Bennett David: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett David: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11509] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 This is very simple legislation for us in this Parliament as there was pretty much unity amongst all the parties on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The only real debate I think has come from the Green Party outside of the select committee through its desire to see the inflight security officers unarmed in that it believes armed inflight security officers would provide a greater risk to flights and travellers. 
I think we need to take a step back and look at the reason we have this legislation. International pressure has been on New Zealand like all other countries to commit to a regime that is unified around the world. We all enjoy the beauty of travelling on planes and we all take advantage of the quick and easy way we can travel domestically and around the world. But in taking advantage of that asset of travel we also have to look at our commitments as international travellers and as a country that provides a destination for a lot of travellers and also has an international airline. Those three factors really led us to the result that we have in this legislation. 
It is not really debatable when the rest of the world is in a situation of such conflict and there is such danger out there as shown by the September 11 attacks that there would be a reaction amongst major airlines Governments and travellers. New Zealand is probably one of the last countries to take the formal steps in this process. Many of the major travelling partners of our airline for our tourist sources took these steps a number of years ago. It was something that we had to take on board; there was not much choice about it. So it really then was a matter for the select committee to determine how far and how we actually do it. I think the select committee came to a pretty reasonable approach in this case. We all understand the certain cultural concerns that ethnic minority groups may have and they were taken into account by the select committee. That will be an ongoing process of education for those involved in the process of policing this legislation. 
Also taken into account was the reality that New Zealand has not really faced any threats in this regard so it was left to the Cabinet really to have that option of regulation-making power should—or more likely if—it is ever required. That probably is the right approach. It is not much use us going overboard in trying to make too many rules and regulations. We have to give the Government of the day some discretion in this matter because it is an international security issue and we all need to have a fully functional flexible and very proactive response if it is ever required. 
I think the question is mainly one of “if” it is ever required because if one looks at the nature of the issue we are trying to solve one sees that it is terrorism on a world scale. The terrorists have tried this avenue in the past and they were successful. But they do not seem to have the networks to try it again or they may be working on other means of engaging in the activity that they want. This legislation may not cover any other activities that terrorists decide would be appropriate for them to fly their flag on the world stage. 
We must be vigilant I think domestically as well and look at the ways in which terrorism could change from the models that we have seen used overseas to models that may be more effective for terrorists in the future. These people do not have a lot of resources. They are really trying to make the best of the limited ability they have to get their issue across so they will look at all other avenues other than the ones that they have tried in the past. So we need a bit of flexibility in our regime of security because the terrorists will look at other avenues in the future. The ways that they have applied their terrorist activities in the past may not be the ways of the future. So although this legislation is a step in the right direction in the sense that it is following international practice we do not know quite what the challenges will be in the future. There may be further steps that we have to undertake in our biosecurity and airline industries to meet those challenges because it is an unknown how terrorism will continue and it is unknown how we will have to retaliate or basically protect our own interests. 
Looking at the legislation I say that there were a number of things we saw that had to be changed as we went through the select committee process. I think the officials did a good job in bringing those issues to our attention. The parties were very general and considerate of those issues and they tried to find solutions that met everyone’s needs and also gave us pretty robust legislation that will take us forward as a country give us some security in travel and also give our airline—Air New Zealand—some security. 
This is not just an issue about travel or New Zealand; there is an economic issue to be considered as well. If Air New Zealand does not have a level playing field and cannot provide the security that other major airlines can provide then that puts it in a very precarious position. It was something that we were very conscious of in the select committee. We needed to give Air New Zealand the full ambit of being able to compete as an international airline. In order to compete Air New Zealand needs to be able to say that it has a safe and secure home base so travellers know they can come to New Zealand with that sense of security. It also means when dealing with other countries that have certain requirements in regard to security that we can match those security requirements so those countries feel we are pulling our weight in the sense that there is security on the airlines and in the airline industry. 
In essence this legislation was something that I think we often see in this Parliament. The circumstances demanded certain action and it was not really a political decision as such. This was something that was based on the fact that we had to deal with this issue. There was international pressure on us to do so and I think it was a wake-up call for New Zealand to have this legislation go through. It brought our attention to the fact that we had some major issues on the world stage that we had to deal with as well. 
One of the issues that the Labour Government was pretty staunch on and that we had to fight very hard to get changed was the Government’s tendency to build up compliance costs through this legislation. National actually managed to get the change so that all restricted items did not have to be written down and held in vaults for the next 30 years. It was only because the National Party stood up for some sensible common sense that the Labour Party woke up and worked out that it had legislation that was too restrictive and that created excessive compliance costs for the industry and also for the punters who would be using the aviation industry. 
 As many people travel these days I guess everyone is going to get used to the concept of seeing little plastic bags in which people have to put their products and also that there are certain limitations on the size of what they can take—as some people might be aware of. The world is changing and part of that change is in the way we travel. It is something that as a travelling country we have to become aware of and very much conscious of. I believe that in time we will see those kinds of restrictions extended to the domestic fleet. Although it is a question of how much fuel planes can carry as to their effectiveness as a sort of mobile bomb there is also the issue that people may want to use an attack on domestic air travel or planes as a symbol of their ability to attack inside another country. That symbolism is something that we may have to look at in the future as terrorists look at other ways of getting their message across. It is something we need to be very vigilant about as a country. 
This legislation is something where New Zealand had to meet its commitments with the international community—we have done that. We have put out legislation that should achieve the goals that we wanted and that we have set for ourselves. In the end it is legislation that I believe will achieve those goals in the meantime. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Bill read a second time.