Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11352] 
Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The commencement and purpose clauses of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill are fairly good indications of what is contained in the legislation. By that I mean that the purpose clause itself sets out firstly that the purpose of the bill is to implement the mutual recognition agreements which we on this side of the Chamber will be exploring in some detail during the course of the Committee stage. 
Secondly the purpose of the bill is to deal with certain types of unruly behaviour that may occur on an aircraft by providing penalties for that behaviour. Members will be aware that when the House considered this matter during the second reading I raised a number of concerns about the way in which that portion of the bill was drafted in respect of unruly behaviour and whether an adult having control over a minor was to be included in that legislation and in those offences. We will certainly be asking the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven to take a call and answer some questions on the nature of the care and protection of a child whether well-behaved or unruly who is the charge of an unruly adult. 
Thirdly the bill provides for “civil liability for delay suffered by passengers during domestic carriage”. My understanding of this particular portion of the bill is that currently there is provision for civil liability to be incurred by an airline in respect of delays and resultant economic loss—loss of opportunity one presumes and the like. However what this particular provision in the bill does is codify in a clear and substantial way the manner in which those particular charges and liabilities are to be dealt with and in fact—if memory serves and the Minister may want to correct me if I am wrong on this—the remedies that flow from those liabilities being enforced against a domestic airline carrier. 
I believe that the provisions contained in Part 2—without wanting to pre-empt the debate on that particular part which we will get to shortly—provide a large and wide-ranging scope of subjects given the nature of those three areas that I have just outlined. 
As we turn our minds and our thoughts for one moment to the commencement date one presumes that the Minister has a grand scheme in place. It is a pretty confusing commencement date because on the one hand—and I know that my colleague Brian Connell the MP for Rakaia is very keen to explore this particular point in a little more detail—we have sections 4(1) 5 6(1) and 7 etc. coming into force on 31 December 2003 or an earlier date as appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. So some sections come into force on that date. I see my honourable colleague nodding frantically because of course his knowledge in these areas far surpasses mine. That chunk is to come into force on 31 December 2003—well that will not happen. Presumably those particular sections will come into force on the date appointed by the Governor-General. The rest of the Act comes into force on 1 March. 
John Carter 
: That’s not that far away. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well it is not that far away as the senior whip quite rightly points out in my ear. We know that there are only 28 days in this month— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: There are 29 actually. 
SIMON POWER 
: My 5 years in this Parliament have been a blur. One would presume that the Minister has a grand plan for 1 March. This legislation will have to be moved very promptly indeed unless the Minister has tabled an amendment. Has the Minister tabled an amendment on the commencement date? He has. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I’m coming to that. 
SIMON POWER 
: He is coming to that. The Minister will take a call on an even more confusing aspect of the commencement date. We have some sections that came into force last year presumably making them retrospective now in the event that the Governor-General does not give her consent until after 1 March. What happens if the Governor-General does not give her consent until after 1 March? Has the Minister thought through what is clearly a confusing and difficult issue for him in the early days of the Committee stage of this bill? One would hope that he would take the opportunity to clarify these issues because he has not got off to a good start. He has not got off to a good start at all. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to follow my colleague from Rangitikei Simon Power in exploring the matter of the commencement dates. I ask the Minister to give us a comment on this particular aspect because I was just starting to search through the bill to see what it meant. I only got to page 7 when it started to get to the stage of being just about impossible to know exactly what commences when— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Perhaps I can help the member. There are amendments on the Table that help the member. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Could my colleague pass me the amendments? It may help. 
Simon Power 
: Which ones would the member like? 
JOHN CARTER 
: The ones regarding the commencement dates. I hope they are not too clear otherwise they will take away a lot of my speech. I am looking at the amendment that states: “To omit from the heading to Part 1 the words ‘31 December 2003 or earlier’ and substitute the word ‘a’.” What does that mean? The second reads “To omit from the heading to Part 2 the word ‘March’ and substitute the word ‘June’.” All we know now is that the rest of the Act comes into force on 1 June. Is that what the Minister is telling us? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Yes. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well that is fine but it does not help me with the question I was going to ask the Minister which is: if we look at the commencement date clause 2(1) states that “sections 4(1) 5 6(1) and (2)” for example come into force on 31 December or on “an earlier date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” I ask the Minister whether that is correct. That is what it says is it not? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: You’re on to it. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am on to it. But it is confusing that clause 6(1) and (2) commences on 31 December so why does clause 6(3) not commence on the same date? I am trying to understand the difference between clause 6(1) and (2) and clauses 6(3) and 7 for example. I cannot see any rational difference. There may be a good reason why those provisions are left out and will now come into force on 1 June and the Minister might like to give some explanation about it. 
