Civil Aviation Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present a legislative statement on the Civil Aviation Bill.

💬 SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move that the Civil Aviation Bill be now read a first time.

The bill is introduced under Standing Order 264. In an integrated transport system, we need all transport sectors to be highly efficient and to work together to bring economic benefits, jobs, and opportunities for New Zealand.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I think the member might have missed something at the beginning of his speech. There’s a question—

I apologise. I move—

💬 SPEAKER: I think we’ll—the member’s not getting extra time, but he better start again.

I move That the Civil Aviation Bill be now read a first time. [Member pauses]

💬 SPEAKER: I nominate that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—

I nominate that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—

💬 SPEAKER: —can consider the bill.

—can consider the bill.

I do apologise to the House; I did not have those words in front of me. I am reading—obviously engaged on behalf of the Minister responsible at short notice.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. I just seek your guidance on this, Mr Speaker. What we’ve just essentially had from you and the Minister is a call and response in which you as the presiding officer of the House give the Minister the words to say, to move the particular motion. Is that in order, where you actually tell him what to say, then he repeats it back to the House?

💬 SPEAKER: It certainly is. I’ve seen it happen on many occasions in the past, more often actually, for junior Ministers. But sometimes when Ministers are acting for other Ministers, it happens. And I think it’s fair to say if one consults with one’s colleagues, I do it a fair amount of time for them in order to get their form right or their people here.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: If this is going to discuss the same matter—

💬 Hon David Bennett: Yes.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member’s not going to, because that would be highly disorderly, and if he did that he would have to leave.

As I was saying, the integrated transport system we need for this country requires all sectors to work together for the benefit of our country, to bring jobs, economic opportunities, and—

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. Normally, at the start, the Minister presents a legislative statement, moves that the bill be read a first time, and indicates what committee the bill will be sent to. So far, we’ve had no indication of where it will be sent.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think the member, Mr Bishop, criticised me for indicating to that member what he should say. And he did say it. He might have parroted it, but he has done it.

💬 Chris Bishop: I didn’t hear him say, “Transport”.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, he did—yes, he did eventually. Right, Dr Clark, keep going and no extra time.

I think the irony of that is lost on the member.

Well, as I was saying before I was interrupted, it is important to have an integrated transport system for economic opportunity for our country, for jobs, and to make sure that we connect our aviation system up and ensure it is underpinned by good, solid modern legislation and regulation. For an island nation, a safe and secure aviation sector is incredibly important and no more so than in the time of a COVID-19 pandemic.

This has been brought into sharp relief, of course, and particularly as we look at our position and connection to the rest of the world, when we see our transport system perhaps more vulnerable but ably supported. And I do want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance for his support through this period to make sure that our aviation sector continues to do the job that it is there to do. But back to the bill, which does indeed ensure best practice, modern safety and security approaches to help position the sector for recovery from COVID-19.

The Civil Aviation Bill represents a significant modernisation of aviation legislation whilst preserving the fundamentals of the current law. It repeals and replaces the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and also the Airport Authorities Act 1966 and pulls them into a single platform for safety, security, and economic regulation for now and for well into the future. The Civil Aviation Act 1990, of course, governs New Zealand’s civil aviation system and sets the overall framework for safety and security, and this bill brings that together with the 1966 Act, the Airport Authorities Act, which provides the statutory regime for local authorities and other persons such as airport companies, to establish and operate airports across the country. Both Acts, of course, have been amended over time, but it was timely to have a complete overhaul of the legislation and bring it all together in one place to get rid of ambiguity, make sure it’s clear for interpretation, and to prepare it for the future, get rid of the redundant provisions that there might be in it and so forth. It has been subject to an extensive consultation process. There was an exposure draft of the bill, which was released in 2019, and the range of proposals therefore have been widely consulted on with the aviation sector.

Now, the primary objectives of the bill include improving aviation safety and security, encouraging effective competition and licensing regulation for international air services, preserving New Zealand’s national security, and enabling the aviation regulator and aviation businesses to adapt to changes in technologies and business practices. So it will be a more flexible regime that is fit for purpose now but allows for the kinds of changes that might be required in the future. The Minister of Transport himself takes very seriously the responsibility of the Government to ensure the safety and security of everyone in the aviation system, and I’m sure all members of this House will respect that particular objective.

Now, there are a number of things that appear in the bill that warrant specific mention. One of them is the response to the tragedy in Carterton, the balloon tragedy where drug and alcohol impairment was involved, in 2012. And I do want to acknowledge the family involved and their advocacy for change in this respect. It became clear as the nation grieved that alcohol or drug use played a central role in the crash. And so, again, to those families involved, I offer my deepest condolences. Since that day, as I’ve said, the families called for reform of the law and their advocacy is represented in this bill. I’m proud to say that this bill adopts a stringent approach towards drug or alcohol use in the aviation system.

It’s a large and complex bill. It contains almost 500 clauses. It has had that extensive engagement with the aviation sector that I’ve mentioned. And whilst we know not all tragedies are preventable, we know we can reduce the risk of crash if a zero tolerance approach towards drug and alcohol impaired operators is actively enforced.

