Catchpole Brent: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11818] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 It is with pleasure I stand to take a call on this bill for New Zealand First. First of all I would like to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven who has been a very good Minister to deal with on this bill. He has explained many of the concerns we had during the passage of this bill and I commend him for that. 
A large part of the bill is to do with mutual cooperation between the airlines of Australia and New Zealand. It is also to do with mutual recognition by the two countries of legislation that deals with aviation between the two countries and within both New Zealand and Australia. Both Qantas and Air New Zealand get the benefit of that when flying between and flying within the two countries. 
The bill carries on an aviation tradition that is worldwide—that is it makes the pilot in complete control and command of the aircraft. It also gives the crew the power under the command of the pilot to deal with any unruly passengers. It is the issue of unruly passengers that I particularly note. There has been a growing trend for passengers on aircraft to get out of control. It used to be known as altitude sickness or tropical sickness but it seems to be more and more prevalent. Whether it is the result of too much alcohol or some other aspect of the passengers’ health they do tend to get out of control on occasions. I think giving the crew control under the command of the pilot so that they can deal with those passengers in a firm way is sound practice. The passengers can then be dealt with very very firmly in those circumstances. There is nothing worse than being trapped in an aircraft with a passenger getting out of control and feeling a little helpless. 
But I do say that in no circumstances should any weapon of self-defence be taken on aircraft by passengers. That is the biggest concern I have—that anybody at all would have weapons on an aircraft. If such a person happens to be the one who becomes unruly then we have all sorts of major issues. It was noted in the select committee that air marshals should be trained in New Zealand to deal with unruly passengers. We should have it was suggested 100 air marshals ready to participate. Whether they actually take part is still under discussion but we should at least have them trained and ready to take part if there is any need to have air marshals on board aircraft to deal with unruly passengers and certainly any dangerous situations. 
 Another area that was highlighted during the select committee consideration was the carriage of dangerous goods on board an aircraft. There are different types of dangerous goods. Some passengers carry dangerous goods on board quite oblivious to the dangers of them. They are quite often just normal innocent-looking household products but when mixed they can have a devastating effect and a very explosive effect. So the carriage of those goods is rightly banned. The additional fines that have been put in place to penalise those people should be a wake-up call for people never to do it at all. They should learn what they can take on board an aircraft and definitely never be able to take dangerous goods on board. There is another type of passenger who flouts that restriction—what is commonly known as a dangerous-goods salesman—and carries dangerous goods on board an aircraft. He or she just flouts the airline’s conditions and prescriptions. 
Finally I would like to touch on the airlines’ liability for delays. This bill highlights the necessity to deal with airlines and make them responsible for delays. Carrying on an old tradition many airlines have been known to cancel a flight to consolidate the numbers of passengers on board. It has been a practice in the airline industry for probably as long as the airline industry has been in existence. Another practice airlines use and this is also a long-term tradition is to overbook passengers. Airlines overbook by quite a substantial percentage. They overbook by something like 20 percent of their passenger loading as they anticipate they will get a no-show rate of somewhere between 20 and 25 percent. The danger with that practice is that when all the passengers turn up the airlines have a problem trying to accommodate all of them on an aircraft. Therefore the airlines need to be responsible for any delays encountered by passengers because of overbooking. If there is any deliberate attempt to cause a delay then obviously the airline should be responsible. 
The airlines should not be responsible for delays caused by the weather. We know from the airport here in Wellington that those delays are not necessarily caused by high winds. They are often caused because there is a lack of wind; low cloud or fog rolls in from the sea and does not dissipate from the airfield and therefore the aircraft are unable to take off or land. I suppose we could call those circumstances an act of God but the situation is beyond the airlines’ control. The safety aspect is paramount. It is the pilot’s decision whether to take off or land in those circumstances and the airlines should not be held responsible for any delays. 
I conclude by saying that New Zealand First supports this bill’s third reading. We certainly agree with aspects of it. We hope the Australian bill when it is finalised meshes neatly with the bill we have. It is intended to so let us see whether the final product from the Australian Parliament is as we expect. New Zealand First supports the third reading of this bill.