There are many other clauses the Minister might want to explain to the Committee and to the many people who will be listening as to what the difference is between those parts that now commence on 1 June and the rest that will commence on a date appointed by the Governor-General—because they obviously cannot come into force on 31 December 2003. Even I have clicked on to that bit. 
The second point I want to raise with the Minister is this—and he might want to help me because I am not that familiar with the bill; he might have clicked on to that— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: We can tell. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is OK because I am doing my best—and I bet that the bell rings before I sit down. I want to get on to the purpose of the bill which is to implement the Australia - New Zealand aviation mutual recognition agreements. I want the Minister to clarify what that means. Does it now mean that Air New Zealand can negotiate a right or has a right to fly domestically in Australia? Is that where the legislation is going? Does that mean Air New Zealand can land planes in Alice Springs and take passengers from Alice Springs to Darwin? Are we expanding here— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Could well be. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Are we on to it? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: We’re on to it. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Really? Good grief! Very good so does that also mean that Qantas will continue to fly in here which it tends to do anyway and offer competition? In other words I ask whether what we are doing is balancing up. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: That’s right. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well I have to say that that is a positive thing. 
The Minister might want to comment then on what reports he has had of the implications the agreement has for Air New Zealand its ability to compete and its ability to fly as a successful airline in that field. Does the fact that it can expand into a population base of some 18 million— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No 19 million. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh well let us not be pedantic—19 million. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to bring to the notice of the Committee that this bill reflects the current chaos in the Government. I say that because here we have an amendment tabled today by the Minister because the Government has only just realised the bill was being implemented on—guess when—31 December 2003. 
Simon Power 
: When was that amendment tabled? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Today. That is amazing is it not? This is a Government that has the full resources of the State behind it yet it does not realise until the very day a bill has to be debated that—gosh—“There is a big problem here Minister.” One can imagine the frantic phoning of officials to the Minister to ensure he got it right. It is reflective of the extraordinary U-turns about-faces and pragmatic approaches this Government is now taking. 
It is the little things that show the deep distress in the Government. It cannot even handle simple things like getting legislation in order. At least tabling a Supplementary Order Paper in a timely fashion would have shown that the Government recognised it was about to implement retrospective legislation. As I say it is something I guess we will see more of. We will see a lot more of this panicked action by Ministers under pressure and scrambling to keep ahead. There is a saying about ducks on the water: the pond is placid the ducks are going along smoothly but the feet are paddling furiously underneath. The problem now is that the water is no longer placid the feathers are ruffled and the panic is there for all to see. This kind of amendment is simply indicative of that and we will be seeing more of it. 
I want to point out a couple of other important measures in this legislation. One of them is the repeal of the Carriage by Air Act. I am sure the New Zealand First spokesperson on transport Mr Brown will be particularly familiar with that Act because it is a hallowed piece of legislation known by a generation of those who operate in the field of air carriage as containing the cardinal rules one has to know. I am sure that as a person long experienced in the carriage of goods Mr Brown will be lamenting the passing of that legislation—now to be buried within civil aviation legislation itself. Something that generations of carriers—and indeed law students through their lectures and practices—have had will now be submersed into this broader legislation. I guess there will be aviation lawyers out there tonight who will be lamenting its passing and having to revise their documentation and so forth because they will no longer be able to rely on that trusty piece of legislation the Carriage by Air Act. 
I want to conclude however on the important trans-Tasman mutual recognition agreements. We will be speaking at length to those. They are important. They signal a united market. I guess what that also represents—and this is perhaps the most significant issue—is this serious intent by the Government to destroy competition in the New Zealand marketplace which will inevitably have consumers paying more. Everyone is going to say that the trans-Tasman mutual recognition legislation around air services is a good thing—it is a single market. On the face of it I guess no one would dispute that but contained within that legislation is an intense explosion of costs that consumers will now have to bear because the legislation is one of the foundations of the merger between Qantas and Air New Zealand. Everyone in the country knows—even the Government—that the consumer will be worse off. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Perhaps I can help my learned friend Dr Wayne Mapp who I believe has some legal training. If he looks at the Supplementary Order Paper that I have just tabled this evening the dates that he refers to as having been scandalously not changed earlier etc. are two dates inside the bill—one is buried in the schedules and one is on page 54—that were inadvertently missed during the drafting and the earlier Supplementary Order Paper that changes the dates. I want to check with Dr Mapp that he has a copy of the bill in front of him and that he has realised that it goes right out to the fifties in page numbers. I think it is pretty important that he does look at it thoroughly. Can I just tell the member and other members who may be interested—and I think Mr Connell was going to speak at length on this issue as I was told by his colleague—that there are different commencement dates for different purposes. One of the reasons that we had different dates— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I am talking about retrospective— 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: No no not at all. This bill is not retrospective. The reason for an earlier start date originally being printed on the bill was that the Australian Government proposed to have its bill introduced and passed a lot earlier last year. Our bill was to follow. The Australian Government delayed its bill; it has not yet passed it. That is why its mutual recognition legislation and ours have to be kept relatively in step. 
