Coddington Deborah: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16896] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 ACT is opposed to this legislation. It is a typical example of how misleading this Government has been. When this legislation was being drawn up we were led to believe—which is why we agreed to support its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—that this amendment to the Civil Aviation Act was concerned only with coordinating search and rescue because of the debacle that occurred down south when people drowned because of the mishandling of the search and rescue operation. But this legislation is a stalking horse for bringing the new filter of sustainability into legislation.  
People out there should ask themselves whether their choice of airline is based on its safety record or its environmental sustainability record. Most people choose on price and safety. That is one of the main reasons why airlines are so vigilant about their safety record. They know that as soon as one of their planes goes down their revenue plummets as well.  
However under this legislation we have downgraded safety to the same level as sustainability. An airline that puts safety first is the one that people choose not an airline or helicopter line that puts the environment first. Under this legislation we will not be able to have it both ways. Safety in the air will no longer be paramount. This legislation uses the vocabulary that came into the New Zealand Transport Strategy. In the Civil Aviation Act the words “maintain aviation safety” have been replaced with “assist aviation safety”.  
I draw members’ attention to clause 7 which deals with the matters to be taken into account by the Minister when he or she is making rules. One of the first matters is the need to assist aviation safety and security. However when we look at paragraph (f)(iv) of section 33(2) of the principal Act we see that the proposed rule must ensure environmental sustainability. “Ensure” is a much stronger word than “assist”. If one ensures something one must make sure it happens. If one assists one just gives it a bit of a shove along or tries to help it to happen. I still believe that it is not too late to change this wording. We tried to get it changed at the select committee. It is vitally important for air safety in this country and for the peace of mind of passengers and not just for big airlines. In fact the Government’s own airline Air New Zealand said in its submission that despite the new legislation that came in which it opposed it would not reduce its focus on operational safety as a result of the proposed law change. 
So the airline that is owned by the Government does not agree with what is happening in this legislation but is nevertheless going its own way and ensuring that people who travel on the airline are safe.  
We will be introducing an amendment to clause 7 to have paragraph (e) of section 33(2) changed to “the need to ensure aviation safety or maintain aviation safety and security including (but not limited to) personal security”. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard from helicopter operators that that provision in clause 7 puts them in an untenable position. They pointed out to us that they have to ensure aviation safety—it is part of their job to do so. They would not be licensed or in the air if they did not do it. They have to ensure it. To downgrade it to “assist” is I believe a total insult to human beings whose lives are being put in a lesser grade than the importance of the environment.  
The other issue that the submitters brought up is that they are concerned with the environment. They were at pains to tell the committee that they do take environmental sustainability into account in all of their operations. If we look at the history of air transport in this country over the past several decades it is plain to everyone that air transport has become more and more environmentally friendly as the years have gone by. This is as a result of trying to force this Government’s one-size-fits-all philosophy on to all areas of the transport sector.  
The environmental sustainability filter came in because of the Greens. The Greens had a major role in writing the New Zealand Transport Strategy. It came in because of their antipathy to road transport; especially to trucks but also to motorways and cars. We cannot put the same standards for environmental sustainability that we have on road transport—on trucks and cars—on to air transport as well. It just does not fit because the standards for air safety are much higher. We require them to be much higher. I believe that dumbing this down and downgrading it is a huge mistake.  
What is sustainability? What does the word “sustainability” mean to helicopter pilots? Usually they are owner-operators. One thing they know for sure is that the future sustainability of their business depends entirely on their safety record. Who climbs into a helicopter after having done an eco-check on the machine and the fuel it uses? I doubt whether anyone does that. What people do before they climb into a helicopter if they are really nervous is make a check that that company’s crafts do not regularly plunge from the sky. That is what people are concerned about. They are far more concerned about safety and personal security than sustainability.  
If the Government wanted to promote sustainable yield it might be a totally different kettle of fish. But that is not what sustainability is defined as. In fact nobody can define sustainability. It is as the member said before a nebulous term. If it is to be codified in legislation like this we should at least have a definition of it just as we had a definition before of “safety at a reasonable cost”. There was absolutely nothing wrong with that. There was no argument over “safety at a reasonable cost” but we have biffed that out and brought in legislation that calls for ensuring environmental sustainability and assisting aviation safety.  
I think that this wording should be changed. It is some of the most important wording in this legislation and it is not too late for the Minister to agree to change it or to at least take a call and explain to people in New Zealand why he thinks that safety is not as important as environmental sustainability. It is not just semantics that we are dealing with here. I do not want a lesson on semantics regarding the difference between “assist” and “ensure”. I want the Minister to take a call and explain why his Government believes that environmental sustainability should be ensured but that aviation safety should only be assisted.