Moroney Sue: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Moroney Sue: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11503] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the second reading of the Aviation Security Legislation Bill and just want to echo the words spoken by Maurice Williamson right at the end of his speech with regard to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The committee did work very well and swiftly on this legislation because this issue although it is one that none of us really wished to be debating and would rather not have to consider is an issue of our time and we had to take it seriously. It is Parliament’s role to make the sorts of decisions that other people would rather not have to make and the committee worked together to make sensible thorough rational decisions with regard to aviation security. It is the nature of the world in which we live in these days that we have to make such decisions about our aviation security. The world certainly has changed since 11 September 2001. In particular international aviation security bodies have changed their views on how we need to operate and it is in response to one of those international organisations and its requirements that we find ourselves here debating this Aviation Security Legislation Bill. 
The Labour-led Government is confident that this bill will meet the changes posed by the modern aviation security environment because those changes will allow both domestic and international travellers to travel with peace of mind knowing they will be in a safe environment. That is what the select committee was charged with. 
This bill is a key part of enhancing the safety and security of everyone who uses New Zealand’s aviation transport system. It will also ensure New Zealand’s compliance with international standards in aviation security by strengthening the legal framework for New Zealand’s aviation security system; also it will allow New Zealand to meet its international obligations as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization. 
The bill will ensure continued confidence in the security of New Zealand’s aviation services both domestically and abroad. As a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization New Zealand is obliged to comply with its security standards. Failure to do so could actually damage New Zealand’s reputation and question the integrity of its aviation security. Of course it is since September 2001 that the aviation security environment has witnessed significant changes and it has now called for measures that are able to meet the demand of sophisticated threats. 
If we did not go down this path if we did not have this bill before our Parliament then it is possible that other countries if they were unsure of our security measures could cancel flights coming from New Zealand and of course there would be an impact in terms of overseas visitors and how they felt about boarding flights to New Zealand. Different rules apply to inbound and outbound flights. We were told during the submission process that currently inbound flights would require bilateral agreement if they were to have inflight security officers on board. As we stand at present we have no ability within the New Zealand regulatory or legislative framework to enter into those bilateral agreements. The passing of this bill will enable those bilateral agreements to take place. However we were told in the submission process that the inflight security officers—I think some people have referred to them as air marshals but under this legislation the technical term used for them is “inflight security officers” or “IFSOs” as we came to know them—on outbound flights would be under the New Zealand jurisdiction. The bill also deals with the screening of staff to ensure that our security stands up to international standards on the ground as well as in the air. 
I want to talk a little on the issue that I think will most commonly affect New Zealanders who travel—or anyone travelling in fact including international travellers to this country—and it is something that I hope we will never have to deal with: the consequences of having an armed inflight security officer on board because as other speakers have mentioned although this legislation enables the Government to make the decision to include inflight security officers should the situation arise it does not automatically mandate for those officers being on our flights. I think it is important for people to really get to grips with that. It will not be a matter of course that these armed inflight security officers will be on our flights; the decision would have to be taken by Cabinet. There would have to be an Order in Council for that to occur and there would have to be specific international threats for that to become a consideration. 
However as I said for the majority of New Zealanders and for people listening to this debate that is not I hope the issue that will ever affect them. It is much more likely that the issue will be the one that we as a select committee have had to grapple with—that is how to deal with the items that have been restricted since 31 March 2007. Since that date new restrictions have been placed on what may be taken aboard planes. As I said those restrictions were tightened earlier this year when security measures affecting liquids aerosols and gels came into effect. 
One of the major submitters on this bill was an organisation called the Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand which represents the airlines operating in New Zealand. It told us that since those new restrictions had been in place roughly 2000 items per day were being confiscated. It said that this equated to 12.2 tonnes of restricted items being taken off passengers every day. It told us this because it was concerned that the bill in its original state required airports to have in place a process whereby people’s details were taken and the confiscated items noted and stored for a certain number of days so that those people could retrieve them on their return to the country or at a time suitable to them. So 12.2 tonnes per day of confiscated items was a significant issue that was put before our select committee. It demonstrated quite clearly that we would be placing a significant storage issue on airports. 
The issue was not only the storage capacity but also the labour content of that. It was estimated that to do what this bill originally asked should be done 160 person hours per day would be required at Auckland Airport alone just to administer a system to cope with the restricted items confiscated from people who had inadvertently brought them along with them. Very large storage facilities would be needed and at Auckland alone 160 person hours per day would be required to deal with the process. 
It was interesting to know that no other country actually went to those sorts of lengths. Good old New Zealand—of course it wanted to consider people’s personal and human rights so that they could regain their personal property being those restricted goods that they had inadvertently brought along with them. However it did turn out to be impractical and the select committee saw how impractical it would be. Several submissions were made around this point. We certainly took those submitters’ views on board and recommended that those items can in fact be dispensed with—that they can be destroyed. I guess the result is that although people’s personal freedoms may be limited in some way overall we felt that that was necessary in order to make this legislation workable and practicable. 
I think that was the balance that we sought to have all the way through the select committee hearing on the Aviation Security Legislation Bill. We constantly weighed up the balance between ensuring that good security systems were in place and making sure that people’s human rights were not being trampled over. I think we got that balance right. We worked hard to ensure the right balance between those two tensions and we got it right in a New Zealand context. 
I want to comment on Maurice Williamson’s observation that there are different search requirements for domestic travel depending on the size of the plane. That is certainly the case. When a person is flying on Boeing 737s and 747s his or her property goes through an X-ray machine and he or she walks through a detector so it can be checked whether anyone is carrying weapons. However when flying from Hamilton to Wellington which I regularly do we are on smaller planes and do not have such stringent regulations or search requirements. In the select committee it was explained that the issue is not whether the airplane is capable of flying overseas but the amount of fuel on board. That is what causes the risk and that is why we have those different requirements. Thank you.