Civil Aviation Bill, Civil Aviation Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Civil Aviation Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill.

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

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Civil Aviation Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This is a Government committed to the safety and security of all New Zealanders, and these bills represent a significant modernisation of civil aviation legislation, which will ensure the aviation system in Aotearoa New Zealand is safe and secure for everyone. The legislation that we are passing tonight represents a comprehensive rewrite and modernisation of existing provisions.

Just before I turn to the substantive part of my bill, I actually really want to acknowledge the House this evening, and the helpful contributions and engagement and dialogue that we’ve had through the committee of the whole House. I can imagine that that was indeed the tenor of the discussions throughout the consideration of this bill since it was introduced in the House in 2001.

The Civil Aviation Bill introduces a new policy in several important areas. It requires all commercial operators to implement drug and alcohol management plans, including random testing of those working in safety-sensitive activities. It includes powers for 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. The bill makes provision for the declaration of temporary landside security areas at airports, if they are needed to respond to a heightened threat environment. This bill incorporates amendments for remotely piloted and autonomous aircrafts, and clarifies the responsibilities of the operator. It also provides new intervention powers for police and authorised people to respond to serious misuse of such aircraft.

The bill puts in place an enabling framework to allow New Zealand to meet its obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation emissions. This bill introduces a modern registration regime for airports—administered by the Secretary for Transport—which includes a requirement for airports to consult on their spatial plans. For some airports, the bill includes a requirement that they set out how they will meet Government agencies’ space requirements, renamed “regulatory airport spatial undertaking”—or RASU—by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. The bill internationally limits the statutory basis for airports to set charges to identified aerodrome activities, and removes the existing provision that they can do so as they see fit. It recognises that smaller airports provide vital connectivity to their communities but are not always able to do so on a fully commercial basis.

I briefly want to acknowledge those chief executives, mayors, and others that were at the Airport New Zealand function here in Wellington yesterday who shared their stories, and we reflected collectively on that vital connectivity role that those airports and airlines play. The resilience of our transport networks; for example, during the crises that we’ve all collectively just experienced as a nation in Auckland and throughout the East Coast, Hawke’s Bay, up North, Gisborne recently—in a little place like mine in Gisborne, Gisborne Airport became an absolute critical communication link for our entire region during Cyclone Gabrielle, after it was the first to get its connectivity back. I reflected last night that there was a gentleman—Andrew Gaddum, actually, he’s the CEO of Eastland up in Gisborne, and this would have been the case at rural and regional airports up and down the country—but they were out there in their high-vis and their stubbies at all hours of the night checking on that critical airline infrastructure to make sure that those places were a safe haven for all of our communities, and I acknowledge them for the role that they played.

This bill also improves the effectiveness of regulatory decision-making by strengthening the process of authorising airline cooperative arrangements. At its core, the bill continues to emphasise the fundamental importance of safety and security. Again, just to reiterate my sentiments in the House this evening, I acknowledge and thank the members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and, in particular, I just want to acknowledge the contribution of the person who chaired that committee throughout this process—he’s now known as Mr Speaker—the member for Ōhāriu, Greg O’Connor. I’d like to highlight one particular important change made during the select committee process. This is the new process for reviews of decisions made by the Director of Civil Aviation, and we canvassed this off a little earlier this evening. Statutory decisions that the director makes can have a significant impact on aviation participants’ livelihoods. And the ability to have those decisions reviewed independently—without the need to have go through the cost and expense of the courts—will increase confidence in that regulatory system. I want to emphasise that the provisions in the Civil Aviation Amendment Act dealing with in-flight security officers are futureproofing provisions and will not come into force until the Government considers it is necessary and an agreement is in place with the other countries involved.

It is likely that any situation that requires in-flight security officers to be deployed on foreign or New Zealand aircraft would arise at short notice. It would be imprudent of the Government not to have legislation ready to deal swiftly with the situation where it was necessary to continue flights to and from New Zealand. So we considered carefully the Supplementary Order Papers introduced by our friends in the Green Party. The bill already provides provisions allowing rules to be made relating to noise; more specific provisions with that regard were considered as not being necessary. The bill also clarifies consumers’ recourse to the disputes tribunal, as I answered this evening in response to the member Ricardo Menéndez—and provides for regulations requiring airlines to inform passengers of their rights. I note that the issue of comprehensive consumer rights regulation was raised in select committee and no changes were made.