In terms of national security, that’s one of the other areas of major change in the bill. To preserve New Zealand’s national security and interests, the bill clarifies the powers of the Minister of Transport to consider national security risks within the aviation system and to make rules about when national security considerations might need to apply.

In the time available, I just want to cover the fact that aviation security’s in there. It clarifies the powers, the protections and tools aviation security officers have at security designated aerodromes. There is a remotely piloted or autonomous aircraft regulation in there, recognising the changes in that sector since those 1966 and 1990 Acts—quite significant changes in the use of autonomous aircraft and the like. It also regulates the financial penalty levels that are appropriate for the severity of an offence in the aviation system. They come into effect. Lost or damaged baggage claims are covered.

So in conclusion, I want to be very clear that our aviation system is vital to New Zealand’s prosperity, to our connections with the world, to our social and economic connections in a long, thin nation, a long way from markets. The bill, which has been in development for over five years, represents a major modernisation of civil aviation legislation. And this Government is a Government that’s committed to safety and security in this sector and to help position the sector for recovery from COVID-19.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the Minister and look forward to the safe passage of this bill. I commend the Civil Aviation Bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Civil Aviation Bill that’s before the Parliament today will be supported by the National Party. As the member said, it’s one of those issues and areas of transport that over time needs to be relooked at and reinvigorated to make it more in line with modern practice. However, this bill does have a number of concerns in it that the National Party will be taking to select committee. So we are supporting it in the first instance, but we want to see some change in this bill as it goes through the process of the committee.

I am sure that submitters will be of the same ilk. They will be seeking some changes to make this bill actually much more responsive to the sector rather than what does appear to be, on the first instance, politically driven and more official dominated than what would actually be needed if you were actually doing the normal kind of reform process when a bill has been around for 20 or 30 years.

There are some issues in the bill that haven’t been talked about by the Minister. There’s some work in there around drones that one of our colleagues had in a member’s bill some time ago, and it’s good to see that that’s being addressed by the Government finally, but they could have supported that member’s bill at an earlier stage, which would have enabled us to have dealt with that issue, which has developed in modern airports around the world as that technology has advanced to the private individuals that own drones.

There are some big areas that there will be some concern around. Really, the philosophy of the bill doesn’t really take into account modern practice around how airports and the aviation sector could be managed when we look at best practice overseas. There’s a concept of just culture in the aviation sector, and that means that you learn from mistakes rather than trying to find necessarily the mistake or the reason or try and sanction that person. It’s about getting that information so that the mistake doesn’t happen again or the incident doesn’t happen again. And it’s mentioned in the bill, but it’s not actually promoted. And there’s no actual use of this bill to actually tease out and make that a more constructive concept that could well be done in this bill. So we look forward to, in the select committee, greater discussion of just culture and how that actually could play out in this bill.

The bill also doesn’t really look at how we could look at the New Zealand aviation sector, which has a lot of smaller players. There may be an option for a two-tiered approach that is seen in other countries but it is not being promoted here to the extent that it could be. So that’s one of the things that I’m sure will come up. There are international approaches to how companies enter the aviation system and the audit processes around that, and that’s something that needs to be addressed in this bill as well—there really hasn’t been the opportunity to make it internationally efficient and competitive, as this bill could make our sector if we had the right rules in place there.

Then there are some other issues around some more political context to this bill. And you see that in the Public Works Act, for example. There’s a requirement there around Land Information New Zealand’s CEO being for the buy-back process. And I just want to read from the Cabinet paper on this bill, which says that the exercise of such powers requires the scrutiny, accountability of central or local government. The next two paragraphs down say that the Government is best placed to assess whether surplus land meets these steps. And then the next one says that the Crown is best placed to undertake the offer-back process of surplus land.

It’s very much a socialist agenda that you would see from this Government, where they know best and they’re saying that they’re going to make better decisions than local government or corporates that actually make the investment decisions. They’ve built up these assets for many years, they see the potential of those assets to deliver for their communities, and yet it’s going to be overridden, essentially, by the mandate of some Minister that knows best. And that’s the central theme of their approach in that area. It’s very dictatorial, it’s very much what we expect from this Government, and it’s very much that Wellington knows best, rather than what every region, city, or town knows. And so I think that’s something that needs to be addressed at the select committee.

It takes a negative view of the corporate sector. It says that airport companies have commercial incentives that potentially conflict with the objectives of this Government and the provisions that the Crown might hold. So, you know, basically what they’re saying is that they don’t trust local communities. And we see that through a lot of legislation that they have been putting in place in recent years. This is just another example of that in an area which didn’t need necessarily to have that degree.

If we look at another part of that Cabinet paper as well, it does raise some other issues around another part of the requirements for airports where they’ll be required to consult with central government on their spatial plans, and in licensing them, there’s going to be enforceable regulatory undertakings (ERUs) that will apply to them. And it’s really about more costs, more reporting, more Government influence, more Government control, and they’re creeping into these, potentially, private enterprises and local body enterprises that actually have proven themselves to be very effective over time and very efficient and actually very important for the growth of regional communities. And it shows, I think, a misunderstanding by the Government of how actually our communities in New Zealand work. They facilitate an approach that’s centric in Wellington—that everyone knows in Wellington what is best for the rest of the country, whereas our regions and our regional airports operate slightly differently. They have their own goals. They have their own intentions. Sometimes they want to keep their powder dry for resilience reasons, to actually give some motivation to their community that they have that transport avenue available to them.