Simon Power 
: Why cannot we pass ours until they pass theirs? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: That is exactly the point I am coming to. Most of the provisions of this bill come into force at the royal assent but the provisions with regard to the mutual recognition bit come into force at a date yet to be determined and to be in concert with the Australians so that we are not out of step with them. Dr Mapp asked me why I did not put that bit of paper on the Table weeks ago. Because the drafter told me only yesterday that he had inadvertently missed those two dates buried in the bill— 
Simon Power 
: Blame the officials. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Not at all I am not blaming the officials. I think they have done a cracker job in sorting this bill which has a number of provisions that are widely supported. 
I want to come to the comments on the issue of unruly passengers because I think it is one of the most important parts of this bill. In addition to enabling Australian airlines to operate in New Zealand under Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority oversight it complementarily allows New Zealand operators to operate in Australia under the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority oversight. So that is the major feature of the bill. But the bill also deals with the security of passengers and crew on international and domestic flights in addressing the issue of unruly passengers regardless of whose airline they are on. The provisions relating to civil liability for delay I think referred to earlier from the old Carriage By Air Act continue. That was a matter of some controversy and the purpose of that is to give people redress if they are delayed in an avoidable way other than because of things like safety or weather issues. The provisions of the bill also bring the law in that area into conformity particularly with the accident compensation scheme and transfer various provisions from that Act to this Act. Also the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 is a very important document put out by the Government in terms of our future in transport. Provisions of this bill contribute to aspects of the New Zealand Transport Strategy. I will leave it at that for now because I am sure members would like to ask a whole bunch of questions. I would recommend that they read the commentary from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which did a very good job in terms of the processing of this bill. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I thank the Committee for the invitation to make a contribution to this debate. I also thank my senior whip for giving me the opportunity as well. He knows that I have been thirsting to do this. I also thank my learned colleague Simon Power for making the Committee aware of my expertise in this area. However on reflection and given that my learned colleagues and the Minister have now dealt with this issue of retrospectivity so very well I do not think it is appropriate or necessary for me to relitigate this component but with one small exception—that is to point out that Mr Power made a slight error. However it has subsequently been corrected. He said that the commencement date would be March but what he meant to say was June. I do not blame him for getting it wrong because as the Minister has just explained the Supplementary Order Paper was put on the Table only today. That made it very difficult for people to get across it. We are a dedicated bunch and we read everything that is put in front of us but on this occasion it was not there in good time. 
I would like to take a moment to recognise as the Minister has already pointed out the good work that the select committee did on putting this legislation together. I was not a member of it but it is clear that the committee worked in a very cooperative and constructive way. The consequence is that we get good law. I really lament the fact that we cannot use this model more constructively across this House. It would be nice for the 80 percent of legislation that we all tend to agree with that we put some structure together where we could agree with that and the 20 percent that we do not agree on we could really have quality debate and get down to a punch-up on the issues that are extremely important to us and the points that really separate the parties in Parliament. 
I now turn to the purpose and introduction. I agree with the Minister that it is important that we all read the commentary and I have done that. The most important component of this bill is that it aims to remove the regulatory barriers to airlines operating under the air services arrangements with Australia by allowing progressive implementation of mutual recognition of aviation certification. This mutual recognition terminology is really just code for mutual cooperation and good sense. On that basis I commend the legislation. It is sensible legislation because it has to be good for the travelling public. It streamlines laws and more important it gives them teeth. It will give the travelling public confidence that the airlines and the aviation authority are taking their safety seriously and that their safety is paramount and that those who jeopardise that safety will be punished. 
That is something that we should all reflect on—punished in a way that is not punitive but basically reflects that we now believe that behaviour and safety in and around airlines is absolutely paramount. Members of this Parliament know as people who travel regularly that every time we leave home we expect we will return home safely but that is not something we can take for granted which is why I believe that the construct of this bill has been well-thought-through and it is very well considered. I again commend the work that the select committee has done. 
