McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. ACT is going to support this bill to select committee though there are a number of things that we would like the committee which I'm part of to look at based on our communications with stakeholders including Aviation New Zealand which represents the lion's share of operators. It's interesting speaking of Aviation New Zealand I know this bill has been in development for some time and a previous Minister of Transport the Hon Phil Twyford who so eloquently introduced this bill to the House today never met with them in his time as Minister. The same goes for the current Minister the Hon Michael Wood—still hasn't met with them. So when they talk about all of the consultation that's happened throughout this bill I think they probably could do a little bit better.Anyway the first issue that I wanted to raise for select committee is the bill fails to differentiate between general aviation and commercial aviation. This is a bit of a problem because it creates a blanket set of rules that are applied to both rather than taking a risk-based approach. To stop unnecessary bureaucracy you've got to make sure the regulation is proportional to risk. So that should really be looked at. It is quite a concern that we've heard from the stakeholders.The second point is that there are some concerns around the expanding enforcement capabilities. Some have suggested it may be unreasonable to expect police to know the intricacies of aviation law when there are so many variables certification and different operations going on. So without extensive training the sector is a little bit concerned about enforcement. They would appreciate some clarity. Some questions are: how can they be sure that they're familiar with the rules so that they don't shut down legitimate operations who exactly bears responsibility if they make a mistake in the process and will there be compensation? So that's the second issue I'd like to raise.The third thing and it has been canvassed by a few members of this House is around just culture. The aviation sector has been calling for a just culture provision for a while now. It exists in many departments and organisations and they believe that not having a punitive approach to health and safety is consistent with the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation of which we are a signatory. Annex 13 outlines that the only purpose of conducting an investigation is to prevent further ones. They believe that the provisions are a great tool—encourage honesty and cooperation so when something goes wrong you can genuinely improve safety. Because you don't want to foster an environment where people are afraid to speak up and not be compliant. So the sector very much wants clarification on this because the bill purports to introduce just culture but there doesn't seem to be a lot of detail.The final point is a call from the sector for an independent disputes authority. This is not necessarily a deal-breaker but rather a nice-to-have". An independent disputes authority would keep checks and balances on Government power and it would be a great help in the way of minimising wasted time and money and in any case the Director of Civil Aviation can always exercise discretion. So notwithstanding the points that I have raised ACT is keen to see this bill go to the select committee. I commend this bill to the House."