What we’re seeing here is a really one-size-fits-all approach. We saw that with the clean car bill, where they brought a tax in on all cars just to basically pay for their vision of electric vehicles, which completely was not going to happen. And we’re seeing that sort of same structure, that same ideology, coming through in the base of this bill, and it’s not needed here. I’m sure that as this bill goes through the select committee process, we’ll see that airport companies, the sector that is involved in advocating for those in the airport industry, will be able to have a much better approach to this and probably will be much better at self-regulating than having an overt Government regulation that is out of line with what’s needed.

The airways are a huge part of our New Zealand transport network. We need to be reassured that they will be working in an effective way. There are some good things in this bill that are needed. It is 20 or 30 years since the last bill was done in this area. That’s, of course, going to come through, but we do have some concerns around some of the underlying tone and structure of the bill. We feel that it doesn’t really take advantage of this opportunity to look at best practice overseas and see what would actually work in the New Zealand environment, and it’s very much an ideological, Wellington-based approach to transport and to aviation when the sector would have some really great ideas that we could implant into this bill and actually make it work. It also has a very control approach.

Now, I don’t know if the bill is actually legally binding since the Minister broke the rules when he initially brought this bill to the House about 10 minutes ago. So it would be great if that was actually determined—if this bill has some legal effect—in view of the mistakes made by the Minister 10 minutes ago. But assuming it is going through and progressing, the National Party will be supporting it but we would like to see a much better approach at the select committee.

The irony of that member decrying Wellington intervention when not long ago he was demanding the Government virtually nationalise a dairy company which was about to be taken over by an overseas company, so it’s an irony-free zone for that particular member. But—

💬 Hon David Bennett: Point of order. The member’s making an accusation which is simply not accurate. Would he like to explain further so that we can discuss that and—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. The member will resume his seat.

💬 Hon David Bennett: —see what’s actually happening. I never said about nationalising anything. That’s a Labour Government approach.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will resume his seat.

As the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee which will be considering this bill, I’m very much looking forward to having it—a bill that is very much a moderniser. And I just look at the changes that have taken place in the aviation industry in the time since it was last modernised. We’ve had the sale of many of our airports in New Zealand, but one of the big things we’ll be looking at here is drones and the lack of real good legislation to control that. They are the factors that are going to be considered in this bill. Of course, national security checks; again, 9/11 has occurred since then, so again it’s about making sure that the necessary security that has arisen and concerns around that are incorporated. Drug and alcohol management will be considered, and emissions, and it just ensures—perhaps to the concerns of the previous speaker—that there is a just culture that ensures that safety is balanced with ability to self-report.

So I’m looking forward to being the chair of the select committee which will consider this bill and I commend it to the House.

National is supporting this legislation because we do think it’s important, but as our spokesperson, David Bennett, said, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. I, listening to the debate so far, was quite hopeful that they could be addressed in a constructive, intelligent, focused, dedicated way, until I just heard that Greg O’Connor is the chair of the committee that will deal with it. The first thing he did was he started talking about some dairy company, which is not covered by the scope of the bill, and then he took a whole of—a whole of—one minute and 43 seconds to say how important it was and the great work the committee would do.

💬 Greg O’Connor: Quality not quantity, my friend.

There’s a reasonable chance his interjections will be longer than his blimmin speech, which is something. It’s quite ironic because he did say that this is important. If this is an important piece of legislation, members of the Government should take more than the few measly minutes they are to talk about it. And the reason for that is that we have airports up and down the country; there are a lot of things that should be important, should be discussed at first reading and at all other stages, but here’s the thing: they’re ticking the boxes and they’re going to rush it through quickly, at least in as far as their speaking is concerned.

There is an opportunity for all parties in this Parliament to work together to make this better than it is, because there are some things that need to be delved into a lot more deeply. But that’s only going to happen if the Government actually pays attention to it rather than rushing things through, coming back to the House, and saying “We’ve done our job. We’ve finally started to pass some legislation.”

There’s parts of the legislation I want to speak at to some degree. But the first, really, is around secrecy. Now, New Zealanders, before the Government locked us down last year, used airports much, much more than they do. Indeed, $17 billion worth of exports came into the country through our international borders, airports, when it came to tourism. None of that is there any more. All Kiwis have an interest in this legislation being correct, the Government getting it right, and there should not be any secrecy. There should not be anything hidden. All the advice the Government has received, they should share fairly and openly when it comes to safety and security, but the last speaker, Greg O’Connor, spoke much more about culture in his one minute and 43 seconds than some of the detail.

One of the important parts of this, as in what’s changed, is around remotely piloted and autonomous aircraft—drones but many other things. Some of that could be that one day aeroplanes will take off and land by themselves without a significant amount of human intervention. But in the meantime, there are the challenges around increases in the use of drones and the impact they could have both around airports but from an airport. If I have a look at the regulatory powers statement that has been provided to the Government, and the Government has released in the House, there is an awful amount of black ink in here. There are many, many parts of this document that have been blanked out by the Government. And they owe it to us—the Minister, when he spoke earlier—to explain why that is.