We are also confident that the Climate Change Response Act and the emissions reduction programme are the appropriate mechanisms to take account of aviation’s impacts through whole-of-economy measures. The Civil Aviation Bill sets a clear foundation for the aviation sector as it continues its recovery from the disruptions caused by COVID and moves into a future with an exciting range of new technology. Therefore, I’m pleased to commend these bills to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the third reading of the Civil Aviation Bill, which the National Party will be supporting tonight. This bill has been a long time coming. In fact, I think it has been around 10 years in the preparation and consultation and many various different stages. Of course, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which I sat on, considered this bill and all of the submissions and the input from officials in relation to this particular piece of legislation, and now we’re finally here at the third reading, where this bill will finally be passed.

This bill, as the Associate Minister of Transport has described, is very important for our civil aviation sector, which plays a critically important role in our economy: 11.2 percent of our GDP, and enabled over $17 billion of international tourism into the country as well. So this is not just about aviation in New Zealand. This is critically important to helping us to sustain and grow our economy, particularly our tourism sector, which is a critical component of our economy, providing jobs and opportunities here in New Zealand, exporting our goods to markets around the world, and providing the ability for industries in New Zealand to be able to thrive and flourish and to be able to serve their communities.

The Minister talked about the role aviation played recently with the cyclone and the response to that: being able to get into remote communities, being able to respond rapidly and quickly. The reality is that was due to the fact that so many New Zealanders are so passionate about aviation. They’re passionate about what aviation can do, they love flying, they love the ability to get around our country in this way. I must say it was New Zealanders who stood up to those challenges, who donated their planes, who helped to fund-raise efforts which were then taken into those communities which were cut off because the roading network was down, and who were able to respond in that way. I’m incredibly proud of what they were able to do.

But, of course, it’s not just about having the aviation sector; we need to make sure there is good regulation in place which supports them and also Government agencies which are focused on outcomes and focused on ensuring that the whole sector can operate as efficiently as possible, and that is what this piece of legislation is about doing. It’s about making sure that it’s fit for the 21st century; that it is keeping up to date with new technology, including drones, autonomous aircraft, and other technology which is rapidly changing the face of civil aviation across New Zealand at the moment.

Of course, also, the issues around security and threats and climate change are all addressed in this piece of legislation, and, of course, the Government has recently had an International Civil Aviation Organisation report which has audited our aviation security, and that found it wanting, and that was because we had not been keeping pace with our international obligations around security at our airports—the international security that is required at our airports to ensure that our civil aviation is given that confidence for other airlines to come to New Zealand.

But there were a number of issues that have been dealt with in this piece of legislation. We’ve discussed that now in the committee of the whole House in relation to the Public Works Act. The original bill was far too ambitious on behalf of the officials, who wanted to give Land Information New Zealand significant powers to be able to make decisions around where airport land was surplus or not. The committee felt that that was far too excessive. We listened to the submissions, in which it was put to us that that should not be made by the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand, because those decisions are best made by airports through an objective test rather than by officials who aren’t part of the long-term plans that are required for airports to be able to make those long-term investments and to give those airports that confidence.

There were other issues in relation to regulatory undertakings, the space that has to be provided to airports—that issue has been, I think, put into a better position than it was in the original bill, but I’m not sure if it completely deals with all of the issues that were raised by airports. And, of course, it is a space which must be provided by airports to ensure that those Government agencies are able to operate, whether it’s civil aviation security, biosecurity, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)—of course they all need space, but the original bill made it clear that they could tell the airports how much space they needed to have and then it was the airport’s job to provide that, and, of course, if you’re in the business of building airports, you can’t just add an extra thousand square metres on to a building; it’s not that easy. So we have got to a position which does require the agencies to work with the airports around what those spatial plans should look like. There is still a regulatory backstop for the officials if they cannot come to common ground. I would hope that that regulatory backstop is not having to be used, because, ultimately, the officials and the departments should be working closely with airports. It is in both parties’ interests to make sure that those conversations are dealt with through negotiation rather than through regulation and enforcement. I think that would be a bad outcome.

