Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11449] 
Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 25 February. 
Part 2 and Schedules 2 3 and 4  
(continued) 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Members will have noted from the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill that Part 2 “Amendments to principal Act and related provisions” which is the substantive part of the bill is extremely complex. I want to point out the practice that the Government has developed of trying to force legislation through the Committee. Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” which consists of the commencement and purpose provisions only has two clauses and in Part 2 one would think on the face of it there are 35 clauses. But there are many more than that because what the Government is doing nowadays—and it is a habit it has been developing over time—is including within a part a whole series of subparts. So for instance Part 2 includes Part 1A “ANZA mutual recognition” Part 5A “Unruly passenger offences” and—oh we do have Ms Coddington here today to continue discussing the interesting point that she made last week on that—and Part 9B “Domestic carriage by air”. Each of those parts has at least 20 clauses in it. So there is the Government’s extraordinary practice of trying to truncate the debate by the way that it structures bills. I would like to have some sort of assurance from the Chair that the Opposition will have a proper opportunity to explore what is really three parts contained within one: Part 1A Part 5A and Part 9B. I want to talk to each of those issues separately because each is substantial in its own right. 
In this contribution I shall refer specifically to Part 1A which is the “ANZA Mutual Recognition Bill” or the Australia - New Zealand aviation mutual recognition provisions. Under those provisions is a goal that has been sought by successive Governments over many many years: to achieve a single trans-Tasman aviation market. I think all members would acknowledge that goal is a desirable outcome and I also note that the Prime Minister is travelling to Australia today— 
Hon David Carter 
: Another jaunt. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Another jaunt. I understand that one of the objectives of the visit is to develop or expand a common market—if one will the integration of the two economies—and I certainly see these mutual recognition provisions in the light of that. One has to ask oneself however whether the Prime Minister in her discussions with Mr Howard will be proposing a truncation and shortening of the competition provisions of the two nations so as to effectively force Air New Zealand into Qantas. We all know that that is the outcome desired by the current Government and indeed last week when members were discussing this bill the Minister said that issue had to be addressed by his colleague Dr Cullen. Opposition members took the view that that answer implied yes that is exactly what the Government’s intent is and that these provisions are intended to be essentially the cover for that. In the guise of establishing a single trans-Tasman market the Government’s real intention is to establish in essence a truncation of our competition laws so that the merger of the two companies will proceed without a proper examination. So that is the first point I raise. 
The second point I would like an answer on from the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven is this. I note from the commentary on the bill by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the single market is intended to relate to aircraft of a certain size and weight. The bill itself refers to aircraft of I think 15000 kilograms. In short it applies to major transport aircraft that would only be operated by Air New Zealand Qantas and Virgin Blue Airlines I guess as well. I am not aware of any other internal carriers that would wish to operate in both markets and that have such aircraft. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Like my colleague I think this debate needs to be fully canvassed before it is brought to a conclusion. I want to remind the Committee about the critical elements of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill. Essentially it amends the Civil Aviation Act and sets the framework that will enable the legislation among other things to enforce temporary stop notices and introduce penalties for behaviour that is unbecoming. In my last speech I spoke about the appropriateness of the fines regime that this bill calls for. In particular I spoke about the fines for individuals ranging from $2000 up to $10000 and for corporations where the fines range up to $100000. For individuals the fines regime canvasses a range of offences including smoking not wearing seatbelts when instructed to and offensive language etc. Part 5A deals with that issue. 
I may be old-fashioned but I for one think it is about time that we had the teeth to deal with that type of behaviour. Drunken behaviour on aeroplanes is a safety issue and it is something that I do not think is very becoming. Having said that I do not share the view of the ACT member who took a call and talked about shooting people between the eyes. I do not want to be associated with that type of behaviour which I think is pretty extreme. In fact I think it is very extreme because I am not sure that that member could shoot people between the eyes at 25 paces anyway without putting the whole plane down. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Try me. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I do not want to try her—that is my point. One thing I can assure the Committee about is that I will not reach for a drink when that member is on the plane with me! 