The reason this is important is the Government has made decisions around security, around safety, around what they’re going to do with these autonomous aircraft; why they’re at risk, why they need to be dealt with, why they’re taking two pieces of legislation and putting them together with the hope that it will be better. But they have not provided all of the advice they’ve received to make those decisions to the public, to the Opposition, or to, I would hazard a guess, even Labour Party backbench MPs. So the Government is asking us, the public, to trust them with security, but they’re not providing the information that they’ve received to make these decisions.

Secondly, they’re also not explaining why they won’t release it. I would hope that other members of the House, when they speak, would take some time to explain that. I’m sure there’s a very good reason, actually. Not everything is always put in the public domain. But in this instance, when it comes to security and decisions the Government is making, it should be released.

You know, the thing about the borders, the airports, the people that work there is they’re very, very professional. Another area where the Government hasn’t provided enough information around our airports and aviation is when it comes to COVID and the border. I draw a comparison to that because in the case where we’ve seen this virus get over the border and back into the community with successive lockdowns in Auckland last year, where we had border workers that weren’t vaccinated and many that still probably aren’t, where they’re not allowing the testing they should that the rest of the world allows, the Government says “Trust us.” But in this legislation, when it comes to national security checks, the way they’re going to look at drug and alcohol management across the border, these remote and autonomous aircrafts and so on, they’re saying “Trust us again.” and not providing the advice.

There is one part of the legislation I think is very important. It’s not all that exciting, but I do hope the committee takes the time to understand it and make sure it works, and that’s around airline alliances. Pre-COVID we had a very open borders policy, a free-skies policy, where within reason we wanted airlines to come here, because when more airlines come to New Zealand, they can bring more visitors. I see the Minister of Tourism is here. He doesn’t want all visitors, just a few high-paying ones, but they do bring visitors. But, at the same time, when those visitors come on the aeroplanes, even when they are budget aeroplanes, when they leave again, those aeroplanes take New Zealand goods with them for export, and that’s very, very important.

So we need to get these rules right around airline alliances, the regulatory decision-making. It should not just be left to the Minister or Cabinet to set many, many regulations, because regulation is not necessarily the way you fix all problems or make things better or easier or simpler. In fact, regulations often have the opposite effect. But in this instance, it is very important. Airlines will want to come back to New Zealand again. We need to make sure there is a good regulatory framework that meets the requirements, the expectations of the public, but at the same time encourages them to come here; doesn’t discourage them.

Again, slightly away from this, not in the legislation, but it is linked, I notice this week the Government has announced that the border clearance fees, costs, taxes, actually, at our airports—at our airports, not covered by this bill but actually have the same effect as things within this legislation—are to be more than doubled; a 117 percent increase. What that actually suggests to people who might want to come to New Zealand, Kiwis who want to come home for Christmas, if they could get a spot in managed and isolation quarantine, is that, actually, the Government’s going to charge them more.

All of these things are linked. You can’t just take this legislation by itself and say we’re going to do some work here, we’re going to do it better, and it has nothing to do with all of these other things at the border, because they are linked. It is a cost. It is a tax. And if the Government is as ham-fisted with this legislation as they have been, as an example, on the border when it comes to COVID management, when it comes to the taxes that they charge there, then they won’t get this right.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Just come back to the bill.

Yes, Madam Speaker, I know, but I am trying to bring it back to this in as far as examples elsewhere of what the Government has done around the border that have not helped, and if they follow the same procedure or make the same types of decisions with this legislation, then, actually, it won’t be better. We will have missed an opportunity.

National, through our spokesperson, the Hon David Bennett, have pledged to be constructive, to work with the Government to find solutions in all of these areas. I noticed some of the stakeholders who have looked at this already, who actually are the experts—much more than the Minister will ever be, or many of the officials—the people who have skin in the game, have cautiously welcomed this, at least supporting it at first reading, they believe, to iron out some of the challenges that the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand have said they have concerns around entering and remaining in the aviation system. The independent appeal authority, reasonable cost—reasonable cost always comes up. The challenge we have is there’s never a problem that the Labour Party doesn’t think a new tax or a new levy would fix. But, actually, they in themselves will create problems, and best international practice is very important. Just don’t adopt it because they’re doing it overseas, but if it is best practice, why don’t we bring it here rather than having to start from scratch and New Zealand trying to make things up as they go along, through the Labour Government.

The Airports Association has concerns around the clarity of the Public Works Act. David Bennett mentioned this—changes and enforced regulatory undertakings. That’s because they want certainty. They don’t want the Government just to use the Public Works Act to do whatever they want, because this is a Government with a majority that does just whatever they want, not what’s in the best interest of the country or of the stakeholders they’re dealing with. They must listen to the New Zealand Airports Association and the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand. They know more about this than members opposite ever will, or that we will on this side of the House. It is upon us to listen to them when they come to the select committee.