There was a big discussion right through this process around the need for decisions made by the director of the Civil Aviation Authority to be able to be reviewed. There was significant disquiet by submitters across the board around the fact that the only recourse for people who had decisions made was to then go to the courts and through judicial review, which, of course, takes a long time and costs a lot of money and really only benefits lawyers who are prepared to charge a lot of money for the privilege. It is good to see that there is now an independent reviewer who is able to make decisions within 10 working days around those decisions. That will make a significant improvement, but I do note that it still does not give that independent reviewer teeth; all it does is require those decisions to then be reviewed again by the Civil Aviation Authority. So I do hope that the Civil Aviation Authority takes note of those reviewers’ decisions after the passing of this legislation to give people better confidence in the decisions that are made. That is something which I hope the Civil Aviation Authority takes incredibly seriously.

There were other smaller submissions made, but important nevertheless—such as, in regards to the issue of medical certificates, the fact that, in appealing those, there are no time limits for the medical convenor. We’ve had that discussion here. I do disagree with the Government’s position; my view, and our view, is there should be a time frame on those decisions being reviewed, because it’s critically important that pilots can have those decisions made quickly so they can either get on with their lives or have that decision around their medical certificate made and decided. It’s critically important that the Civil Aviation Authority is not just consuming time, that the medical convener is not just consuming time, because time is of the essence.

And when it comes to time, we’re all seeing up and down the country the significant wait times that we have, whether it’s at biosecurity, civil aviation security, or MPI. In all of these places, we are seeing significant queues, and a significant part of that is due to workforce shortages. But this is where the Government needs to have a focus on outcomes. A Government needs to be focused on the consumer. The Government needs to be focused on making sure that departments are operating efficiently and actually serving the people who pay the fees. People who travel, the travelling public, pay for those services through their airfares, and they deserve to have timeliness when it comes to the provision of those services, whether it’s civil aviation security, whether it’s going through the border. There needs to be timeliness brought back to the system. And it’s not just here in aviation but it’s across the board. We need to have timeliness of New Zealand’s travelling public considered.

So, on that note of timeliness and on the whip’s suggestion, I will recommend this bill to the House and thank all the submitters and officials for their help through the process. Thank you very much.

Members, before I take the next call, just to clarify, the motion we are debating is that the bills divided from the Civil Aviation Bill—that is, the Civil Aviation Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill—be now read a third time. That means that we have one question for both bills, unless members indicate they wish to vote separately at the end.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My colleague Simeon Brown’s previous speech reminded me of this particular bill. It was a slow take-off and then he started to launch to the end and then finished abruptly. That’s certainly the journey that the Civil Aviation Bill has taken through this House. This bill fits squarely with Labour’s plan in reconnecting New Zealanders with the world—and the civil aviation sector is, of course, a huge part of that. Our commitment to economic development and our economic recovery is incredibly important.

The Civil Aviation Bill creates a single, modern law that will provide safety, security, and economic regulation of the civil aviation system. We traversed this significantly under the leadership of Greg O’Connor in his time as our chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I know we heard a number of submissions.

So it’s a good piece of legislation, it is timely that this has come through, and I’m certainly pleased about it. I commend this bill to the House.

Good choice, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much for selecting me. I’m going to take a call on behalf of the National Party—that might come as some surprise—on the third readings of the civil aviation legislation.

I just want to carry on from my colleague Shanan Halbert, who was introducing some puns around the aviation sector into this debate. I quite like that the Hon Michael Wood in his PR said, “This bill was to help aviation recovery take off.” I encourage all speakers that will follow me to add their take and puns on the aviation sector in this bill as well, just to bring some light relief to what I think will be a fairly dry debate, because, as we can tell, we have some support across all parties.

Hon James Shaw: You’re running out of runway, Matt!

MATT DOOCEY: So far, so good. Let’s hope I don’t crash and burn! Hey, look, I just want to say how good our aviation sector is. I think something that we do—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I laughed—I laughed.

MATT DOOCEY: I know. Look, it’s good. I’m glad that you’re listening, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I’m listening.

MATT DOOCEY: It gives me great delight. But coming back to what we’re debating tonight, the aviation sector, I just want to say how good it is. I mean, it’s something that we actually probably take for granted in New Zealand. I mean, we have a huge number of airports. I’d argue that anywhere you are in New Zealand, you’d probably be an hour and a half, a two-hour drive to an airport. And why I raise that is, for a small country like New Zealand—some will know my wife is Hungarian. It’s quite a large country; 10 million people. You’d be fascinated to know that it only has one airport in the whole country.

Simon Court: The Soviets bulldozed the rest of them.

