Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Speaker. Like my colleagues I also rise in support of the second reading of the Civil Aviation Bill. As my colleagues have mentioned already this is a bill that seeks to modernise and consolidate a couple of pieces of existing legislation. On this side of the House we do like to support any attempt to streamline and modernise and systemise the statute book. In this instance we are consolidating the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Airport Authorities Act which is somewhat older having been passed into law in 1966.As is often the case in this Parliament when good bills progress through it was founded on the work of the former National Government. I remember working for Simon Bridges when he was the Minister of Transport and this work had begun to get under way with a very fulsome review of the aviation security environment around New Zealand. It is very pleasing to see that large parts of this bill as reported back by the select committee do focus on the security of our airports our aprons our airside areas and of course the airplanes themselves. As I've read in the legislative statement the uncertainty of the global environment and the ever-evolving nature of terrorist threats mean that our airport security systems should be keeping up with the best in the world and I think that any future evolution of legislative pieces like this should be founded on that very premise.A number of people have made note of the clauses that attribute directly to the rapidly increasing use of unmanned aircraft. I know that around Canterbury particularly there is a real prevalence in this use of aircraft not just by civilians for fun but also increasingly for commercial measures. We see regional councils using unmanned aircraft. We see our search and rescue operators using unmanned aircraft. They are increasingly in our skies and they do need to be moderated. This bill will provide the legal framework to give the Civil Aviation Authority some teeth some legal standing in terms of enforcement where people breach these very very important safety rules. We've seen a number of occasions already in Canterbury in recent years where commercial planes have been grounded because there is an unmanned aircraft or a drone flying around.We do like to support as I said legislation that is practical and has been driven as in this case by the grassroots up. It's been requested by the aviation sector for a number of years. I think it's been five years in development and I think that the quality of this bill is very reflective of that. We like to support bills that are driven by the grassroots up driven by the end-user who will actually be able to put it into practice as opposed to I think this top-down approach that we do see all too often from this Government.I understand from my colleagues who sat in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that we did have some initial concerns when the bill was first brought before the House but I am pleased to see that they have seemingly been ironed out by the select committee process. So I do congratulate the committee on the extensive work that it has carried out particularly with industry and—most importantly I think—security agencies. The changes have been not just regulatory but also with security at front of mind and I have noted the recommendation to amend particularly clause 23(d) which clarifies the security responsibilities within New Zealand airports and gives the Civil Aviation Authority oversight of the Aviation Security Service. When there have been times of threat—and I think we can all think back to the incident that occurred at the Blenheim airport a number of years ago—there must be a systemised process in place to deal with those life-threatening or even threatening events with immediacy.So all in all the National Party does support progressive positive useful bills like this and we look forward to seeing its continuation through the House.