Mapp Wayne: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11361] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It would be worth reminding the previous speaker that a knitting needle—a steel one certainly—is actually capable of being used effectively as a stiletto and if we make an exception for little knitting needles what else would we be making an exception for? Why would we not make an exception for nail-clipping scissors for instance? It is really one of those situations where given the potential risk— 
Stephen Franks 
: What about sharpened glasses? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The member has seen the film. It is simply not appropriate to make those kinds of exceptions when it comes to aviation safety. In the past box cutters would have been seen as being something relatively harmless. We all know the consequences of that. 
I want to talk specifically about the mutual recognition provisions because these are clearly the most important part of the legislation and they are intended to create a single aviation market. By that I mean operators in Australia notably Qantas and Virgin Blue Airlines will be able to operate in New Zealand and Air New Zealand will be able to operate in Australia. Earlier the Minister observed in a conversation that if this provision had existed back in 1998 one would imagine that Air New Zealand would not have purchased Ansett Australia. That purchase led to the various problems that resulted in the Government bail-out. So clearly this is major legislation that builds the unity of the two markets. Obviously National will support that part but my concern is this: do the mutual recognition provisions then lead to the lowering of competitive barriers to mergers? Clearly it is the preference of the Government to allow a merger—in fact it desires a merger—between Qantas and Air New Zealand because the Minister Dr Cullen was adamantly opposed to the rescue package proposed by Singapore Airlines. The Government put every blockage in place to that and that ultimately cost the taxpayer a billion dollars. The clear intention was not so much the rescue of Air New Zealand by the taxpayer as to merge Qantas and Air New Zealand and I guess the Government intends to reduce its ownership through that mechanism. 
It has never been satisfactorily explained to the House exactly why the Government places so much importance on the Qantas - Air New Zealand merger as opposed to for instance the intervention by or involvement in Singapore Airlines. I have often wondered whether the intent is to take the view that Australia and New Zealand’s aviation companies essentially have to be merged to be a global player and the involvement in Singapore Airlines would have cut right across that. The Government seems to be willing to use New Zealand taxpayers’ money to achieve that outcome. With the mutual recognition agreements reached in November 2000 one wonders whether they are part and parcel of that overall process. 
I have a specific question for the Minister—and I know he might take the view that this legislation is not directly material to this; nevertheless it is an important question. Will the Government make an undertaking that there will be no legislation to override the decision of the New Zealand Commerce Commission which at least currently prevents the merger of the two airlines? It is a very specific question and I believe the public deserves an answer. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Can I help the member? My delegation is on the safety side. Perhaps he would like to put a question down for Dr Cullen on that issue. He is the shareholding Minister. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer but it does give rise to the implication that that is exactly what is intended.