MATT DOOCEY: And just to acknowledge other Magyars with their heritage in the House tonight as well. But isn’t that interesting? It’s something that we actually take for granted with the many airports we have and the aviation airlines as well. So I want to acknowledge them. They bring huge economic growth into the country, as my learned colleague Simeon Brown alluded to, supporting 11 percent of GDP and enabling over $17 billion in our tourism economy.

Of course, this legislation has been somewhat long in gestation and it repeals and replaces the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Airport Authorities Act 1966. So it’s fair to say, when you look at those two Acts some time ago, 1990 and 1966, there’s some issues in this bill that potentially weren’t around in those times—obviously, the advent of new technologies like drones and autonomous aircraft. We’ve also got the uncertainty of the global environment and the ever-evolving nature of terrorist threats, meaning that our airport security systems should be keeping up with the best in the world.

This is legislation that I think has been traversed quite widely across the three readings and the committee of the whole House, and that is why I commend these bills to the House. Thank you.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe; tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise on behalf of the Greens, perhaps unfortunately, to break the consensus that appears to be breaking out celebratoriously across the House on the civil aviation update to the regime in the form of the Civil Aviation Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill. The Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), as voted down at the committee of the whole House stage, may give some insight into why that occurred, but let me step everybody who may have the unfortunate pleasure of listening to the House late at night tonight as to why we hold that position.

So, of course, as others have traversed in their speeches, it of course is important that we do have these long overdue contemporary updates to our civil aviation law. None the less, what we are looking at here is a piece of legislation that really misses a trick when—Matt Doocey—we don’t have a lot of runway left. We don’t have a lot of runway left in the form of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as released last week, which told us that we have to not only think ahead but we have to act now in terms of the climate crises—which we in Tāmaki-makau-rau and much of the North Island experienced very literally on our doorstep at the beginning of 2023.

So, to that effect, we are missing, here, massive opportunities to contemplate the impact of civil aviation, and particularly the proliferation of private civil aviation on our own backyard in denser areas such as the city centre in Auckland Central, but also, actually, on our conservation estate. This also impacts the Hauraki islands, another amazing part of the electorate of Auckland Central. But it also—as outlined in the Supplementary Order Paper, as just voted down in the committee of the whole House, from my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March—misses a bit of a trick on the opportunity to provide necessary consumer protections that I note that Consumer NZ has made quite a lot of noise about.

So the bill, interestingly enough, actually, as put forward by the member Simeon Brown for the National Party, focuses quite a lot on commerciality. It focuses a lot on the so-called economic impacts here—thinking a lot about the impacts of airports, in particular. It thinks a lot about, “How do we enable civil aviation and the commercial operation of civil aviation?”, but it doesn’t so much think about what happens outside of those commercial operations—that is, the whole ecosystem - kind of approach.

To give you a really explicit example of this—to kind of zoom in to what’s been happening in my own backyard on the Hauraki islands, in particular on Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier Island—we have this really interesting intersection where you have the process of resource consenting for private helipads, obviously facilitated by the Resource Management Act, which the Auckland Unitary Plan is built on top of, which facilitates the consenting of these helicopter pads. But as soon as those helicopters are up in the sky, what we’re looking at is the remit of the Civil Aviation Authority. I’ve had a lot of engagement, interestingly enough, with the Civil Aviation Authority over the past two years about the potential to implement what’s called a “special use air space” under the pre-existing legislation. A special use air space can be implemented for sake of contemplating adverse effects on the environment or the communities or otherwise.

But what we’ve seen in those engagements with the Civil Aviation Authority is that they are pretty up front about the fact that they’re simply not resourced to contemplate impacts on the environment, on conservation, on our communities, but that they think that that should sit with Auckland Council. And therein lies the problem: what this bill continues to contemplate and continues to work on is the commerciality and the enabling of that commercial operation of civil aviation, particularly pertaining to our airports. But it misses that trick when it comes to climate, when it comes to conservation, and when it comes to our communities.

To this effect, we’ve seen that more than 50 private helipads have been consented on Waiheke Island over the past wee while, which has led to what my Waiheke Local Board chair, Cath Handley, calls not so much a “controlled airspace” but an “out-of-control airspace”. Again, this is where this bill falls down and where we as the Greens put forward a number of SOPs to try and make some changes. I note that the Minister, in her contributions before, spoke to how there are, of course, the opportunities for the Minister to potentially—or “may”—have consideration of these things in making these rules.

