Beaumont Carol: Civil Aviation (Cape Town Convention and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Beaumont Carol: Civil Aviation (Cape Town Convention and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12016. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I too rise to discuss the Civil Aviation (Cape Town Convention and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I too am a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and have been briefed on this convention. Labour supports this bill as others have said. It is uncontroversial. It has a couple of purposes one of which is to amend the domestic legislation including both the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 so that New Zealand can become a party to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment which Mr Peachey just described to us. I will not go into a lot of detail about that but I will reinforce the key points. This convention will standardise transactions involving movable property particularly aircraft and aircraft engines and will set down international standards for the registration of ownership. The second part which I will come back to clarifies some rather convoluted legalese in the Civil Aviation Act relating to the making of rules and who can apply them. 
The Cape Town Convention and its associated Aircraft Protocol were originally negotiated under the auspices of a United Nations agency. I concur with the comments made by my colleague Darien Fenton about the importance of international conventions and of New Zealand playing a lead role in them and making sure that we are at the forefront of compliance with international best practice in every regard including in employment-related matters and transport-related matters which we are currently discussing. Essentially this convention aims to establish a balance between enhancing creditor rights which will as Mr Peachey said help to reduce aircraft financing costs while also improving debtor protections. It is designed to be flexible and it can be applied to any type of high-value mobile equipment. 
The Aircraft Protocol that I mentioned earlier the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment applies to aircraft airframes aircraft engines and helicopters above a minimum size or threshold. I thought that the House might be interested in getting a little more detail on that because it is fascinating. Let me tell members that it applies to aircraft that can carry at least eight people or 2750 kilograms of cargo aircraft engines with a thrust exceeding 1750 pounds of force or 550 horsepower and helicopters that can carry five or more passengers. 
As the name of the treaty probably gives away the treaty resulted from a diplomatic conference held in Cape Town South Africa in 2001. I am sure that members really want to know about the mechanics of the convention! The mechanics of the convention centre on the recognition of international interests in mobile equipment and the creation of an international registry in which creditors will file these interests. As has already been mentioned that registry will be maintained in Ireland. The international interests are secured interests in a uniquely identifiable object. Once those international interests have been filed by a creditor they become searchable in the international registry held in Ireland. The creditor’s interest will have priority over all subsequent registered interests and unregistered interests. The underlying premise is simple: if we can reduce some of the risk to financiers in extending credit we can reduce the financing costs for the debtor and to the industry as a whole. 
Currently the problem is that financiers have to rely on differing national laws to protect their interests. Clearly those laws would be quite variable around the globe. In many countries the risk factors are significant because the local laws are not very useful in protecting lenders in the event of default or bankruptcy or because they are highly unpredictable. Of course as we would expect with regard to aircraft this uncertainty is compounded by the fact that aircraft can move readily between countries. It can be very difficult for a financier to know where an aircraft will be on the date of default or bankruptcy. That uncertainty drives up the cost of aircraft financing which is then reflected in the interest rates that the financier charges the debtor. As I have said the convention will reduce that uncertainty and will provide financiers with a number of key rights in respect of any aircraft. Those rights are should there be a default to deregister the aircraft and procure its export to take possession or control of the aircraft to sell or grant a lease for the aircraft and to collect or receive income or profits arising from the management or use of the aircraft. 
The extent to which the rights that I have just outlined will be a function of the declaration that we in New Zealand make will be seen at the time that we formally ratify this convention. Obviously the international registry based in Ireland as we can expect in the modern age will be able to be directly accessed by computer from anywhere in the world. That will be very useful. 
I will go on to talk about a couple of other matters. The first of these concerns the flexibility of civil aviation rule-making which is the other major part of this bill. The present provisions relating to the making of ordinary rules are not very straightforwardly expressed. The bill specifies that an ordinary rule allows a matter to be determined by the authority the director or other persons. It empowers the authority the director or any other person to impose requirements or conditions. There are consultation requirements there which I am very pleased to see; I am a great believer in consultation. During my short time in Parliament so far I have been disappointed by a number of the consultation provisions that we have seen and particularly the consultation regarding the Auckland super-city. That has been a sham. The legislation that has reduced local democracy and corporatised local government in Auckland has been rammed through by the Government with a mere nod in the general direction of consultation. So I can only hope that in relation to the important matter of the civil aviation rules the consultation requirement will be more robust. 
The second issue that I will also talk to members about relates to helicopters because helicopters are covered by this convention. Those that are certified to transport at least five persons including the crew are included in the Cape Town Convention. A situation has arisen in New Zealand regarding helicopters and it is important to talk about it. A requirement by the Civil Aviation Authority is causing some concern in relation to the work of rescue helicopters. They now apparently have to be twin engined because we cannot afford to take the risk of a machine crashing into a hospital. I note that no rescue helicopter has yet crashed into a hospital in New Zealand. But just to be certain that it will not happen that requirement is apparently now being put in place. The effect of that requirement can be quite troublesome for all of the fine people involved in operating rescue helicopters in New Zealand—something that we are all proud of and reliant upon. 
The upshot is that in quite a few instances single-engine machines now have to operate away from their dedicated helipads. That will require patients to be potentially carried by stretchers for example or ferried by an ambulance at a critical time. We all know about the golden hour—I hope we all do. I hope we have all had our first-aid training and that we understand the importance of the first critical hour after an accident and the need to get medical attention. Any barriers to helicopters getting patients to hospitals are very worrying given that golden hour which is essential in saving the lives of critically injured people. So we are concerned about the directive relating to helicopters helipads and hospitals. We do not think that it is a necessary requirement in terms of safety. We are certainly worried about the implications for a patient’s health. There are of course also implications for all of the good people who raise funds from the community to get the machines that the rescue trusts operate which are so important to us in a country that is not highly populated and where people can be a long way from the nearest hospital. So we question why the Minister Steven Joyce or his Associate Minister Nathan Guy did not step in to show some leadership over this issue of helicopters. These are our rescue helicopters as I have been saying. Perhaps somebody would like to deal with that question in the course of this debate. 
I will leave the bill at this point for now. I do have a couple more speeches members will be pleased to know to give on this matter.