The New Zealand Airports Association, the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand—their opinion is to support the bill at first reading and they ask for their concerns to be looked at and considered. We’ll be constructive. We’ll be supporting this. But members opposite need to take more than one minute, 43 seconds in their debate if they actually want the public to take them seriously.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. When a Minister introduces a bill, they have a very specific set of lines they have to read out to be a legitimate introduction of a bill. This did not happen in this case. I would like your guidance as to whether that requirement has been satisfied, because—

OK, thank you. Thank you. I was not in the Chamber at the time of the referral of the bill. However, I am advised that the referral motion was ultimately presented correctly—

💬 Hon Member: Ha, ha!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I wasn’t in the Chamber. I will refer to the Clerk—bear with. Right, so I am advised that what I said stands. The referral motion requires the Minister to nominate the select committee to which the bill is referred, and I am told that that is what he did.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you. That did occur after being prompted by the Speaker, and we as ex-Ministers know that that is not a legitimate way of processing that application—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you—

—and that it has to be done by—

Thank you; the member will resume his seat. I have ruled, I have taken advice. The referral motion was ultimately done correctly.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I’m hopeful that the constructive feedback was the intention of that member’s question. I certainly just want to add my weight to commending the first reading of the Civil Aviation Bill.

Can I acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—all members, including the chair here—and we’re looking forward to working through this. One of the compliments I want to pay that committee—which I am a member of, dare I say it—is the robustness of the process from the officials. It’s been questioned. I know these stakeholders well. I have two airports in my area, and I talk to the Airports Association and associated businesses that come with such work as this.

There are some key points that have not been mentioned. One of those is the intention of this bill to reduce the emissions in international aviation and, really, our obligations to do that. That’s something that hasn’t been mentioned, but that is a goal of this Government across all transport modes. We’ve talked about drones—which has been covered, I think, by previous speakers on this side in particular—and some of those concerns about better cooperation agreements between airport authorities.

This is a good piece of work. I am happy to hear the words that we are working constructively on the other side of the House. I’m sure that this will get full approval. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. The Green Party will be supporting this bill at first reading. We will wait until the select committee to confirm our support beyond that. I acknowledge what the previous speaker, Paul Eagle, said about this bill taking the steps to implement CORSIA—an international agreement coming out of the Paris Agreement—which is the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. This has been a major lacuna, if you will, within the international agreement space that we haven’t been measuring or requiring reductions from international aviation, which is a significant contributor to carbon emissions and climate change. It’s been lacking in previous agreements. So CORSIA is just the very first early steps on that, and it’s good to see it implemented.

But unfortunately, within this bill—and there’s quite a lot the bill does, I know it’s been worked on for quite a number of years at this point—it doesn’t go further on the different regulatory changes that we will need to support reducing emissions from air travel. So what would be really interesting, I think, at the select committee is to consider whether there are changes that need to be made that are within the scope of this bill. As there are new regulations on remotely piloted or autonomous aircraft, what about electric and hydrogen powered aircraft? Are we ensuring that we can take up the zero emissions or very low emissions technology as quickly as possible? Because it is going to be very important in a country like New Zealand that we do have opportunities for low emissions air travel.

The second point of interest for me is around the drug and alcohol management, including mandatory random testing of safety-sensitive workers. I mean, on the face of it that sounds very reasonable. My guess is that’s already happening, and certainly we saw something similar with a recommendation around the maritime sector implementing mandatory random testing of workers in the maritime sector, including recreational outfits that were doing things like white-water rafting, etc. Safety is very important but there is a question about whether the particular type and regime of random testing is actually getting the outcomes that we want in terms of safety. Because not all substances can be tested for. There can be unintentional consequences like encouraging people to use other recreational substances in their time off that don’t show up in the drug testing, even though they’re objectively worse for the people. So there’s some concerns we have around that.

I just remember very clearly in the last term of the National Government a similar regime was proposed for the maritime sector and submitters were roundly opposed to it—not opposed to safety and not opposed to ensuring that we have a regime that successfully ensures that people are not under the influence of impairing substances while working, especially if they’re safety-sensitive workers, but rather that the specific regime that was proposed at that time wasn’t the best way. So we will see at select committee if we can support that or if improvements can be made.

Another concern the Green Party has is whether there will be sufficient checks and balances on security and search powers. Then, finally, on the regulation of airports, I think this is really, really interesting, and it’ll be very interesting at the select committee to see what this includes, because airports in New Zealand are not all publicly owned. Some are substantially privately owned, and yet they are natural monopolies. They are significant trip generators. If the land around airports is used for other types of development, not involving air travel, it can put huge pressure on the transport system for an area. So, for example, if it’s a commercial and retail development, which has happened significantly around Auckland Airport, I can understand why that’s in the interest of the airport itself. But there has to be a requirement for the airports to participate in and kind of contribute their fair share to the transport infrastructure that is needed to manage the demand that’s generated by that land use, whether it’s air travel or a commercial and retail development. Either way, we should have an expectation that if an airport is privately owned, operating for profit, it’s none the less going to be required, like any other significant monopoly trip generator in the area, to support public transport.