In new Part 1A that is to be inserted into the principal Act new section 11H deals with temporary stop notices and I want to talk about that issue in a little more detail. Essentially the bill empowers the New Zealand Director of Civil Aviation to issue a temporary stop notice if he or she considers that there is a serious risk to civil aviation safety. The Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven may also recall that a few years ago the Australian equivalent of the New Zealand Director of Civil Aviation grounded the entire Ansett Australia jet fleet on the basis that the company could not demonstrate that its safety record was up to scratch. As someone who flies a lot—and all members fly a lot—I would hate to think that we would get on an airline that could not readily demonstrate that its safety standards were up to date. I will not say that that action by the director of civil aviation in Australia brought the Ansett airline down but it certainly dented public confidence in it very significantly. The Ansett executives I believe thought that they would get a huge amount of public sympathy for their position because by grounding the fleet just on the Easter break large numbers of the travelling public were disadvantaged or had their travel plans disrupted. But essentially the travelling public said that no their safety was more important than the disruption to their travel. 
I believe that the essence of what the temporary stop notice provision is trying to achieve is extremely important. That type of authority does work. Of course I understand the need for profitability in any business but it is more important I say that profitability should not come at the expense of the travelling public. National strongly supports the initiative for this component of the Act. I might also have said in a previous call that I thought the contribution made by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in working together to frame this legislation was first-class. I commend its members. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I am cognisant that a number of schedules are included in this debate as well. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I had the pleasure of sitting in on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when this bill was proceeding through the committee and I was privy to the reason that we are obviously supporting this legislation: the benefits that can happen on the commercial front with mutual recognition between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in Australia and the New Zealand authorities. If we look at the changes that are likely to happen in aviation in the next decade or so in New Zealand I suspect that we will see that these provisions will be very beneficial in allowing New Zealand companies that choose to operate a domestic service in Australia to have some real benefits and to make cost savings. 
One of the things we see in the aviation industry is a move to having more niche players. We have seen that with the entry into the industry of companies like Virgin Blue Airlines and Freedom Air and it can be seen now in Australia through Jetstar. On a point-to-point basis airlines are choosing to cut out a certain segment of the industry and to make a good return on that segment without being a full-service provider. In fact if we look for a holistic sort of airline then probably the only player we can see attempting to do that in New Zealand circles nowadays is Emirates Airline which is definitely looking to take on Singapore Airlines as a full-service multinational provider. With that in mind I think it is quite possible we will see New Zealand carriers established and running services that may include a small segment within Australia or a domestic service in Australia. 
These provisions are good provisions and National supports any legislation that will reduce compliance costs and make doing business more friendly. We would like to see the Government respond with a cut in the corporate tax rate rather than the garbage we currently see coming from the Minister for Small Business which is fluffed-up. I know that Harry Duynhoven the Minister in the chair would support a lower corporate tax regime for all the companies that are likely to be in this sector. I am sure that when this amendment bill is passed he will go straight up to the office of the Minister of Finance on the seventh floor and beg a meeting with him to discuss that very point. 
Darren Hughes 
: The member has done the tour. 
JOHN KEY 
: It is lovely to have the new junior Government whip in the Committee and I congratulate him on his rapid advancement through Labour’s ranks. I hope he has as many members around him in the years to come as he has now although I am very sceptical as to whether he will have that. 
I move on to new Part 5A inserted by clause 24 in Part 2 to talk for a moment about unruly passengers. As I prepared for this wonderful address today I was looking back at my remarks some months ago about unruly passengers. We have all had our own experiences of unruly passengers— 
Hon David Carter 
: Judith Tizard has been playing up. 
JOHN KEY 
: Well we have had false accusations about members of Parliament—that they have been unruly on planes. Those accusations are not correct but we have seen unruly passengers and the kinds of situations whereby people go up to the Koru lounge get absolutely laced up and then get on an aircraft. Of course they become a real problem—certainly during international travel when the flights are long. It is a well-documented medical fact known even in the banking industry—and I come from an investment banking position in my former career; I am not a medical person—that if one consumes alcohol at 10000 or 30000 feet above sea level it is far more likely to have an impact of greater magnitude than if one were just to have a quiet glass of wine at home. It is actually no different from the effect of a spa pool which is one of the reasons that if this legislation were to propose having spa pools on a plane at 35000 feet above sea level I would be totally opposed to that—to the drinking of alcohol in a spa pool on a plane. 