As I read through the commentary I could not help but reflect on the fact that the term for mutual recognition agreements “ANZA” is very close to that of Anzac. It is a pity that we do not take more seriously our Australasian security commitments. I lament the fact that our Anzac spirit is dying and it is something that I deeply regret. I give the undertaking that once the National Party is back in Government—and that will not be very long—we will put that right. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I hope that member will be allowed another call because I would love to hear what he meant by punishing people in way that is not punitive. That is one of the best “Orwellians” I have heard for a long time—that is positive punishment! I thank the Minister for taking a call to explain some of the issues we were puzzled about. I wish more Ministers would do that in the Committee stage instead of just sitting there and ignoring the debate. 
The ACT party supports this bill. I was part of the select committee that heard the submissions and watched very dramatic videos of what happens when dangerous goods are taken on to aircraft. However I think it is coming in far too early. We have not explored enough ways that we can actually deal with unruly passengers. For instance if we look at some of the articles that were written after September 11—and one of them was a very good one written in the  
Atlantic Monthly 
—we would see that it has been pointed out that we take everything away from passengers when they get on a plane and they are not armed with anything at all and there is absolutely no deterrent on the plane for people not to indulge in some sort of terrorist actions and a deterrent for other unruly passengers. 
Hon Members 
: Ha! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: National Party members laugh but if we take a look at El-Al the Israeli airline—how many million people in the world would like to blow that out of the sky—it has air marshals; it has deterrents; it has very very strict security and very well trained and well-aware people who travel on that airline. If a person were on a plane and there was the chance that in every seat there was a passenger who might be armed who is a law-abiding citizen it would perhaps deter that person from getting intoxicated and starting to attack people. If that is going to far—I am just suggesting these things and the Minister is looking pretty aghast—the officials could have considered the position of arming the aircrew. 
We had a classic incident on a Qantas flight last year where the aircrew were attacked with a pair of sharpened chopsticks. This poor air steward had nothing to defend himself with except his hands. That could have brought down the whole plane. That plane could have easily come down. What do we do? We continue to strip people of any form of self-defence when they go on to an aircraft. They are not even allowed a pair of tweezers any more. I would like the Minister to tell us whether any research was done on this. Maybe we could put it to democracy and ask the passengers what they think but then this Government does not favour “one person one vote”. So we had better not risk that. 
I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us what research went into this and whether he used the officials to look outside the square and to examine other alternatives. I believe there is some merit in revisiting the situation where we actually take all forms of self-defence off people when they go on to an aeroplane. I think there is another way that we could deter people. The bill states that it is the purpose to deter certain types of unruly behaviour that might occur on aircraft. I think there are other creative ways that we could look at this. 
I remember just after September 11 when some passengers boarded a plane in the United States to fly somewhere and the pilot instead of just saying: “Good morning ladies and gentlemen thank you for flying with us.” said: “Don’t be nervous. If anyone gets up and decides to hijack this plane you all band together and use whatever you can to attack that person.” 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 and Schedules 2 3 and 4 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We will take Part 2 and Schedules 2 3 and 4 together. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I will concentrate my contribution on this part on unruly passenger offences and leave the other parts to my colleagues Dr Wayne Mapp and Brian Connell to reflect their expertise in those particular areas if for no other reason. I shall concentrate on unruly passenger offences because the ACT MP Deborah Coddington finished her contribution by referring to passengers sort of banding together in some type of posse-like manner to destroy anybody on an aircraft— 
Stephen Franks 
: Smoking in the toilets. 
SIMON POWER 
: The member is quite right. We will have to give away all fun under this Government. That will be the next thing. The unruly passenger offences are worth having a look at because during the second reading I raised a couple of concerns I had about the way in which those clauses would be interpreted. I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough as he has indicated to me that he would be to run through for me a couple of examples on how those particular sections would deal with those examples. 
We can see that every person commits an offence who fails to comply with any commands given to him or her directly by a pilot in command or indirectly by a pilot in command through a crew member. Are we now saying that a new rule of agency exists between a crew member purporting to carry out the instructions of a pilot in command or are we to believe that that particular individual—that is the crew member—is to identify to the passenger at the point that the instruction is given that he or she is acting on behalf of or indirectly by a pilot in command? In other words how is a passenger to know when he or she is told by a crew member to follow a certain command that that crew member is indeed acting with the authority of the pilot in command in giving that instruction? That is the first question I would like the Minister to address. 
