Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11744. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Aviation Security Legislation Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Aviation Crimes Act 1972 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting this bill but as members who listened to the first and second reading debates will remember we had a particular objection to the arming of inflight security officers. On the Table is an amendment from myself and the Green Party to omit new section 15B proposed to be inserted by clause 7. New section 15B states: “In-flight security officers may possess carry and use firearms weapons ammunition and other equipment on board certain aircraft in certain circumstances”. The provision goes on to explain under what circumstances those officers will be able to do this on board. Those circumstances are: “if—(a) the officer is on duty; and (b) the aircraft is in flight.” 
We are not objecting to inflight security officers as such—police often have to go on planes for some purpose—but they should not be able to carry guns. The airline pilots— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How about Tasers? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: There is a bit of interjection here. Mr Williamson should listen to the airline pilots. They are the people who will be affected if guns are used on planes. It was explained quite clearly that with all the hydraulics all the power and all the bits and pieces on planes that are quite vital for it to keep airborne several thousand feet in the air it would be dangerous for people to be operationally using guns on planes and that is what this new section achieves. 
The Green Party goes along with the pilots and other submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who would rather this provision were not there. Thank you. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 It has often been said in the history of speech-making that a good speech is a short speech so this will be one of the best speeches that has ever been made because it will be bloody short. All I can say is that the National Opposition supports this bill. We disagree with Mr Locke. Yes a gun being shot within a cabin may actually damage some hydraulics and it may put a hole in the fuselage. But let me tell members that a bomb from a terrorist does a hell of a lot more damage than a gun from an inflight service officer will ever do. We support this legislation. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I cannot promise to give a speech as short as that of the Hon Maurice Williamson and I say “Well done” to him. The issue on Part 1 that received a lot of attention was the ability for there to be foreign inflight security officers. New sections 15A to 15G are the operative provisions including new section 15B. 
It sounds pretty scary when we read out new section 15B which states: “In-flight security officers may possess carry and use firearms weapons ammunition …” etc. that have been approved by the Director of Civil Aviation. It goes on to state that new sections 15D to 15F provide powers for the in-flight security officers to arrest restrain and search a person whom they believe is attempting to hijack damage or destroy the aircraft. Most New Zealanders find the idea of armed anybodies anywhere to be pretty abhorrent. It is always a shock when we go around other countries to be greeted by armed police or security officers holding AK-47s or bearing other prominently displayed weapons. It is an idea that is quite difficult for us. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How does the member know all these things? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I say to Mr Williamson that it is anathema to our way of life. I am trying to agree with the member here. In the end if we as free and mobile citizens would like to travel to other countries that are much less safe than ours then we have to take these precautions. Because we need other countries’ planes coming to our country we have to accept some changes that may not sit very well with our day-to-day life in New Zealand. It is a balancing act between freedom and security. 
When it comes to our families’ lives and the lives of our countrymen and countrywomen we must do everything reasonable to ensure that they are safe. It is not pretty and it does not feel good but in the end I would far rather know that every possible step has been taken to ensure the safety of passengers than to have one of our planes spread out in pieces in some foreign country on a remote hill somewhere because we did not accept that we live in a changed word. 
I mention that we are debating the Committee stage of the bill on a very significant day. It is 9/11 or 11 September and none of us who woke up in the morning on that day and saw those terrible things happening will forget that. Although we have a choice as to whether we travel the workers on the planes do not and I am worried about them. What happens to them? They have to get on the planes every day and surely we want to ensure that their safety is protected as well of course as the safety of the passengers. 
So we hope the need will never arise and that we never see armed inflight security officers. I am glad that we have some protection in Government policy whereby there has to be a full Cabinet approval process and the current Government policy is that this cannot happen. We do not want to see it happen but if it ever should happen it has to have full Cabinet sign-off. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There is a lot of meat in Part 1 and I think it is worth outlining to somebody who might be listening to what it is all about. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: There’s no one listening Peter. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well there might be; one never knows one’s luck. Anyway we will give it a go just in case somebody is listening. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It must be a very sorry individual who is listening to this tonight. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think the member might have a point there but one never knows. Part 1 establishes a new breed of official who is being referred to as an inflight security officer. We should make it quite clear that inflight security officers are police officers who are appointed by the Commissioner of Police in consultation with the Director of Civil Aviation and further in consultation with the industry at large. So it is important that people understand that an inflight security officer is not just anybody who has come in off the street and got a job as a security officer. Security officers are well trained in all aspects of the operation. 
In respect of arming inflight security officers it is a sad day when we even have to consider arming them. As I recall Air New Zealand told us quite categorically that if it got to that situation it would probably cancel the flight. Air New Zealand certainly does not visualise flying around the skies of the Pacific or wherever with a lot of armed policemen on board if it can possibly avoid it. 
But there is another aspect to Part 1. It enlarges the area where it is prohibited to take firearms and explosives. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Bennett should listen because he was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and he clearly has not taken on board what that committee has been told. It enlarges that area by going further than the aircraft itself by going into sterile areas and security-enhanced areas. So it will be an offence to take a firearm an explosive or anything in that category into one of those areas—that is well before they get anywhere close to the aircraft or one would hope so. It also allows for the search of passengers. We were told that with modern technology passengers can be searched quite thoroughly by see-through X-ray systems— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I quite like the pat-down search. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is a bit more than that actually. There is equipment we are told that can go past the clothing and see the individual’s body. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Naked? 
PETER BROWN 
: Naked. In certain circumstances I tell Mr Williamson that would be a horrible thought. But I commend the Minister. He has taken this on board and he has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 140 which New Zealand First will support also to prohibit that. I will read from it although I am certain the Minister will take a call later on. The proposed subsection (5B) states: “Despite subsection (5A)”—which provides for technology to search people—“with respect to a person searched under subsection (1) a member of the police an aviation officer a Customs officer or an agent of the carrier authorised by the carrier for the purpose may not use an aid or device that produces an unclothed image of the person.” I tell the Committee that if the Minister had not produced that Supplementary Order Paper then that would be a very worrying concern to many people who travel—certainly to the many people who travel on a leisure-type basis. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Look round this House and imagine seeing it naked. 
PETER BROWN 
: The thought appals me. There are certain places I could go and if I look around the Chamber and look around other places one might have a more pleasant thought. But it is important that this Supplementary Order Paper is attached to this legislation and I commend the Minister for producing it. 
With regard to inflight security officers I must comment on what Keith Locke said because he has tended to put the wind up people somewhat. These guys are there to do a job. They have certain responsibilities; they can react to a situation on board an aircraft. If they see trouble they can fully restore the command of the aircraft to the pilot in charge the captain. 
Unfortunately we live in very volatile times. Not so long ago I saw a programme on Discovery Channel on TV and I would just like to relay this. The programme showed how many aviation road rage incidents there are. An average of one passenger a month is taken off an aircraft— 
David Bennett 
: Road rage? 
PETER BROWN 
: Well I do not know what we would call it. I understand road rage but I do not know what we would call this. Would it be aircraft rage or air rage? It is quite a serious problem in the UK. Indeed I think there are places in Canada that advertise they will allow airlines to land so they can take off passengers who misbehave become offensive use weapons assault flight attendants or what have you. So it is a serious problem. We might kid ourselves that it does not happen in New Zealand but I say to members that airline travel is becoming more and more the common mode of travel particularly overseas and sooner or later someone here will do something we do not approve of and there will be a need for us to have security officers on board. I regret having to say that but that is the way the world is heading. So New Zealand First supports this concept and certainly supports this part. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Well that was a very enlightening speech from New Zealand First the greatest tyre-kicking party we will ever see in this Parliament. There is not really very much debate about this legislation. As Darien Fenton mentioned today is a very significant day for us to be discussing this legislation this being the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. With that anniversary in mind I think it is a time when we need to reflect—to just take things slowly and to look at what has actually been happening and at the legislation going forward. I would like to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the staff who helped in advising us and who are here today. They did a great job in putting this legislation together and we look forward to it working well in the future. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I thought that I had covered all the points but I became a bit worried about Peter Brown’s speech when he started to talk about road rage altitude rage or whatever it ended up being described as. I think it was altitude rage as Maurice Williamson said. The member sort of linked that with the Green Party’s objection to having inflight security officers armed. When the member linked that up I became pretty worried because I read all the tittle-tattle in the  
Woman’s Weekly 
 the Sunday papers and whatnot. As I recall matters—and I cannot bring all the names to mind—quite a few of our leading rugby stars and celebrities have been guilty of altitude rage. They have taken a few too many whiskies in first class and done things like that and I am worried about their lives now after listening to Peter Brown’s speech. I think that is an additional reason for the Committee to support my amendment: to make sure that we protect our celebrities and to make sure that we do not arm those police officers who are on aircraft as inflight security people. I think that the watchword of the airline pilots is the best thing. If there is a security problem then we should leave the plane on the ground until there is no security problem. We should not stick an armed inflight security officer on the plane. That is the solution. 
I certainly support the Minister’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 140 about making sure that there is no “unclothed image of the person” in the words of the explanatory note of that Supplementary Order Paper. We support the Supplementary Order Paper in that respect. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit new section 15B. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 140 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 and schedule 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I do not believe I could do any better than my very first speech. The National Party totally supports this legislation. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Members will be pleased to know I have two further amendments to this part on behalf of the Green Party which also relate to armed inflight security officers except in this case we are talking about what are called foreign inflight security officers. It is a bit different in that these are people who are essentially from other nations on other airlines such as United Airlines or whatever—airlines on which America already has armed inflight security officers. The particular problem here in relation to clause 17 that inserts new section 77E “Foreign in-flight security officers” is that if we allow them on as this bill provides for they will then be able to get on to flights say in Los Angeles arrive in Auckland get off the plane with their firearms and go through the secure areas in the airport etc. which would normally be in violation of the other aspects of this bill which is a bill to improve security. 
So this section 77E which I wish through my amendment to eliminate states that those officers will pass through security-enhanced areas and sterile areas—while also carrying guns and weapons—when they are boarding aircraft and disembarking from aircraft. I think in some ways that this is an even more important amendment than the first one in relation to some of these American inflight security officers in that as we know from some incidents in America—and  
Time 
 magazine had a special article on the subject a year or two ago—there have been all kinds of problems with these armed people. Somebody was actually shot dead. I do not think they have ever attacked a terrorist but they have affected quite a few ordinary Americans. They will be more particularly riding under American rules of engagement which are much looser than ours. So they could be even more of a danger to passengers—New Zealanders coming back on an airline like United Airlines or some New Zealanders going out on such an American craft. So I think this amendment to chop that provision out is very valuable and I urge members to support it. Thank you. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I will be very brief. I thank the Committee for the strong support for the measures in this legislation and I especially thank the officials for doing a significant job in putting this together. Having actually watched events as they unfolded on September 11 2001 I think this is a very appropriate day to consider this. I happened to be working late that night and watched it all unfold live on CNN. I was amazed. So it is an appropriate day to be considering this legislation. It is purely by coincidence that we are debating this now because work has gone on slightly more quickly than we had imagined it might have. 
I want to speak very briefly about Keith Locke’s amendments and I understand and respect the genuineness with which Keith has put forward his amendments. But I have to say to members that I think those amendments would be impracticable. Foreign inflight security officers will be there at the discretion of their airlines following a request to us. Cabinet will have to approve such requests. And Mr Locke has said previously that foreign inflight security officers will be allowed on New Zealand aircraft. That will certainly never be the case. 
Keith Locke 
: I haven’t said that. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am sorry I tell Mr Locke but he has actually said it previously—but not tonight. 
Yet I assure the member that inflight security officers are in the bill for the purposes of future-proofing the bill in case Cabinet should ever have to make that most difficult decision. They will not be there as a matter of course and if we cannot allow armed inflight security officers then that raises problems for air services agreements internationally with other countries and with New Zealand’s obligations to consider any request those countries may make under annex 17 of the International Civil Aviation Organization agreement. Therefore I am afraid that although Mr Locke’s ideas no doubt are motivated by goodwill it would simply be impracticable to put them into place. 
I turn also to the gentleman in blue who is among the officials sitting in the Chamber with us. I would have to ask him what we could expect his folk to do if he were in the position of having a threat in an aircraft but did not have the ability for the New Zealand Police armed offenders squad members—who may be brought into this service—to respond in a way that was equal to the threat they might be exposed to. 
All I can say is that this bill has been thought through very thoroughly and that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has considered it very thoroughly. I commend it to the Committee as is—without amendment other than those on the two Supplementary Order Papers dealing with matters that have arisen earlier. Thank you. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (1) of section 77D. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (1) section 77E. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
The Committee divided the bill into the Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2)  pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper144. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.