I want to move on to the far more important issue of unruly passengers and I point out to the Committee— 
Hon Member 
: Good point. 
JOHN KEY 
: It is a very good point and it has not been raised before in this debate which is where I am making an extreme contribution. New clause 65A “Application of this Part” which is inserted by clause 24 sets out exactly who an unruly passenger is. Quite correctly the provision points out that the situation applies: “(a) on an aircraft in New Zealand regardless of the nationality of the aircraft:”. That is very important. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. If any of us for instance were on an airline of any nationality—whether it is Emirates Airline Singapore Airlines Cathay Pacific Airways or Qantas—and were unruly the issue is not whether we are New Zealanders but whether the plane is in New Zealand or on its way having embarked from New Zealand regardless of the nationality of the aircraft. At the select committee we took some time with the officials. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to clauses 4 and 7 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to schedule 2 and the following amendments in his name be agreed to: 
to omit from the heading to Part 1 the words “31 December 2003 or earlier and substitute the word “a”; and 
to omit from the heading to Part 2 the word “March” and substitute the word “June”. 
Amendments agreed to and schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 3 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to schedule 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and schedule 4 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is intriguing is it not that we have this rather odd situation of debating the parts and then going back to clause 1 the title? I must confess I am not sure whether that is one of the wisest of all possible amendments to the Standing Orders because generally speaking it is better to have the beginning at the beginning and the end at the end—not the other way round. Maybe that is an issue the Standing Orders Committee might revisit. 
The bill is called the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill and one of the problems with titles like that is it does not describe what is really happening in the bill. As has been indicated in the preceding debate we are really presiding over quite a major change to our legislation—in particular the establishment of the single aviation market. So I suggest to the Minister that in future rather than simply calling this bill the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill it would be more appropriate to call it the “Civil Aviation (Single Trans-Tasman Market) Amendment Bill”. 
I am not suggesting that we need to put an amendment into the bill for that purpose but it is not as if it is a minor amendment. I can understand the issues about unruly passengers and about domestic carriages in the schedules. Those sorts of things have traditionally been expected in an amendment bill of this nature. 
 The single market is really a major economic instrument and would make a major change to the economies of the two nations. We all know that the aviation sector is significant in the two economies—in the order of 2 to 3 percent of the gross domestic product of each economy—and one would think that an integration of the two markets to in essence a single market ought to be acknowledged by specific legislation and indicated in the title itself. The Minister might say that that is not strictly necessary but I remind him of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act which was drafted in such a fashion as to draw the attention of the nation specifically to the significance of the changes and submissions were sought along those lines. 
On the face of it the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill seems innocuous but it creates this major economic change. In essence there are two parts to this bill. There are clauses that we would customarily expect to see in civil aviation Acts in respect of the operation of airlines—about unruly passengers about the powers of the captain and crew about safety and so forth. 
That is not really the intent however of this bill. The bill is intended to put in place a major economic change not a safety change—and in many ways it has been dressed up through the device of amending legislation as a safety issue. Many of the provisions relate to safety rather than to the single market and I can see that Mr Peck is concerned about the balance of these things— 
Hon David Carter 
: He is certainly more concerned about the balance than he is about school closures in his own patch. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is certainly true and I would have thought that someone who is cognisant of economic impacts including those in his own community would want to see legislation named appropriately so that it draws the attention of the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens in New Zealand who want real direction from this Government. 
They want to know for instance whether this Government plans to match the living standards of Australia. What structures does it have in place to integrate the economies of the two nations to achieve that? Calling this legislation the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is not sufficient. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I want to discuss the title of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill and I want to follow on from the comments made by my esteemed colleague Dr Wayne Mapp who is quite an authority in this area. 
Hon Member 
: He’s a pilot. 
JOHN KEY 
: Yes he is a private pilot. I can publicly say on record that he is one of the few pilots in the Chamber that I would take great pleasure in flying with. Dr Mapp is an “attention to details” sort of man and I have great respect for his ability to command an aircraft. 
In relation to the title of the bill I think Dr Mapp made some quite good points. This is quite important legislation. As members will be aware it is legislation that National is supporting for the reasons I outlined in my speech regarding Part 2. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes that is right. The spa pool was a minor sort of distraction. 
