Key John: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Key John: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7397] 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 National will be supporting this bill but before I touch on a few remarks about it I want to draw reference to a statement made by the Minister when he began his speech. He said he intends to move a motion at the end of this debate—assuming the legislation passes its first reading—to instruct the select committee that will review this legislation to meet on a Friday and during the sitting hours of the House. The Minister is capable of doing that but it goes outside Standing Orders 193 and 196 and National is very disappointed he has flagged this. We wish him to recognise that we do not believe that is the way things should happen. 
We will support this legislation to the select committee because it endeavours to do two very important things. The first is to improve aircraft security and safety which is something that has become far more paramount to individuals post - September 11 2001. I think most of us recognise the significance of that event and that an aircraft must be a safe and secure environment. The bill contains quite broad definitions of what is unruly but I thought I might recall for members an experience I had before the Act came into being. It involved an unruly passenger and way he was dealt with. It was a somewhat unusual technique— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Maurice Williams. 
JOHN KEY 
: Well there are few National Ministers who got into trouble with this legislation but no that is not what I was thinking about. My experience happened 21 years ago when I went overseas with my wife—my girlfriend at the time. We were going to Singapore. As it was her first time overseas she was very excited so I suggested to her that we go up to the lounge at Auckland airport and through the bar where we would get the best opportunity to view the plane—a jumbo jet. As we walked through the bar we saw a guy who happened to be a tour leader. His name was Roy. Roy surrounded by the tour party he was intending to take to Singapore was drinking heavily at this point. I said to my then-to-be wife Rona: “You wouldn’t want to be sitting on the plane next to Roy.” Well those words came back to haunt me as we were escorted to seats 56K and 56J on the jumbo jet. There was Roy in full flight. 
As the flight progressed Roy became more and more unruly and obnoxious. As the meal went through the staff came around with trays of port and cognac as they did in those days. I was sitting there saying: “No no. Don’t give him any more to drink. He can’t possibly have any more to drink.” But the gentleman next to me said: “No you’ve got completely the wrong approach. Give him as much as he can possibly take and he’ll definitely flake out between here and Singapore.” Well sure enough he drank what every member of his tour did not want—every port and every cognac on that plane. He was asleep within half an hour. That would not have been so amusing except that when we got to Singapore my last memory of Roy was seeing him being helped off the plane by the tour party he was meant to be leading. He was literally being dragged out through Customs in a semi-conscious state. Two days later we found ourselves in a Buddhist temple in Malaysia and lo and behold there was the same tour group. So I asked one of the gentlemen on the group how Roy was. Roy was still in his hotel in Singapore some 2 days later! I am not sure whether he ever went on to lead another tour but he certainly should not have. That was one way of dealing with an unruly passenger. However I suggest that the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is a much better way to do it. 
The House will be interested to note the range of offences people can be charged with if they are unruly on an aircraft. They range all the way from disruptive conduct towards a crew member to interference with the aircraft being intoxicated—as indeed Roy was before he got on the aircraft—not obeying commands by the pilot in command offensive behaviour or language behaving in a threatening or disorderly manner which sounds like Parliament operating portable electronic devices not obeying seating and seat belt instructions and smoking or carry on dangerous goods. If members refer to the legislation—and I am sure the select committee will have a look at this part of it—they may be interested to see that the different offences carry a range of different penalties. For instance non-compliance with commands by the pilot carries a fine not exceeding $3000 as indeed does stumbling on to the plane in an intoxicated condition. But offensive behaviour or language carries a fine of only $2500. Not switching off portable devices carries a fine of $2500. 
Some members of the public may ask what difference it makes if one does not obey the portable electronic devices. I simply reflect on a comment I saw—I do not know how much truth there is in it—in one of the papers that reported on the very unfortunate and tragic crash some weeks ago with the Crop and Food Research scientists on it. One of the possible reasons given was that a mobile phone may have been left on and a text message may have been sent. The coroner is looking into the full reasons for the crash but there is certainly no doubt that there is risk when those safety rules are not followed. So a whole range of potential things can take place under this legislation. 
The second thing I want to touch on for a moment is something the Minister outlined in his remarks: the ability to implement the mutual recognition of an aviation-related certificate between Australia and New Zealand. We see that as very positive although I must say that the sceptical side of me looks out at this with a degree of cynicism and hopes it will not be brought in because if the Government-backed Qantas - Air New Zealand deal goes through that will be just another thing not to have to worry about. One of the reasons we see this as being very beneficial is that clearly airline costs in this country will be reduced and if that is the case as it certainly will be—and clearly the safety standards coming out of either Australian-serviced aircraft or New Zealand - serviced aircraft is to a world-class level as indeed it is—then reducing that cost will simply mean that travel will be cheaper for trans-Tasman flights and for New Zealand carriers. That is good for New Zealand business and for New Zealand travellers. We all know that New Zealanders like to travel abroad so we see that provision as a very positive part of this legislation. We will be looking at it in the select committee but we certainly support it. 
I want to turn for a moment to one other alteration that the law will be making to the existing domestic air carrier liability. The provisions in clause 32 allow for the repeal of the current regime for mental injury in favour of the common law. There is an anomaly in the law as it currently stands whereby the liability as currently stated in the Act requires the airlines themselves to prove they are not guilty as opposed to the complainant proving the airline has done something wrong. 
One might ask what kind of situation could occur in aircraft travel where someone sustained mental injury. The very obvious example is as some members might remember—I think it was Aloha Airlines or Hawaiian Airlines—where the top of a 737 ripped out and people were sucked out of the plane eight or 10 being killed. A whole lot of people actually saw that take place. That would be a really horrific sort of event to witness—one where mental injury would definitely occur. This provision will change the legislation to give such people protection under the law and to tidy up the way it is covered. 
 We will be supporting this bill. We do not want to see New Zealand travellers suffer in any way from legislation that fails to deal with those who are unruly—the Roys of the world who make aircraft travel less pleasant for others—and we are certainly in favour of lower airfares for New Zealand travellers. We see some great strength here. We hope that in the next few moments the Minister will reconsider the position he took in respect of the select committee. He is a very understanding kind and generous Minister and I can see from the look in his eyes now that he probably will change his mind—[ 
Interruption 
] I hope I do not have a privileges claim taken against me! 
We will be supporting this bill to the select committee. 
Debate interrupted.