I think here in Wellington we’ve seen the airport at every step undermining public transport access to the airport to the extent now we don’t have a public transport service to the airport. They shouldn’t be able to charge unreasonable fees or put the public transport out of the sight of people arriving on airplanes because they have an interest in making money off of taxi stands and parking charges. So this is a public good. I think requirement is that we should expect airports to support the transport objectives of a city and region, and that they should be required to play their part in that. If they have financial interests in doing otherwise, they should not be able to pursue those, because that is a private benefit socialising a public cost. So they’re privatising the financial benefits and socialising the cost, generating more traffic, causing more congestion, potentially forcing central government or local government to spend huge sums of money to try and increase capacity for private vehicles so they can make more money off parking and taxi stands, when what is really going to work better for the whole network is really efficient, affordable, reliable public transport that moves people efficiently into and out of this area.

Of course, there’ll be a need for roading, but ultimately roading is more efficient if we have a reduced need for people to all travel in single occupant vehicles. So if we have good public transport it will make the whole network work better. So I will be very interested to see whether the emission reduction units are giving sufficient ability to local and regional councils to set expectations that an airport will comply with and support the objectives of the metropolitan transport infrastructure in that area. I don’t think they should be able to undermine public transport in order to make more money off parking.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT is going to support this bill to select committee, though there are a number of things that we would like the committee, which I’m part of, to look at, based on our communications with stakeholders, including Aviation New Zealand, which represents the lion’s share of operators. It’s interesting, speaking of Aviation New Zealand, I know this bill has been in development for some time, and a previous Minister of Transport, the Hon Phil Twyford, who so eloquently introduced this bill to the House today, never met with them in his time as Minister. The same goes for the current Minister, the Hon Michael Wood—still hasn’t met with them. So when they talk about all of the consultation that’s happened throughout this bill, I think they probably could do a little bit better.

Anyway, the first issue that I wanted to raise for select committee is the bill fails to differentiate between general aviation and commercial aviation. This is a bit of a problem because it creates a blanket set of rules that are applied to both, rather than taking a risk-based approach. To stop unnecessary bureaucracy you’ve got to make sure the regulation is proportional to risk. So that should really be looked at. It is quite a concern that we’ve heard from the stakeholders.

The second point is that there are some concerns around the expanding enforcement capabilities. Some have suggested it may be unreasonable to expect police to know the intricacies of aviation law when there are so many variables, certification, and different operations going on. So without extensive training, the sector is a little bit concerned about enforcement. They would appreciate some clarity. Some questions are: how can they be sure that they’re familiar with the rules so that they don’t shut down legitimate operations, who exactly bears responsibility if they make a mistake in the process, and will there be compensation? So that’s the second issue I’d like to raise.

The third thing, and it has been canvassed by a few members of this House, is around just culture. The aviation sector has been calling for a just culture provision for a while now. It exists in many departments and organisations, and they believe that not having a punitive approach to health and safety is consistent with the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, of which we are a signatory. Annex 13 outlines that the only purpose of conducting an investigation is to prevent further ones. They believe that the provisions are a great tool—encourage honesty and cooperation, so when something goes wrong, you can genuinely improve safety. Because you don’t want to foster an environment where people are afraid to speak up and not be compliant. So the sector very much wants clarification on this, because the bill purports to introduce just culture, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of detail.

The final point is a call from the sector for an independent disputes authority. This is not necessarily a deal-breaker, but rather a “nice-to-have”. An independent disputes authority would keep checks and balances on Government power and it would be a great help in the way of minimising wasted time and money, and, in any case, the Director of Civil Aviation can always exercise discretion. So notwithstanding the points that I have raised, ACT is keen to see this bill go to the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call on the Civil Aviation Bill at first reading. As we’ve heard from previous speakers, New Zealand is very much dependent on a reliable aviation system. We are fairly sparsely populated in some areas, and we’re a long, thin country. We do, by and large, have an excellent aviation system, and we saw that during COVID: the aviation sector really came to the fore in terms of supporting our country.

One aspect I’m really interested in hearing teased out a little bit at the select committee is the aspect around autonomous vehicles, and I mean vehicles like drones, for example. You know, there is certainly potential for future use in this area in terms of beyond the line-of-sight use of drones, whether it’s for delivering medicines to rural areas, whether it’s for delivering things like pizzas to people. But, certainly, there’s lots of potential in this area, and I will take a particular interest in that aspect as this bill goes through—just to sort of see what opportunities there may be in the future for this area. I commend this bill to the House.

Tim van de Molen—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I shall make sure that I utilise my time because this is an important bill and, unlike members of the Government, we think it needs decent scrutiny. I’m holding it right here, and we’re hearing from Government members about one minute worth of contribution in each of their speeches for a bill of this substance. Quite frankly, it’s disappointing from the Government members, and I would suspect the industry, as we do on this side of the House, would have hoped for more from a Government putting through a pretty important piece of legislation for the sector.

💬 Chris Bishop: It’s eight years in the making, this bill.

It has indeed been eight years in the making, which was started under National because we identified that innovation, progression in the sector is an important consideration that needs to be regularly updated. Unfortunately, no action was taken under the last three years of the Labour Government. But, finally, now we are in a position where the Civil Aviation Bill has come to the House and we are seeing a whole raft of proposals, as evidenced by the significant volume of paperwork here in this bill, although, it would appear Government members are not across the detail given their very sparse contributions so far.

