Duynhoven Harry: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11202] 
When we talk about aviation as the means by which we transport goods and people into and out of New Zealand it is very important to say that we must align ourselves with the other regimes that protect people and property and make for safe passage. It is interesting to see in the commentary on the bill that it has really been Australia that has not supported the intentions that New Zealand has had for some time. We have asked why it should be when we have New Zealand engineers pilots and flight crew flying Australian aircraft in New Zealand—as in the case of Qantas—that the same regime should not operate in Australia as operates here. Given the close proximity that we have with Australia and given Closer Economic Relations and the other trade agreements associated with Australia there should be one set of rules for civil aviation to affect the way that Australians and New Zealanders do business. It is important to carry that through in civil aviation so when we debate this bill further after this reading we hope that will be allowed to happen. 
I want to refer to the commentary on the bill which under the heading “Introduction” states: “The bill aims to remove regulatory barriers to airlines operating under the air services arrangements with Australia by allowing progressive implementation of mutual recognition of aviation certification. This principle will initially be limited to air transport operations using aircraft of a certain seating capacity or weight.” We need to look at that because this legislation does not apply to all aircraft. A footnote to the commentary states: “For passenger operations a capacity of more than 30 passenger seats or a maximum certificated take-off weight of more than 15000kg and for cargo operations a maximum certificated take-off weight of more than 15000kg or a maximum payload capacity of more than 3410kg.” So the principle is actually limited to aircraft that fall into that category and they are the bigger planes as one would expect. It is important that we be part of that. 
The bill does focus on two issues—it is a twofold bill. This first issue is to improve aviation safety by providing enhanced measures to deal with unruly passengers. I am sure that many of us have travelled on aircraft and we have wondered how people can react in the way that they do—the language they use and their behaviour. One often finds that the people concerned have had too much alcohol and once they have had too much alcohol the abuse can become quite strident. I was on a flight that went from London through to Hong Kong with a stop-over in New Delhi. I can tell members that the stop-over there relieved a lot of the pressure and the tension at the time. A number of young men on the flight had had far too much to drink and they were an embarrassment not only to others but to themselves as it turned out and their language was absolutely atrocious. The airline staff could do absolutely nothing other than to deny them more alcohol. Such behaviour makes for a very uncomfortable journey when one is in the air for such a length of time. I cannot remember the exact length of time—it might have been 10 or 12 hours—but that certainly was not a flight that I would have wanted to go through again. We know that there are problems with the behaviour of some passengers. Even on smaller flights where we take it that it may be the first time that some people have ever been on a flight some passengers do not take other people’s reactions and safety into account and they think that it is the best thing that can happen to them. 
The second part of this bill clarifies what constitutes dangerous goods and stipulates the level of fines for breaches of those provisions. As was mentioned by the Hon Maurice Williamson earlier on compounds in fertiliser could actually bring a plane down. I know that if we were to mix hydraulic oil with the fuel in cigarette lighters—I am not a cigarette smoker but— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: It is called butane. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Mr Duynhoven knows all about this. I am not a chemist either so members may want to correct me if am wrong but I understand that if we were to mix the components of cigarette lighter fuel with hydraulic fluids then we would have combustion and it could bring down a plane. It is not only an issue of being able to bring a potential bomb onto the plane. Those sorts of things could be in one’s luggage so an important part of the process is to be able to identify them. If members have been overseas in recent times they will know about the scrutiny that the airlines demand especially if people are flying to the United States where officials are scanning and looking for dangerous goods. Any baggage on any flight going into the United States—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am in the middle of a very important debate and I am having difficulty in hearing myself think. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Would members please quieten down? 
Simon Power 
: I offer my colleague my apologies. I was dealing with some procedural matters and I yield to him to finish his contribution. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It was such a great speech that I was having difficulty in hearing myself think. But this is a serious matter to debate because the bill refers to endangering people’s lives and property. The point that I am making here is that one’s baggage could actually bring down one of the planes that I mentioned earlier—planes weighing over 15000 kilograms—just by having those fluids in one’s possession. Even if those two fluids are in one’s luggage in the hold of the plane and not taken it on in person if the two fluids were to mix when a plane is up in the air I understand there could be quite an explosion. Mr Duynhoven shakes his head but I think I am actually right— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: It would be difficult to do. One would have to be on the wing. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: One never knows with regard to those things. Regardless of whether I am right or wrong it could happen. This bill changes that and it is now an offence to bring dangerous goods on to an aircraft. That is mentioned in the commentary. That is a very important part of the process. 
If members look at other clauses in the bill in relation to actions endangering the safety of aircraft they will see that the fines are to be increased from $5000 to $10000. It is important that we make sure that the punishment fits the crime. In that case it is a financial figure. If we look at offensive language and behaviour we see that the increases in the level of the fines are important. Another important issue is referred to on page 6 of the commentary of the bill: the ability of aircrew to restrain unruly passengers. I understand that when planes are outside New Zealand airspace the crew has not had the opportunity to be able to restrain people. Given the problems that aviation has had with regard to 9/11 and other terrorist activities around the world the focus must be on the safety of passengers and aircraft. So the clause in relation to restraining unruly passengers is important. 
National will support this bill. It is an important bill and we want to see it pass through the House.