Donnelly Brian: Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Donnelly Brian: Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:642;Page:11960] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a bit unfortunate that the New Zealand First spokesperson on transport and aviation Peter Brown is unable to speak on this legislation because assuredly he knows what he is talking about in this particular field— 
David Bennett 
: He’s a mariner! How would a mariner know about aviation? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: He has also been a politician since 1996 which the member has not been and therefore he has been able to explore these issues somewhat more fully than the member over there whom I am hearing from. 
Jill Pettis 
: He won’t last as long as that member has. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: No the member will not last as long as Peter Brown. Maybe we could have a little chat about policemen in St Petersburg but no we will not go there. 
I want to refer to three anecdotes. The first one is that when the September 11 attacks took place I happened to be at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Canberra with Arthur Anae and Georgina Beyer. The events of September 11 occurred overnight there and the changes that occurred to the security at the Australian Parliament overnight were amazing. Unbelievable things occurred in the fewer than 12 hours from the time that it occurred to the time that we re-entered the building for the conference. For example a whole pile of X-ray machines and a whole pile of other things were brought in. We in this Parliament will remember that one could not get a vehicle on to the property here without having it looked at underneath with mirrors etc. Obviously we have to respond to circumstances in a variety of different ways and these circumstances have changed. 
The second anecdote that I really want to talk about goes back to my teenage years. At that time a horrific murder took place. A guy who was trying to knock off his wife put his luggage on a plane—I think it was in Canada—then did not get on himself. The luggage was of course a bomb the whole plane exploded and 50 people were killed. Nowadays we just take it as read that if a passenger does not get on a plane the passenger’s luggage comes off. At times that is an inconvenience. One might be sitting on the tarmac while a search is being carried out for the luggage yet we accept that even though it could be said to be an infringement of our personal rights for the plane not to take off when it is supposed to take off. But personally I do not want the plane to take off if it has a bomb in the cargo hold. Therefore once again we have to make changes in changing circumstances. 
The third anecdote relates a little bit to the chainsaw story we heard from the previous speaker David Bennett. We came back to New Zealand from a Pacific Island and we had to come back via Brisbane. At that Pacific Island a member who happens to be still a member of this House had been staying in a five-star hotel with Little Lord Fauntleroy in a world heritage site while the rest of us were having to slog it out and do our tasks in one of the less savoury parts of the world. But when he was on this outer island this particular MP was given four big talking sticks which are huge things that one could take out a legion of men with. What does the MP do? He takes them on to the plane with him. It was an island service and the staff said: “OK you can do that.” But when we got to Brisbane and went through the security there the security guy said that the MP would not be able to take the talking sticks into the cabin with him. 
The next thing we see is the MP going up the escalator with the four sticks in his hand and the security guard asking where the hell the guy got to. So even when he was told he was not able to take the sticks he still wanted to take them—something pretty akin to a chainsaw—on to the plane with him. Fortunately airline staff trapped him up at the counter took the sticks off him and put them in the hold. I will not mention any names but I have to say that the MP concerned does not happen to be in the House at the moment. 
Those anecdotes demonstrate the need to make sure that the legislation ensures we are safe in a variety of different ways. Members may remember that it was box cutters that the guys took on board on September 11—harmless box cutters. We can go to the $2 shop and buy five of those things for $2. That is what they took on board and murdered their victims with. Members can just imagine what those men could have done with those big talking sticks and they can certainly imagine what they could have done with a chainsaw. 
I think the previous Labour speaker Mark Gosche actually got it right. We have to balance the need for people to travel safely around the world with the need for freedoms. As time goes on with experience changed circumstances a changed world and everything else we have to continue to balance those freedoms up against each other. As Mark Gosche has pointed out this is enabling legislation in some areas; it does not actually say: “Yes we’re going to allow security guards to have weapons on planes.” If that were the case the guy with the talking sticks could have been in serious trouble. It will be only if lots of people with those big talking sticks get on to planes that the legislation will be sparked through Orders in Council. 
Obviously New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation; we think it is sensible legislation. We think based on the reports that I have got back that the select committee worked very responsibly on the legislation to make sure that any of the wrinkles that may have occurred were ironed out. We believe that this legislation deserves the full support of the House.