Fenton Darien: Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Fenton Darien: Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:642;Page:11966] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the third readings of the Aviation Crimes Amendment Billand the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) and would like to get back to the substance of the bills having just heard some very entertaining speeches tonight in the House. 
These bills are serious and they include many issues of importance to our ability as a nation to respond to the ever-moving world of aviation security—particularly where there is a deteriorating situation as we have seen in recent months in Heathrow. Unfortunately the reality is that the world is not what it used to be—or at least how it seemed to be because by and large I think New Zealand has been protected from some of the threats and atrocities that other countries have faced for decades. Anyone who has lived in London in recent years will have been very conscious of the constant threat of bombings and conscious of the stories of those Londoners who lived through the IRA bomb blasts of the 1980s and 1990s and the more recent bombings of the 21st century. 
I was in Lockerbie—on one of my numerous OE travels—just before the awful bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 where it was blown to bits at 31000 feet and 270 people were killed. The hotel I was staying in just a month before became a huge crater in the ground and one can only imagine the horror of seeing the victims of that awful flight and of seeing the debris scattered over an area of 845 square miles in that picturesque little Scottish town. Although there have been hijackings bombings and kidnappings for decades there is no doubt that 9/11 and subsequent events have brought these things more into focus in our country. 
The first signs of that increased focus for the New Zealand people were the introduction of security screening on outbound domestic aircraft. Mountains of scissors pocket-knives bottle openers and other sharp objects were taken from passengers and we had to get used to the idea that these were all considered potential weapons. Then we got on to flights to the USA where we had to remove our shoes and go through an extra security check. More lately we have had to put our liquids and gels into clear plastic bags or have them taken from us. I understand why people feel like this is a restriction on our freedom—and it is. But New Zealanders like to travel to countries that are far less safe than ours and inbound visitors on overseas aircraft are critical to our thriving tourism industry. This means that we must accept some changes that may make us feel uncomfortable—particularly the idea of gun-carrying security officers on aircraft. Unfortunately in today’s much more globalised environment it seems necessary. 
These bills provide that should the need ever arise—and we hope it will not—armed inflight security officers will not be allowed to enter New Zealand on foreign flights without a full Cabinet approval process. Government policy in regard to inflight security officers is that they should not be deployed on New Zealand aircraft and reliance on ground-based security measures should be given more emphasis. The bills reflect this with a requirement that inflight security officers on New Zealand flights cannot happen without full Cabinet sign-off. That is as it should be. 
Other speakers in this debate in the second reading and in the Committee stage mentioned that the Air Line Pilots’ Association came along to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of which I was a member and made a very compelling submission about inflight security officers. Like most of us the association is not that keen on the idea. It fully supports the current Government’s policy—that inflight security officers will not be deployed on New Zealand aircraft and that we should do everything possible to ensure security on the ground. However the association told us that should things change in the future in regard to international civil aviation requirements then pilots need to be assured of the appropriate training of inflight security officers—particularly as pilots are ultimately responsible for deciding whether a plane is safe to fly. One way to do this is for the Air Line Pilots’ Association to be consulted on inflight security officer training and this is included in the amended legislation. 
Another major change that other speakers have mentioned is in regard to the seizure and storage of prohibited items. We heard from submitters about the sheer volume of these collections including the mountainous bins that had to be stored somewhere on airport premises. This along with the requirement in the original legislation for airlines to provide for the recording storage and return of seized items to passengers was considered by the select committee not to be practical or reasonable and therefore the requirement to do that has been changed. I believe that most passengers now know that their Swiss Army knife cannot be taken on board an aircraft in their hand luggage and it is just tough that it has been confiscated. The difficulty arises when new laws or new rules are introduced such as the recent one around gels liquids and aerosols. It takes a little while for passengers to get used to this although it has been pleasing to see the proactive role played by airport staff in ensuring that passengers understand the requirements and are provided with a plastic bag prior to check-in. I congratulate those staff at airports because I think they have done a very good job. 
Another concern that has been raised and dealt with was whether the use of new imaging technology which can produce a naked image—such as the body-scanning technology being used in Holland—could be used under the provisions of the bill. There was quite a lot of media controversy about this. Again I am pleased the House has adopted the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper ensuring that this cannot occur. 
One issue in the bill that has not received so much attention was around background checks and the inclusion of an explicit power for the Director of Civil Aviation to require security checks for certain persons including staff who require an airport identity card. Apparently this already occurs so the legislation formalises an existing administrative process. The director’s powers are quite wide in that he can seek both unclassified information from a range of sources—for example courts and the police—and a recommendation from the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. I am always very wary of these kinds of intrusions into workers’ backgrounds and their rights in the process. So I was very pleased with the proactive approach in including a natural justice process which must be followed if a security check reveals information that could lead to the check being declined. 
 I believe the legislation has been enhanced by the select committee’s recommendation that where an application for a security check is declined on the basis of both classified and unclassified information the Director of Civil Aviation must advise an applicant of the fact that two sources of information have been relied on in declining the check. Similarly I was cautious about the powers of aviation security officers to screen and search airport workers. Although such searches can be conducted only by consent if the person refuses consent aviation security officers have new powers to deny the person access to the area to remove the person items or vehicles or to detain that person. If that person is detained he or she must be delivered to the police as soon as possible. 
On the surface these seem like quite Draconian powers but just as we have had to accept changes to security measures for passengers in the current climate in order to meet international obligations it appears we have to accept these powers. I hope that airport workers will be well briefed about their rights and responsibilities in these matters and it is incumbent on airport companies and aviation security to ensure this is done. I look forward to seeing the training programmes that will be implemented to make sure that these workers are protected in terms of their rights. 
I believe the select committee took its responsibilities very seriously and I want to thank the members of that committee; I think the House has responded accordingly. Again there are issues in this bill that none of us feel particularly comfortable with but I believe we have to live with them. It is good to be part of a very constructive approach to getting the best out of what is somewhat unpalatable but very necessary legislation.