But as I impressed upon the former Minister—and I’d like to acknowledge him, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, for engaging with me quite seriously on these issues—we still very strongly hold the view and reserve the reservation that if the Minister and any potential Minister only “may” have contemplation for the environment or the community or conservation or otherwise, that it’s not a requirement to do so. As we see time and again in the face of crises or whatever else is the top issue of the day, climate, communities, and conservation continue to fall down the agenda.

So just to reflect on some of those SOPs, we had obviously No. 239 from myself around requirements for noise abatement purposes. We had the SOP from the Hon Julie Anne Genter considering climate. We had one—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Can I just remind the member that the third reading is not the time to rehash SOPs, particularly which have not been successful. So can I ask the member: a passing comment, yes, but please just come back to the third reading.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point, for me—and for the Greens—remains that there has been a trick missed when it comes to consideration of, or baking in of, protections for consumers, for the climate, and of course for conservation. This is reflected in the select committee submissions from the Federated Mountain Clubs, so too from Quiet Sky Waiheke, Quiet Sky Waitematā, also from Waiheke Local Board. I’d like to acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their willingness in being able to and open to accepting those submissions a little bit later than usual. But, in a nutshell, what we’ve seen is that with that engagement—and with the willingness of successive Ministers to engage on those concerns of the Greens that are reflected in clause 52 at present—there is the insertion of clause 52(1)(ba), where the Minister may make rules “regulating the effect or potential effect of civil aviation on people, activities, and things.” Again, our concern remains that this stays as a “may”, not a “must”.

Secondly, at clause 58, around rules for abatement purposes—those who are really interested in the specificity of the legislation as presently drafted—notes that those rules “include” the vicinity of aerodromes, which, if you’re reading closely and tightly, would mean that it expands beyond those vicinities of aerodromes.

So I guess I’d like to put on the record tonight and for the sake of Hansard and for the sake of future political debates that the former Minister—the Hon Kieran McAnulty—made the commitment, to a certain extent, to me that he would be interested in engaging in, and I hope that this is something that the Hon Kiritapu Allan can continue with; that they would be willing to engage in making these rules and regulations under these clauses, which don’t require them to because of that rejection of the Greens’ SOPs, but that they have the opportunity to if we can prove that there is an issue. To that effect, we will be making those cases to the Minister. So they can expect those cases to be made as soon as this bill is passed, and we’ll have them on their desk.

But in its current form, this bill, as I’ve just said, updates things so that it is of a more contemporary framework, but really misses a trick when there is no runway left when it comes to ensuring that we have consideration—but not only consideration, protection—of our climate, conservation, and our communities, especially when we’re looking down the barrel of further proliferation of private aircraft and vehicles in the next 10 to 20 years. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I just want to acknowledge all the hard work that went on in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and from officials and from all those submitters who came to share their aspirations for New Zealand’s aviation future.

I also want to acknowledge the impassioned plea of my parliamentary colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, who advocated for the people of Waiheke and other places around the Hauraki Gulf, who feel that aircraft operations impinge on their quality of life and on the quality of the environment. But what I would also offer to that MP is, once you get to fly around in helicopters a lot, you never ever want to stop. In New Zealand aviation, the way we use aviation in New Zealand, whether it’s small fixed-wing aircraft to get to places like Milford Sound and land on the Milford aerodrome, or whether it’s to use helicopters to get up into the bush and carry out pest control, pest eradication operations, whether it’s on private land or in the conservation estate, general aviation small aircraft are integral to the way that we enjoy New Zealand.

Now, ACT is really interested in a more efficient and effective operation of Government regulations, and the Civil Aviation Bill goes a long way towards meeting ACT’s aspirations. But it is a very, very, very large piece of legislation. It’s nearly 500 pages, once you include the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) tabled by Minister Kiritapu Allan this evening, and ACT is concerned that while it is aspirational, there is potentially some real risks in its implementation. That was acknowledged tonight by the Minister with the SOP that sought to extend the time frame for implementation of the bill, the time for commencement by an additional six months—so to give the Civil Aviation Authority two years from the time of Royal assent, to give effect to the provisions of this bill. Given how long it’s taken to bring this bill to the House and to pass it through various stages, it does seem unfortunate that we must wait two more years for the efficiency measures in this bill to be given effect to.