I want to talk about the issue of safety. I think that the word “safety” could be included in the title of the bill because one of the things that the bill attempts to do as the public has had the opportunity to read is make quite significant changes to the demarcation of and fines for unruly passengers—defining who is unruly and under what conditions passengers would be deemed unruly—and for very good reasons. 
All of us who have been on aircraft know the danger that could be involved if an unruly passenger who was drugged up or drinking or not in full control of his or her thought processes and faculties were to somehow get command of an aircraft or interfere with its safety systems. Because safety is so heavily highlighted in this legislation I think it would serve Parliament and the people of New Zealand well for the title to be something like the “Civil Aviation Safety Amendment Bill” or the “Civil Aviation Safety Bill”. 
Secondly a very important point raised was that this legislation was negotiated over for a very long period of time between officials in New Zealand and Australia. The Minister Harry Duynhoven will know what I speak of when I say that at the very last moment it appeared as if the Australians having negotiated an issue of mutual recognition with New Zealand then seemed to be backing away from those conditions. Without wishing to take in vain the name of our good friends across the Tasman we all know that a similar sort of thing occurred with the open skies arrangement which ultimately probably led to Air New Zealand’s purchase of Ansett which ultimately led to the demise of Air New Zealand and its renationalisation. So it is quite a significant issue. 
I think the Australian officials balked at the last moment as they looked over the precipice at what could be great legislation for mutual recognition. Only through the intervention I understand of the Minister and his officials in New Zealand did the Australian officials finally see the light of day and see that they were putting the kangaroo well ahead of the kiwi which is not a position we like. The issue of mutual recognition is not flagged in the title and I think that it should be. 
Hon David Carter 
: Move an amendment. 
JOHN KEY 
: I think an amendment would make sense. The Minister may wish to take a few moments to reflect on whether the “Civil Aviation Safety and Mutual Recognition Amendment Act” is not a far more inclusive title for members of the public and of the industry. They will be quite significantly affected—I think positively—by this legislation although some members of the public may have concerns regarding safety and the fines. Some of the fines are now in the order of $10000—they are not insignificant fines. Members on this side of the Chamber argued pretty vigorously that those fines should be increased because of the risks to the travelling public of New Zealand. 
One of the things I am pretty sorry about is that there is no clause to allow random drug-testing of employees working for an airline. I would have thought that although it is largely an employment relations issue the Minister would see that it makes a lot of sense to have such a clause in the bill. Without wishing to discuss details members of the public will be aware that Air New Zealand is currently involved in a court case to be given the right to randomly drug test its employees. Internationally random drug testing has been the case and for very good reason. 
We are not suggesting that Air New Zealand has any issue it is specifically trying to deal with but we are certainly seeing—[ 
Interruption 
]. That is right. The question is whether we would want Nandor Tanczos piloting a plane. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The name of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is a little bit misleading because it is more than just a civil aviation bill—it is more about a mutual cooperation with the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority. This bill has developed over time because of the closeness of the two airline parties. Qantas has been travelling in and out of New Zealand for many years in association with Air New Zealand. For a long time the airlines code-shared aircraft across the Tasman in a mutual situation and cooperated in many other ways on international routes further afield—to the United States and to other destinations. This bill has come about by a mutual desire to cooperate. 
I have spoken to the Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven about the mutual cooperation and about a similar bill that is going through Parliament in Australia. It appears that that bill has been delayed and is a little bit behind our bill. My concern is that we may be getting ahead of ourselves in putting this bill in place. The Minister assures me that it is not the case but I would hate to see this bill get out of step with the Australian bill because we have not seen the final details of that bill. The name of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is a little bit misleading and perhaps John Key’s suggestion of the “Civil Aviation (Mutual Recognition) Bill” might have been a better title for it. So the title could be the “Mutual Recognition (Civil Aviation) Bill”. 
Then again the bill goes further than that. It deals with a lot more of the safety aspects of travelling on aircraft and therefore perhaps the “Civil Aviation (Mutual Safety and Cooperation with Australia) Bill” might be a closer match. So with the Minister assuring me that this bill is not getting out of step with the Australian one—and I hope he is keeping a very close eye on our Australian partners so that they will not do the dirty on us and pull the wool over our eyes by changing the final aspect of their bill—I summarise by saying that New Zealand First supports the bill in its current form and we hope that it stays in step with Australia and the whole idea of mutual cooperation. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I appreciate your confidence and I think it will be well rewarded in the next 4 minutes and 57 seconds. 
