Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. The Green Party will be supporting this bill at first reading. We will wait until the select committee to confirm our support beyond that. I acknowledge what the previous speaker Paul Eagle said about this bill taking the steps to implement CORSIA—an international agreement coming out of the Paris Agreement—which is the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. This has been a major lacuna if you will within the international agreement space that we haven't been measuring or requiring reductions from international aviation which is a significant contributor to carbon emissions and climate change. It's been lacking in previous agreements. So CORSIA is just the very first early steps on that and it's good to see it implemented.But unfortunately within this bill—and there's quite a lot the bill does I know it's been worked on for quite a number of years at this point—it doesn't go further on the different regulatory changes that we will need to support reducing emissions from air travel. So what would be really interesting I think at the select committee is to consider whether there are changes that need to be made that are within the scope of this bill. As there are new regulations on remotely piloted or autonomous aircraft what about electric and hydrogen powered aircraft? Are we ensuring that we can take up the zero emissions or very low emissions technology as quickly as possible? Because it is going to be very important in a country like New Zealand that we do have opportunities for low emissions air travel.The second point of interest for me is around the drug and alcohol management including mandatory random testing of safety-sensitive workers. I mean on the face of it that sounds very reasonable. My guess is that's already happening and certainly we saw something similar with a recommendation around the maritime sector implementing mandatory random testing of workers in the maritime sector including recreational outfits that were doing things like white-water rafting etc. Safety is very important but there is a question about whether the particular type and regime of random testing is actually getting the outcomes that we want in terms of safety. Because not all substances can be tested for. There can be unintentional consequences like encouraging people to use other recreational substances in their time off that don't show up in the drug testing even though they're objectively worse for the people. So there's some concerns we have around that.I just remember very clearly in the last term of the National Government a similar regime was proposed for the maritime sector and submitters were roundly opposed to it—not opposed to safety and not opposed to ensuring that we have a regime that successfully ensures that people are not under the influence of impairing substances while working especially if they're safety-sensitive workers but rather that the specific regime that was proposed at that time wasn't the best way. So we will see at select committee if we can support that or if improvements can be made.Another concern the Green Party has is whether there will be sufficient checks and balances on security and search powers. Then finally on the regulation of airports I think this is really really interesting and it'll be very interesting at the select committee to see what this includes because airports in New Zealand are not all publicly owned. Some are substantially privately owned and yet they are natural monopolies. They are significant trip generators. If the land around airports is used for other types of development not involving air travel it can put huge pressure on the transport system for an area. So for example if it's a commercial and retail development which has happened significantly around Auckland Airport I can understand why that's in the interest of the airport itself. But there has to be a requirement for the airports to participate in and kind of contribute their fair share to the transport infrastructure that is needed to manage the demand that's generated by that land use whether it's air travel or a commercial and retail development. Either way we should have an expectation that if an airport is privately owned operating for profit it's none the less going to be required like any other significant monopoly trip generator in the area to support public transport.I think here in Wellington we've seen the airport at every step undermining public transport access to the airport to the extent now we don't have a public transport service to the airport. They shouldn't be able to charge unreasonable fees or put the public transport out of the sight of people arriving on airplanes because they have an interest in making money off of taxi stands and parking charges. So this is a public good. I think requirement is that we should expect airports to support the transport objectives of a city and region and that they should be required to play their part in that. If they have financial interests in doing otherwise they should not be able to pursue those because that is a private benefit socialising a public cost. So they're privatising the financial benefits and socialising the cost generating more traffic causing more congestion potentially forcing central government or local government to spend huge sums of money to try and increase capacity for private vehicles so they can make more money off parking and taxi stands when what is really going to work better for the whole network is really efficient affordable reliable public transport that moves people efficiently into and out of this area.Of course there'll be a need for roading but ultimately roading is more efficient if we have a reduced need for people to all travel in single occupant vehicles. So if we have good public transport it will make the whole network work better. So I will be very interested to see whether the emission reduction units are giving sufficient ability to local and regional councils to set expectations that an airport will comply with and support the objectives of the metropolitan transport infrastructure in that area. I don't think they should be able to undermine public transport in order to make more money off parking.