Now, as we’ve heard already, in some aspects aviation is a critical sector for New Zealand. Now, we did enjoy a robust $17 billion international tourism sector prior to COVID. Of course, that has changed dramatically as a result of the manner in which COVID has been managed and the decisions that have been made around what can or can’t operate and how that impacts on different sectors, and we’re seeing that here in the aviation sector in particular. So it is timely, though, that given it’s taken us eight years to get to this point, we are now making changes so that when we are looking to reconnect with the world—and National came out with a fantastic plan to do that just yesterday—the aviation sector will be better placed to facilitate that, to speed up, to increase the efficiency, to make it easier to use, whilst at the same time ensuring that safety and security are maintained to the high standards that would be expected.

Now, there are a couple of aspects specifically that I did want to touch on within this. One of those was around the potential of UAVs, the unmanned autonomous vehicles; the drones, if you will; different emerging technologies that are coming into play. Some of those we know about, but I’m quite excited about the potential for those that are not yet discovered. They may be in place in 12 months’ time, 24 months’ time, who knows? We have an incredibly innovative tech sector here in New Zealand. Again, it needs a bit more stimulus and National has a strong plan to grow the tech sector, too. There are opportunities there that under this bill we can help to futureproof for some of that. When I think, particularly for rural areas, like my constituency of Waikato, there is a lot of potential for these sorts of technologies. We’re seeing already some amazing advances in the agritech space around how drone technology can be utilised on farms for a whole manner of different things: spray applications, stock management, moving the stock, looking at different soil types, fertility requirements, pasture growth rates—all these elements that can or will soon be commercially available for farmers to use.

So, of course, if we’re going to see increasing uptake of these sorts of technologies, then we need to make sure that the rules around managing and enabling this to occur are tightly controlled, well understood, and as easy to navigate as possible for those potential users. So alongside that, of course, people would be aware; you’re seeing a lot more use of drones by the likes of real estate agents as well, for everyday listings of properties. These are the sorts of areas where even a few years ago we would not have envisaged, necessarily, this sort of thing happening. It has. I’m sure there will be many more in the next few years that we’re not envisaging, necessarily, right now, that will come into play as well. So we do need to make sure that we have strong rules in place around that. But I do just want to touch on the point that Dr McDowall raised as well, around the compliance, the competency of the enforcement mechanisms within this bill as well. And that is one area that I have heard locally is a bit of a concern, and so I’m sure we will see that canvassed through the select committee process.

I do very much look forward to hearing from submitters on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I encourage Government members to do the same so that, perhaps, in future contributions, they can make more than a paltry minute to such a substantial piece of legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to rise to have a short call on the Civil Aviation Bill. Contrary to the comments from other side of the House, something has been done about this bill since the previous term. There was an exposure draft in 2019 and there were numerous consultation papers during the previous term of Government. I acknowledge that this review did start in 2016; however, we’ve taken it forward. It updates the Civil Aviation Act, which is from the 1990s and the Airport Authorities Act, which is from 1966. It is always good to refresh the legislation. I’m looking forward to seeing the submissions on the bill. It will be scrutinised heavily at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for letting me take a call on the Civil Aviation Bill, and I’m just glad that we can get on with it and get the work done. The workhorse, the engine room which is the select committee space, is where we want to get it on to and get on with the work, rather than dilly-dallying, chitter-chattering away in the House around this.

We are committed to delivering and to making sure that our civil aviation and airways are safe and, as my colleague Barbara Edmonds, who’s just sat down, said, these are laws from the 1960s and laws from the early 1990s. We need to be fit for a modern society. We need to be fit for the future. Coming from Taranaki, we’ve just opened the new airport last year, which sees almost half a million passengers through. Back when the original airport was opened in the 1960s, there were less than 60,000.

So a lot’s changed and, obviously, we need to ensure that our airways are safe. So I commend the Civil Avialil—the Civil Aviation Bill to the House.

A technical term?

💬 Glen Bennett: Yeah.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, we’re hitting a new low. I don’t think the speaker before me, Glen Bennett, even managed to get to a minute. I’m rising to speak in support of the Civil Aviation Bill, which repeals and replaces the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Airport Authorities Act 1966 with a single Act that will perhaps better respond to the industry’s future challenge. I’d have to say, when I put my hand up to become a politician, I thought I was coming to take part in a democratic process that would be both respectful and mindful of the people of New Zealand. I would have to say the arrogance and the disrespect that is being shown by the Government speakers in this House to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, who pay their wages, is astonishing. I would hope that there are some new MPs that came in at the same time as me that feel somewhat disillusioned and somewhat embarrassed by what they are being asked to do here today, because I think the people of New Zealand should be able to expect us to debate fulsomely in this House legislation which is going to impact on them. They should expect a little bit more than a few seconds of discussion before they sit down.

Civil aviation isn’t something that I’ve been very involved in, and one of the beauties of getting to speak on bills that are not in your area is that you can take some time to look into it and why the bill is there and relate it to your own electorate—again, those people that pay our wages so that we can sit up here and show them some respect. So I’m pleased to have looked at the impact that this might have on not only the main authorities but also on individual airports and ones in my area.

