealand where there is an importance for international consistency and cooperation, by virtue of the fact that a lot of what happens in the civil aviation area happens in the skies between the countries people are travelling to and from. Therefore, in the whole area of civil aviation, it is important that New Zealand is in step with what is happening worldwide.

United Future is very pleased that the bill brings New Zealand’s aviation security laws into line with those of Australia, Canada, and Britain, in particular, and eliminates certain sovereignty-related complications that in the past have made prosecuting foreigners for offences outside New Zealand territory difficult. I notice that there are really two aspects to the bill in terms of international obligations. One is the general international concerns about security and the other is the trans-Tasman aspect—in particular, the increasing cooperation between Australia and New Zealand that this bill evidences. We are very pleased to see the progress that has been made in getting Australian and New Zealand mutual recognition agreements in train, and, in particular, the certification and safety oversights that we will respect from each other’s countries. We look forward to the Australians moving, hopefully with speed, to pass their legislation so that this legislation can be brought into force.

The bill does provide a win-win situation for both operators and consumers, in so far as the reduction in regulatory barriers to aviation activity will cut operating costs for New Zealand and Australian airlines, hopefully leading to air travellers having to pay even less for fares, because the costs are reduced, as well. That is to be welcomed, particularly with the level of communication we have between New Zealand and Australia through air traffic.

The prosecution of passengers who offend on aircrafts is also an important consideration. Again, the civil aviation industry is very unusual in that respect, because those offences occur in the air where the police are not readily available and in a situation that is extremely vulnerable, and where any breach of the skin of the aircraft can put many lives in peril. The offences also occur where disturbances cannot readily be quelled, because a crowd of people are stuck in a confined space for hours. If any disturbances cannot be restrained, then that can have an impact on passengers on the flight for several hours before they can be dealt with by policing authorities. Therefore, it is important in this bill that the restrictions we would normally leave to the police are extended, firstly, to the pilot in terms of his ability to give commands that people must obey—it is an offence if they do not—and, secondly, to aviation security officials. United Future is very happy with the increase in penalties that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has suggested, and that are now in the bill because of the factors that make civil aviation quite different in terms of its protection needs.

We also think that the streamlining of procedures with regard to the liability for a delay in a domestic air service is a welcome move. We note the concerns airlines had about that issue. However, they need to recognise that in effect the limitation of liability they have been given is quite restricted. In particular, with the age of cheap fares, they could well be looking at less than $1,000, in terms of maximum liability. When several carriers and missed connections are involved, that could pale into insignificance in terms of a person’s loss or of damages incurred through loss of connecting flights. Therefore, they ought to be quite appreciative that such a restriction is included and they do not have an open-ended liability.

I certainly endorse the comments made by my colleague Brent Catchpole about the need for airlines to take responsibility for their actions. Some penalty provisions also preclude them from carrying out what would be unethical, if not illegal, behaviour in terms of over-stacking of flights, and that sort of thing. United Future is pleased to support this bill. We are pleased to see it go through.

I guess this is one of the many times a member gets to speak in Parliament where it has all been said a number of times before. One feels a little bit like Madonna’s new boyfriend—he knows what is expected; his problem is how to make it interesting. My intention is to try to put a bit of a different spin on this issue, and it is to do with the trans-Tasman mutual recognition of aviation, which I do not think we have dwelt on enough with this bill.

Obviously, the National Party supports the bill, but I just warn members of this Parliament that if they think the Australians will move willingly to this, they are dreaming. When the Australians say they will, they do not, and even when they sign a document saying they have, they have not, and then they come back and renege on it with only a week to run. They have done it before. They have a track record of it.

We even had a single aviation market stitched up by the Prime Ministers. Prime Minister Bolger and Prime Minister Paul Keating ratified it at the prime ministerial meeting in 1994. On 26 October—and I remember the date well—with 1 week to run until 1 November 1994, when the open-skies single aviation market was to come into place, Mr Brereton, I think his name was—I’m still getting counselling about it, so I am trying to keep the name out of my mind—just decided to unilaterally send a fax that said: “Sorry about that. We had agreed to all this, but we’re not going to do it any more.”

It is bizarre that it has taken the years it has to get Australia to agree to at least where we are now. For goodness’ sake, a 747 is a 747, wherever it happens to be! I can promise that a Qantas 747 has the same bits and pieces to its engines, its galleys, and so on, as any other 747 with that engine type. If it is a Rolls Royce, then it is the same as a Rolls Royce, and so on. The fact that our engineers were not certified to work on it when they were over there, or that theirs could not work on it over here, or vice versa, because of what I guess were the old restrictive trade practices more than anything else, is bizarre.

I guess what is important for members of the House to recognise is just how much civil aviation has changed over the last couple of decades. Airlines were actually an extension of the foreign affairs arm of a country. They were the flag-flyers for the foreign affairs agencies of that country. Qantas was the Australian Government’s flag-flyer, Air New Zealand was the New Zealand Government’s flag-flyer, and BOAC was the overseas arm of the British Government’s foreign affairs agency. They were Government-owned and Government-controlled. The idea that anyone else could come into their domain and provide some sort of competitive market was just an outrage—it was disgraceful. Because of Government ownership, we were not going to allow a second airline to come into this country.

As everyone knows, the ownership of most international airlines literally cannot be tracked. There is cross ownership. I understand that KLM Royal Dutch Airlines has bought Swissair, and Scandinavian Airlines has a share in a couple of companies that own some shareholding in Aerolineas Argentinas out of Buenos Aires. Most civil aviation companies are simply businesses trying to attract passengers, earn revenue, and fly. It is time that we recognised the certifications of companies that operate in Australia and want to fly planes into here—both internationally and domestically—and we should recognise the people they recognise, and vice versa for us. It dramatically reduces compliance costs.

