Finlayson Christopher: Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6769] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 It is not good enough for us as legislators to come down to this House and give warm-feeling speeches. Our responsibility is to look at the legislation and the consequences of it. When we do that we see that this legislation is a dud. The purpose as set out in clause 4 is to: “ensure that vital aerodromes remain operational.” but it has some serious unintended consequences. I ask members to consider these hypothetical situations. 
Consider first Auckland International Airport which is just down the road from the previous speaker Mark Gosche’s address. That was privatised some years ago and it is an extremely profitable organisation. It owns a lot of land around Mangere and employs about 10000 people. It needs to provide ancillary services for those people. For example at Auckland Airport there are supermarkets and banks. Let us look at the proposed section 3AB inserted by clause 5. It provides that where any land is no longer required for use as an aerodrome the airport company must offer to sell the land to the Crown. But the term “aerodrome” is not defined in the Airport Authorities Act; it is defined in the Civil Aviation Act. Under the Airport Authorities Act an airport means: “any defined area of land or water intended or designed to be used either wholly or partly for the landing departure movement or servicing of aircraft;”. 
I ask members to now consider this hypothetical: Auckland Airport decides to sell land to a bank or a hotel so that the bank can build a branch or the hotel company can build a hotel. Neither operation will be either wholly or partly for the movement of aircraft nor can it be said that any such buildings will be used in connection with the airport or its administration. Is it intended that this land must be offered back to the Crown under the proposed provision? That land is certainly not an aerodrome yet it is very important to the efficient running of the airport operation and Mr Hughes’s bill will necessitate that it go back. [ 
Interruption 
] 
It is amazing. Labour members want answers to questions. They ask for answers to questions and in their typical trade union yobbo way they try to drown me out. Well let us look at proposed section 3AC inserted by clause 5 which provides that the Minister is able to restrict land for aerodrome purposes. Again Mr Hughes’ sloppy drafting is apparent for all to see. The heading of the section refers to aerodrome purposes although paragraph (1) refers to aviation purposes. But what are aviation purposes? They are not defined in the Act nor is any definition proposed in the bill. 
Let us take this hypothetical. Let us consider a small regional airport that has surplus land. In order to ensure the long-term viability of the airport it decides to lease the surplus land to commercial entities to try to obtain a return. Getting better use of the land in that way is critical to the viability of the airport. Is it seriously being suggested that the Minister could say that the airport could not do that? The land is not being used for aviation purposes but rather is leased to tenants who are using it for other than aviation purposes yet the effect of Mr Hughes’ bill will be that the Minister will be able to put a restriction on the title deed. Why should the Minister have the power to restrict land use in those circumstances? It is simply ridiculous and could result in an airport being closed. 
So it is not enough for Mr Hughes to stand up here and give one of his warm-feeling speeches. He has to drill down into the detail of the legislation. He has to read what has been drafted for him. Unfortunately that member—God help us if he is ever a Minister—has not addressed that. So there are wider implications of what appears to be a misguided effort by Mr Hughes to try to hold on to his 300-vote majority. His proposal will adversely impact on activities in the Kapiti region and have very serious economic consequences. That is why National is voting against this bill. When I consider this latest effort of Mr Hughes I think of the old saying: “Youth ages immaturity is outgrown ignorance can be educated drunkenness sobered but stupid lasts forever.”