Some of the main provisions around it take into account that we’ll have remotely piloted or autonomous aircrafts. As my colleague said, drones that wouldn’t have been thought of a few years ago when legislation was put in place now need to be accommodated in this legislation. Drones, of course, are doing some incredible things in our productive industries, and I think of the uses that they are being put to in our primary sector and the difference that they are making for some of the high country stations, for some of the more remote farms, and in times of emergency for flooding. But it’s really important that people who are operating those drones have the responsibilities laid out very clearly for them, which, of course, this legislation is going to be able to do.

The aviation authority, the aviation sector prior to COVID, was, of course, incredibly important to our GDP, supporting around 11.2 percent of it, enabling our $17 billion per annum tourism industry, and also enabling our $5 billion international education industry, the two of which actually are quite intertwined. So it’s a very important enabler to ensure that we have our airline industries operating appropriately.

Unfortunately, a member prior to me got the dates wrong in terms of when this legislation started. It actually started in 2013. National launched a review of the Civil Aviation Act with an aim to refresh and improve the usability of the legislation around it. And things have happened—many things have happened, not just things like the drones but, of course, that ever-changing and evolving global environment of security around our airports. I look at how that’s changed even small airports like Invercargill with the security that we’ve had put in there, and I congratulate the general manager, Nigel Finnerty, and his team for the great work that they’ve done there. It’s important that we get that security right for the produce that we export through our aviation industry, and I think in my electorate, or in my area—sorry, Joseph Mooney, my colleague; I may be pinching a little bit when I say about some of our high-value seafood like crayfish, which, of course, comes out of Te Ānau, a lot of it, out of Fiordland, and also some of the high-value horticulture produce like tulip bulbs, which are growing by the millions in a farm next to our farm. So that importance of security is not only for people but for the produce that earns the GDP, that allows people to be able to pay taxes and pay for our salaries up here, which I would urge that other side to think of every time they stand up for 30 seconds and disrespect those people.

National wants to be very constructive with this. Of course we understand the importance of this. We understand the importance of aviation security, of national security. We are very pleased to see that it improves the safety through drug and alcohol management. Of course, following that dreadful Carterton balloon incident in 2012 and the tragedy that those families that were involved with that suffered, we need to have better fit for purpose legislation around drug and alcohol management, improving the safety and security of our aviation system. So there are important elements of this bill that deserved, quite frankly, more than less than a minute’s contribution from the previous speaker from the Government. I would have thought they would have wanted to have a debate around some of these matters.

The other points that I’m very keen to see debated at the select committee, or see extended there, are some of the feedback that has come from stakeholders. Obviously, the New Zealand Airports Association should have considerable submissions that they want to make in this. They certainly have indicated that they have concerns around the clarity of the Public Works Act changes and the enforcement of regulatory undertakings, and they have noted they’d like to see a wider approach to the review of airways. The select committee will be an appropriate process for them to be able to do that. The Civil Aviation Authority has noted some concerns around the entering and remaining in the aviation system, the independent appeal authority, reasonable cost—and all our industries are obviously concerned about costs that we impose on them through legislation. They also want to be sure that our legislation benchmarks itself with best international practice—all of those things very reasonable comments that we would hope will be teased out and fleshed out in the select committee process.

But I would have to say that it has been certainly a long time getting to this point, starting back in 2013, and I acknowledge those in the National Government at that time who had the foresight to instigate this review. I would like to acknowledge those in the National Party who have chosen to read the bill and scrutinise what’s in it and speak fulsomely in their opportunities here this morning. I’d like to acknowledge how this bill is going to pick up on the changes, the ever-evolving nature of our aviation industry, and the work that we have to do to ensure that we operate at a standard that is appropriate for us to be able to open up safely as a country to the rest of the world, because on this side of the House we know that New Zealand cannot be self-sustaining, sitting here thinking that we don’t need the rest of the world, because very clearly we do. Very clearly, our exporters and our business people know that, and it might be more respectful for the Government to acknowledge that as well. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Civil Aviation Bill, but I must say it’s disappointing to follow a member who wants to spend a significant amount of their time focusing on this side of the House rather than on the bill itself. The appropriate place for this debate to continue is in the select committee, and I know that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee will do an excellent job of looking at the bill.

As my colleague Barbara Edmonds pointed out earlier, this bill under this Government has actually had significant consultation with industry through the exposure draft. So I just wish to point out that there has been that opportunity through an earlier exposure draft for a lot of that important consultation.

Many members today have commented on an important element of the bill, which is around working to reduce emissions in the transport industry. It’s an important part of our response to climate change.

There was another important little point in the bill—specially for the National Party—which was the section on lost luggage; the section on lost luggage which I’m sure was inspired by the former member Nuk Korako, who introduced an important member’s bill on that very, very important matter. So I was very pleased when I did read through the bill to see that important section on lost luggage and will dedicate that point to the National Party.

I have the privilege of being the MP for Nelson—the sixth busiest airport in New Zealand and the number one regional airport in New Zealand—and I just note that there’s an important part of the bill that does look at how airports work on their spatial plans and work alongside both local and central government in introducing those plans.

So on that point, this bill needs to get to select committee so that we can continue the important work on it. On that note I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.