Secondly I am very interested in the issue of any person committing an offence on an aircraft who behaves in a threatening offensive insulting or disorderly manner and uses threatening offensive or insulting words. I presume that the party who makes the initial decision as to whether that behaviour is threatening offensive insulting or disorderly or whether the words used by the individual are threatening or offensive is the pilot in command or in a more complicated fashion a crew member acting on behalf of the pilot in command. 
My second question for the Minister is who makes the decision as to whether the behaviour is insulting offensive or disorderly or whether the language is threatening offensive or insulting. Members can see where the difficulty lies. For example a passenger is trying to go to the toilet on the plane he or she is bumped by the cart it hits his or her knee and a word escapes from his or her mouth that otherwise would not in the normal course of events and under this legislation one presumes that that crew member could then say that he or she was acting under the authority of the pilot in command and would charge that individual for the use of threatening language. 
We need to be very clear about how those offences come about and clear about the means of carrying out the identification and prosecution of the offence. My colleague Wayne Mapp associate professor of international law is whispering in my ear that that will have to be tested in court. We would like to hear from the Minister how that process would work. 
The other thing I raised during the second reading that I am worried about is the event where a person may for example be intoxicated. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 First I congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the excellent work it has done on this bill. I also congratulate my colleague Peter Brown on the hard work he put into the bill while on the select committee. My congratulations also go to the Minister who has taken the opportunity to explain a number of parts of this bill that were causing some concern. I suggest that more Ministers could do that during the course of the passage of bills. 
I want to pick up on the issue of unruly passengers. I note that the bill in the tradition of all other aviation bills continues to keep the pilot in command of the aircraft. The pilot is in complete control and command with the assistance of his or her crew and that is very sound. I was absolutely staggered by ACT MP Deborah Coddington’s suggestion that members of the public should be able to retain the means of self-defence and even weapons of self-defence. She pointed out that perhaps it would be all right to take on board a pair of tweezers. She then blew her argument away by saying that a passenger had used sharpened chopsticks to try to take over an aircraft and had inflicted some very serious injuries on a member of the crew. The suggestion by that member that passengers should be able to retain the means of self-defence and the ability to gather together was staggering. Where would that stop? Would it mean passengers would be allowed to take a revolver on board as a means of self-defence? I am staggered at that suggestion. But to get back to the crew and the pilot in command being in total control of the aircraft I say the most important part of the bill is that it has not changed that status. 
I now move on to the liability of an airline in the case of a delay. We know that there are times at Wellington Airport in particular when it is impossible to get an aircraft off the ground or even to bring an aircraft into Wellington—not so much because of the wind but often because without the wind fog or a cloud may roll in and visibility problems make it impossible to get an aircraft in or out. In that case the airline should never be responsible for the delay. But we do have airlines that overbook aircraft. It is a tradition in the airline industry to overbook aircraft to the point where airlines judge that they will have a certain number of no-shows and people who are unable to travel which will therefore bring passenger numbers back to very close to the capacity level. Those judgments are sometimes thrown out by the fact that everybody shows up. There is a problem then and the airlines have to bump people off the flight. In those cases the airlines most definitely should be held responsible for the delay in a passenger’s travel and they need to compensate the passenger in some way. Many airlines compensate affected passengers by either giving them meal vouchers or putting them up in a hotel overnight until they can catch the next flight out. That is sound practice and this bill makes an airline liable for those delays when it has been a deliberate case of the airline either cancelling a flight or bumping passengers off it. 
The cancelling of the flight is another means whereby the airlines if there is a very light passenger loading will for technical reasons—usually a complaint of a mechanical fault—cancel a flight. I know of airlines that do that on a regular basis. I am not suggesting that our national carrier does it but I am saying that other carriers that travel in and out of New Zealand definitely do it. They cancel a flight because they do not have enough passengers and they put them on to another flight. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I will take just a very quick call to sort out one or two things that are obviously puzzling people. First I say to Ms Coddington that I am amazed at her suggestion and that is all I will say about it. 