I just want to recap some of the things that this bill does and that ACT supports. It does provide for a much simpler operating environment for remotely piloted aircraft—unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). UAVs are going to be a very important part of the way we manage New Zealand’s environment and our infrastructure in the future. In New Zealand, it’s still very, very difficult to get permission to fly an unmanned aerial vehicle out of line of sight. That means if you want to do a survey of your infrastructure—whether it’s transmission lines, pylons, hydroelectric dams—and you want to fly a UAV out of line of sight, it’s very difficult to get permission to do that. In fact, the permitting regime for UAVs, whether they’re operated as aerial spray drones or for geospatial survey, for infrastructure survey, the current permitting system is clunky. There are operators waiting months, sometimes over a year, to get permission.

So it’s great that this bill provides a more streamlined approach, but waiting two years for it to come into effect, some operators, commercial operators, of autonomous aircraft might decide it’s not worth operating in New Zealand.

Damien Smith: Go to Canada.

SIMON COURT: They might go to Canada, as my colleague Damien Smith said, or certainly Australia.

ACT has concerns about the operation of the Aviation Security Service (AVSEC). AVSEC was given a mandate after September 11 2001, the attacks on the World Trade Center, which were carried out by terrorists who hijacked the aircraft. It was given a mandate internationally to actually screen passengers, identify risk, identify things that shouldn’t be taken on an aircraft, and make sure that for people travelling, the aircrafts and the airports were safe places to operate. But, unfortunately, it appears that over the years, as more and more expectations have been put on AVSEC, the way they process passengers, and the issues that that causes in airports, have actually slowed down and reduced the enjoyment of the travelling public. It takes a lot longer to get through security than it should.

One of the problems that this bill has identified, and the Minister acknowledged, is that there is a conflict of interest between the Director of Civil Aviation and AVSEC, in that the director is responsible for monitoring aviation security but also responsible for its operation. What ACT proposes—well, we’d actually get an independent auditor, the Auditor-General or a similar independent officer, to have a look at AVSEC on a regular basis and to confirm that they were in fact operating efficiently and meeting all the obligations that they have under the Civil Aviation Act and this bill that we’ll pass. But the Minister, while acknowledging there is an actual conflict of interest, has declined to take ACT up on that offer. Even though, if you were a business operating in the aviation space, whether you’re running an airport or running an airline, of course you would have independent operators looking at your performance, whether it’s health and safety or financial. ACT believes that Government departments should be subject to at least the same level of independent audit as businesses do operating in this area.

What was heartening during the submission phase was the recognition by officials that the need for a just culture be made explicit in the bill. For those watching at home wondering what “just culture” is, it’s that concept that if you have a near miss or you identify a safety issue with an aircraft or airspace with aeroplanes coming too close together, for example, you can tell somebody, and even though you might have made a mistake, you won’t be blamed and prosecuted and have put your flying career or your business at risk, because what a just culture approach tells us is that it’s more important to investigate the cause of a potential incident or accident than it is to punish people for having made a mistake. That’s the approach that general aviation, civil aviation, commercial aviation, and military aviation have taken for almost a hundred years. That is why, even though thousands and thousands of aircraft, you know, weighing hundreds of tonnes in many cases, carrying millions of passengers a year, have very few accidents and incidents that cause harm—and that’s because of the just culture approach. So it’s wonderful that that’s actually been included in the text of this bill in its subsequent amendments in what we’re passing tonight, as well as being referred to in the explanatory notes.

I also just want to touch on the issue of an independent review of the director’s decisions. It has been canvassed, but I just want to remind people listening at home that there are many people passionate about civil aviation, about flying, and, at some point during some pilots’ careers or some operators’ careers, something happens, whether it’s something in the family—they have a motor vehicle accident, they have a physical accident, and they have to get assessed for either medical or psychological fitness to continue to operate aircraft, to operate in the aviation space. Their applications, once having identified that they’re not fit to fly, when they come back and want to prove their fitness again, their applications have sat languishing, some for years, without decisions being taken. It is a great concern to ACT that despite there being now a provision for independent review, there is no time frame for that independent review. So people who would like to fly again and whose doctors have said they’re fit and who have all of the necessary references to get back into the air or back into an aircraft have no certainty about when a decision about the potential to get airborne again will be made. That is very, very unfortunate and seems to be very, very unfair.

But, on balance, one thing the ACT Party observed is that the difference between this bill and the Labour Party is that this bill will land tonight, unlike the Labour Party, whose plane appears to be disappearing off Kiwis’ radar screens. I commend this bill to the House. ACT will be voting for it. We look forward to delivering more good quality legislation in a future Parliament. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Bills read a third time.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill.