Wong Pansy: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wong Pansy: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7406] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 The Hon Paul Swain should take a deep breath and reflect on all the objections raised by Opposition parties to the procedural motion. I looked at that when this legislation was first introduced to Parliament on 1 July. If the Labour Government believes that this legislation is so urgent that it requires the select committee to sit on Fridays etc. why did it not organise its business a lot better by referring the legislation to the select committee a month ago? I certainly felt that it was mean of the Labour Government to deny the plea from the Green Party to change its vote on the procedural motion. After all it happened very quickly and if one had not been paying 100 percent attention one might not have picked up the fact that the Minister had sneaked in a procedural motion that would override the Standing Orders of the House. The Green Party should be given the opportunity to change its vote on that procedural motion on the grounds that it was not aware of the proper wording of the motion. 
As my colleague Mr John Key has indicated National will support the bill’s referral to a select committee. We certainly support the three key changes introduced by this legislation. The first change is to enable Australian airlines to operate in New Zealand under the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority certification and safety oversight. We understand that a complementary measure will then be passed by the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia. It makes a lot of sense to us to enable the avoidance of duplicate aviation requirements and the need to build extra training education in both countries The particular part that would attract most public attention relates to unruly passenger behaviour. I doubt whether anybody in the House would raise an objection to the introduction of that part. Indeed I have seen flight attendants express delight over its introduction because they reckon that cabin crews have been coping with offensive and insulting behaviour from passengers for years which if repeated on the ground would be illegal. Certainly the National Party is very happy to support that part. 
I also want to raise technical aspects of some of the clauses. Hopefully the select committee will examine those in detail. Some of the unruly behaviour that will be ruled as illegal—we will not oppose that—is disruptive conduct towards a crew member. The second category is interference with an aircraft. It is stated that any person who tampers or interferes with any aircraft or its equipment commits an offence and will be liable to a fine not exceeding $5000. The intention of that clause obviously is to deal with people who would interrupt the flight schedule or interfere with the technical equipment that is necessary for the plane to operate effectively. I wonder what might happen in unfortunate circumstances where as we all know occurs children get really excited about the audio-visual equipment on international aircraft. One would want to know that the interpretation of that provision would not be carried too far. 
The other provision that needs to be debated a little bit more relates to intoxicated persons not being permitted on aircraft. I certainly would accept that but the provision refers to a person committing an offence who is intoxicated and boards an aircraft or becomes intoxicated on an aircraft. We come to a bit of a dilemma because any person who has had experience of international air flights in particular waiting for an international air flight in the lounge would have been subject to the temptation of lots of free alcohol. I wonder whether the lounge staff or airline will take precautions to make sure that an individual will not give in to those temptations. Of course intoxicated persons should be stopped from boarding an aircraft. I would hope that the airport or airline staff would have the authority to stop those individuals from boarding an aircraft and I presume a fine would be imposed at that juncture. They should not even be allowed to board the aircraft. 
The second issue is that they would also commit an offence if they became intoxicated on an aircraft. Once again when people are subjected to free drinks on an aircraft measures need to be looked at in terms of educating or warning individuals when they are faced with the temptation of the abundant availability of alcoholic drinks. 
The other issue I raise is about the operation of portable electronic devices not being permitted. We are all very clear that cellphones etc. should not be allowed to operate on an aircraft. However I wonder about the situation with laptops. Increasingly people are carrying on with their work using word-processing facilities. They may not be allowed to connect to the Internet but certainly lots of people are carrying laptops on to aircraft and they might be using those for word-processing functions or to clear their email during a long-haul flight. So it is a question whether the reference to portable electronic devices also applies to laptops in those circumstances because certainly on domestic flights it is quite common for passengers to continue to do their work. All those provisions need clarification. 
I was interested to note that the introduction of references to unruly behaviour was largely because according to the introductory note to the legislation the increasing number of threats of terrorist activity in New Zealand and worldwide has focused attention on the need to ensure that appropriate security measures are available in this country. I am very pleased to hear that. When our Prime Minister Helen Clark mentioned that New Zealand exists in a benign environment a lot of us became concerned that we might be lured into complacency. Certainly it should be acknowledged that particularly after September 11 we are faced with an increasing number of threats of terrorist activity so every measure should be taken to ensure that international passengers feel safe to fly. As the National spokesperson on tourism I certainly think that the measures introduced by this legislation are eminently sensible. New Zealand is enjoying growth in tourism and we want to ensure that every measure is taken to enhance that growth. We will support this bill going to a select committee.