Darren Hughes 
: I doubt that. 
JOHN KEY 
: I see that other members in the Chamber are obviously expressing similar confidence and I will try not to disappoint in the next 4 minutes and 50 seconds. 
I want to follow on from the point I was making just a little bit earlier about the issue related to safety and mutual recognition and also the issue that within the bill there is no containment at all for drug testing and for testing of employees working in the civil aviation industry. There should be. That would be a wonderful addition to this bill and we would be able to add something to the title of this bill that would reflect it. 
As I was saying before it is quite a serious international issue. We have seen examples of pilots working for Virgin—I think that was one example internationally and we have seen others—who have been flying planes while drunk or intoxicated. They have not had 12 hours between the bottle and the throttle—or whatever the particular conditions are—and they have been in command of a 747. I think anybody who has had the opportunity to see someone who is heavily intoxicated or anyone who has been under the influence of drugs—and I know that some members of the New Zealand Parliament have had first-hand experience of that—would not necessarily want that person in command of anything and certainly not in command of a 747 where 350 passengers’ lives are in danger. However the issue goes slightly deeper and further than that. It is not only an issue for pilots or co-pilots it is an issue that might surface with for example engineers. That is a great example. There could be engineering staff who are intoxicated— 
Brent Catchpole 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like you to look back at  
Hansard  
to see whether the member speaking made a reference to members of Parliament being involved with drugs. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes he did. I thank the member for bringing that to my attention. I was just thinking about that. It was actually a personal reflection— 
JOHN KEY 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I point out that it is a well-documented fact that one of the members of Parliament Mr Nandor Tanczos— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is also a personal reflection against members of the House and that is not in keeping with the standards that one would expect in this Parliament. It is my job as the Chair to uphold the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings which have been crafted by well over 100 years of parliamentary democracy in this country. I think it would be in order if the member withdrew or desisted. 
JOHN KEY 
: I am happy to withdraw that remark. I should of course have referred by name to the specific member who has publicly said that he takes drugs. That is obviously Mr Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party who has said that for religious reasons he takes marijuana on a monthly basis. That is a well-known fact. Would we want Mr Tanczos in command of an aircraft after taking drugs? I think the answer to that question certainly in my case is no. 
I will return to the point in question which is that this issue is not related only to pilots. It can include engineers and people who are working on the commands of these aircraft. So my point is simply that the issue of drug testing is not contained within the bill— 
Larry Baldock 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member but I need some clarification from you regarding the purpose of this debate. I understood that the Standing Orders had changed and we were now dealing with the title. I have been listening for almost 4 minutes and have not heard the member suggest an alternative title or even refer to the title at all. Can you clarify that for me? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. I think that is a very good point to raise because there is some confusion amongst members given the change to the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders in relation to the title debate state that when debating the preliminary clauses at the end members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the Committee’s consideration of the bill. It is almost like a summing up or a conclusion so it has changed somewhat. 
JOHN KEY 
: I apologise to the honourable member if I was expanding my thought processes on too great a level but I was simply trying to make the point that these are very serious issues and I had hoped that he would understand the full gravity of them. If he did then drug testing could be included in this bill in an amendment and we would put it in the title. We could have a wonderful title: “Civil Aviation (Safety Mutual Recognition and Random Drug Testing in the Aviation Industry) Bill”. I accept that this title is a little longer than the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill but it would be a bill that would not only have a title that would be far easier for the public to understand but also it would serve the very purpose of Parliament which is to pass legislation that would be in the best interests of the travelling public of New Zealand and of course the industry and those people involved in it. 
National supports the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill. We would like to see a title that was a little more inclusive and reflective of the position so that the public when they go about their daily weekly or monthly flying activities—it could be holidays—could go to this legislation quickly and with ease and look up the particular fine that may be applicable to them should they be disorderly on an aircraft. It would also mean that they could travel with confidence because I think it is unlikely that when we board an aircraft in the weeks months and years ahead we will have the air hostess or purser on the aircraft say: “Ladies and gentlemen located in the seat pocket in front of you are safety instructions and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill.” 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.