Aviation Security Legislation Bill

I do not believe I could do any better than my very first speech. The National Party totally supports this legislation.

Members will be pleased to know I have two further amendments to this part on behalf of the Green Party, which also relate to armed inflight security officers, except in this case we are talking about what are called foreign inflight security officers. It is a bit different, in that these are people who are essentially from other nations, on other airlines, such as United Airlines, or whatever—airlines on which America already has armed inflight security officers. The particular problem here, in relation to clause 17 that inserts new section 77E, “Foreign in-flight security officers”, is that if we allow them on, as this bill provides for, they will then be able to get on to flights, say, in Los Angeles, arrive in Auckland, get off the plane with their firearms, and go through the secure areas in the airport, etc., which would normally be in violation of the other aspects of this bill, which is a bill to improve security.

So this section 77E, which I wish through my amendment to eliminate, states that those officers will pass through security-enhanced areas and sterile areas—while also carrying guns and weapons—when they are boarding aircraft and disembarking from aircraft. I think, in some ways, that this is an even more important amendment than the first one, in relation to some of these American inflight security officers, in that, as we know from some incidents in America—and Time magazine had a special article on the subject a year or two ago—there have been all kinds of problems with these armed people. Somebody was actually shot dead. I do not think they have ever attacked a terrorist but they have affected quite a few ordinary Americans. They will be, more particularly, riding under American rules of engagement, which are much looser than ours. So they could be even more of a danger to passengers—New Zealanders coming back on an airline like United Airlines, or some New Zealanders going out on such an American craft. So I think this amendment to chop that provision out is very valuable, and I urge members to support it. Thank you.

I will be very brief. I thank the Committee for the strong support for the measures in this legislation, and I especially thank the officials for doing a significant job in putting this together. Having actually watched events as they unfolded on September 11, 2001, I think this is a very appropriate day to consider this. I happened to be working late that night and watched it all unfold, live on CNN. I was amazed. So it is an appropriate day to be considering this legislation. It is purely by coincidence that we are debating this now, because work has gone on slightly more quickly than we had imagined it might have.

I want to speak very briefly about Keith Locke’s amendments, and I understand and respect the genuineness with which Keith has put forward his amendments. But I have to say to members that I think those amendments would be impracticable. Foreign inflight security officers will be there at the discretion of their airlines, following a request to us. Cabinet will have to approve such requests. And Mr Locke has said previously that foreign inflight security officers will be allowed on New Zealand aircraft. That will certainly never be the case.

💬 Keith Locke: I haven’t said that.

I am sorry, I tell Mr Locke, but he has actually said it previously—but not tonight.

Yet I assure the member that inflight security officers are in the bill for the purposes of future-proofing the bill, in case Cabinet should ever have to make that most difficult decision. They will not be there as a matter of course, and if we cannot allow armed inflight security officers, then that raises problems for air services agreements internationally with other countries and with New Zealand’s obligations to consider any request those countries may make under annex 17 of the International Civil Aviation Organization agreement. Therefore, I am afraid that although Mr Locke’s ideas, no doubt, are motivated by goodwill, it would simply be impracticable to put them into place.

I turn also to the gentleman in blue who is among the officials sitting in the Chamber with us. I would have to ask him what we could expect his folk to do if he were in the position of having a threat in an aircraft, but did not have the ability for the New Zealand Police armed offenders squad members—who may be brought into this service—to respond in a way that was equal to the threat they might be exposed to.

All I can say is that this bill has been thought through very thoroughly and that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has considered it very thoroughly. I commend it to the Committee as is—without amendment, other than those on the two Supplementary Order Papers dealing with matters that have arisen earlier. Thank you.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 17 be agreed to:

to omit subsection (1) of section 77D.