I do not know whether members will ever have any idea how much duplication and quadruplication has had to be involved in getting people to certify our planes and processes, and so on. It might already have been done the once, but their regime does not recognise ours, and vice versa. Interestingly, what sprang to mind when I heard one of the debates about controls over domestic and international flights was the enormous debate that went on about whether the 1979 Erebus flight was an international or a domestic flight. I still remember that crash with great sadness. I do not think the debate was ever solved. I know Sir Robert Muldoon was keen for it to be a domestic flight, which then protected it from the international covenants of the Warsaw convention, but because it had flown with a flight number of TE901, it was under Air New Zealand’s international operations. But then it was said that the flight only went from New Zealand and was supposed to come back without landing, so it was a domestic flight.

They then tried to change the name. If members look at the plaque down at the South Pole, they will see that the flight number is NZ901, but then it was suddenly realised that if people had been killed on a domestic plane, that bordered on the ambit of accident compensation. To this day, I do not think that anyone has a final determination as to whether that flight was an international or domestic flight. Members will get the idea that it can all be quite difficult. People flying over the United States from a Canadian flight leaving from Quebec and going to, say, Vancouver can often fly over parts of the United States, but still only land in the country they took off in. The point I am trying to make—and I know getting there makes me sound a bit long-winded—is that the old rules about this being our domain, we will do it, and no one else can come in here, have to go.

I congratulate the Government and Harry Duynhoven—who, I am sure, not only has engine oil but aviation fuel in his veins, because he simply loves this stuff—on getting this legislation through. I wish him well in making sure that the blowtorch is kept on our Australian cousins on the other side of the pond. I do not think that they have anywhere near the desire we have, but I hope I am wrong. I would love them to prove me wrong, whip their legislation through post-haste, and say: “That bloke Williamson didn’t know what he was talking about. We really believe in this, as well.”

The other provisions of the bill are all quite common-sense ones. There have been a number of serious issues involving passengers—and on a couple of occasions while I worked at Air New Zealand, aircrew themselves—having a few drinks and misbehaving on flights. There was a very famous case, which we will not go into here, but I was sort of involved in that process. It was a fascinating case, and at the time there were a lot of very good jokes about Air New Zealand’s in-flight service. So the unruly people might not be the passengers, but a whole lot of people.

But a regime is needed, because the aircraft is not in a country, where police have the necessary rules. One has to say that while a 747 is flying along it is a sort of mini-country, and the chief of police is the pilot. He or she has to have those powers, and cannot afford not to be able to detain people with handcuffs, which all those flights have. I have been on a couple of flights where there were some pretty ghastly examples of unruly behaviour. On one, the guy was so tanked up that he tried to open the big door on the 747. He got hold of the big silver lever and started swinging on it. He said he had had a gutsful of the way the airline had treated him and wanted to get off. The fact that we were at 35,000 feet, and that that would be a problem for him once he was off the plane, had not crossed his mind.

I tried to assure the House the last time we spoke on this matter—and it is really quite important for members to know this—that one simply cannot open the door of a plane at 35,000 feet, because the door does not open outwards but inwards. Members should watch when they see the aircrew opening the aircraft doors. The doors have to be pulled in first, rotated on a lever, and then they go back out. Because the plane is highly pressurised at 35,000 feet, and the pressure is outwards, Charles Atlas could not get the door back. There are huge volumes of pounds per square inch on that door, and one cannot simply pull it back. So one could sit there comfortably and let that guy swing on the lever for as long as he liked, safe in the knowledge that the door would not open inwards until the plane had come way, way down and the pressure was equalised with the outside atmosphere—which is really on short finals as the aircraft is coming in towards the airport.

In respect of the carriage of dangerous goods and aviation security, I would like to give a plug to a particular Government agency. Around this place, I am a person who often bags Government agencies for poor performance, but I think Mark Everitt and the Aviation Security Service run one of the most stunning world-class operations, and I would trust Mark Everitt and his team to do the right thing at the right time. I am delighted that this bill will give them the powers to do some cooperative work with the police when necessary, without compromising their own role. That is simply fantastic.

Overall, the National Party is very, very supportive of this bill, and we will watch with great interest as the calendar days tick off to see our Australian cousins—our much-loved Australian cousins who, along with the South African team, hold the top three places in the Super 12—pass their legislation to get the mutual recognition.

I wish to take a brief call to add National’s support for this legislation. So many of us fly around the country and overseas, and I was fortunate to sit for 1 day on the select committee in Auckland and learn of the sorts of things that can go on without our knowing.

This legislation will allow the pilots and crews to take action if they are dealing with unruly passengers. Some passengers do lose control through the alcohol they consume, although it is not always through alcohol. It may be through fear of flying, or maybe they have been smoking. I think we were told that in the 6-month period from January to June last year, there were 241 serious offences where action needed to be taken. This bill will allow that to happen.

As the Hon Maurice Williamson said, we have all travelled around places where we have experienced unruly behaviour that is not only unbefitting to the person but brings discredit on other people. During the second reading, I mentioned an occasion when I was flying between London and Hong Kong, with a stopover in New Delhi. I would never again want to experience the behaviour that went on at that time.

A major part of the bill is also the mutual recognition with Australia. It brings together one civil aviation market, and if that reduces compliance costs, allows flexibility and safer flying for the airline and passengers concerned, we welcome that. National has supported this bill through all its stages, and we are happy to do so in the third reading.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.