Regarding section 65J in the bill—in new Part 5A inserted by clause 24— in terms of crew members having the say over whether a person is unruly and whom the order comes from it has rightly been identified that the pilot in command of the aircraft is exactly that: the person in command. He or she will have to be satisfied that there is indeed an offence. So the person in charge the pilot will make the decision as to whether the passenger’s behaviour or language is insulting etc. Normally a crew member—usually a member of the cabin crew—would report to the pilot that the crew was having trouble with a passenger in say seat 65J or whatever it was say what was happening and ask what should be done. Major aircraft these days do contain means of restraining passengers usually by the use of the plastic cable tie type of arrangement. The crew can strap people into their seats by strapping their arms to the armrests. Those sorts of restraining devices are quite common because obviously some people react very badly when they are under the effects of alcohol or whatever. So the pilot in command can request that that action is taken. 
The pilot in command has to be satisfied that there actually is an offence. In the event that the offence is serious enough the pilot in command would notify the Aviation Security Service or the police of the offence before the aircraft comes into land. The aircraft concerned does not have to be a New Zealand aircraft; it can be any international aircraft or domestic aircraft that is landing at a New Zealand airport. The pilot in command of the aircraft wherever it has come from and whatever its nationality can request New Zealand’s Aviation Security Service or the police to meet the aircraft and the aircraft is regarded as still in flight even after it has landed and the door is opened until the pilot of the aircraft—the captain in charge—has determined that the incident is over and that the Aviation Security Service or the police has taken whatever action is required. I hope that clarifies the situation for members. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is a very difficult legal area to determine where the jurisdiction of New Zealand ends and the authority of the pilot begins particularly in dealing with unruly passengers. I think we can illustrate that with the recent case of the Sri Lankan girl who was deported. She clearly arrived at the airport in a very distressed state from all reports—television reports and others—and she was allowed on to the plane. Who was responsible for the offence of allowing that person who could according to a certain definition be described as unruly—in that she was definitely making a lot of noise—to get on to that plane? Under this provision here in this bill under the infringement procedure the pilot of the aircraft is supposed to inform the police about an unruly passenger. Well in this case the police were accompanying the unruly passenger and let that passenger on to the plane in an unruly state. The passenger’s state was such that I understand she was sedated. Under New Zealand law one cannot sedate someone against his or her will so who committed an offence there? 
Simon Power 
: Was she sedated before she got on the plane or on the plane? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I understand it happened on the plane but that is something that perhaps could be investigated. Possibly the investigation that is under way could be expanded to cover that particular point. That case raises a problem and I think it shows that we have to have some consistency. If we had slightly more humanitarian immigration and asylum-seeker policies we may not end up with that sort of situation of pushing people on planes when they are in an unruly state of coming up against the contradictions in this legislation and of putting undue pressure on pilots to make those sorts of decisions about how to protect the interests of other passengers. 
I want to get on to another question. I do not quite agree with Deborah Coddington. In fact I do not agree at all that we should take on to planes items of self-defence and form posses etc. But I do spring to the defence of knitters. I have had a lot of complaints from knitters who go on planes. Some people are compulsive knitters. The situation is bad enough for smokers with the provision—and I support this provision—stopping passengers from smoking but I do not think we need to go further down the track against knitters. There are particularly compulsive knitters who do not have anyone to talk to who are on their own in a seat and who do not have a book to read. Those people want to knit and their knitting needles are stolen—and that is the only word I can use—as they get on to the plane. I think that we are really extending things if we think that the terrorist threat in the world today comes from a lot of people who look very harmless. Some of them are quite aged; some of them are in their 70s and 80s. But that does not matter—they get their knitting needles stolen from them. 
There has been a moderation in the seizure of items from people getting on to planes. When the measures first came in after September 11 I lost a couple of pairs of nail scissors. The law was then moderated a little and people had to have nail scissors over a certain length. My nail scissors get past the screening procedures now so that is a progressive step. I also understand with regard to knitting needles that there has been a certain relaxation for people with plastic rather than steel knitting needles. Sometimes people can creep by with plastic knitting needles. I do not know whether there is a minimum or a maximum length but I did hear—and perhaps I should not report this—that a friend of mine with steel knitting needles was let through the other day. So perhaps informally the situation is loosening up. I hear supportive comments from different parties in this House. If we got together and had a push on the question of knitting needles we may get an exception for them. We could even put forward an amendment to this legislation. I do not have the drafting skills to immediately construct an amendment but I would support such a change. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It would be worth reminding the previous speaker that a knitting needle—a steel one certainly—is actually capable of being used effectively as a stiletto and if we make an exception for little knitting needles what else would we be making an exception for? Why would we not make an exception for nail-clipping scissors for instance? It is really one of those situations where given the potential risk— 
Stephen Franks 
: What about sharpened glasses? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The member has seen the film. It is simply not appropriate to make those kinds of exceptions when it comes to aviation safety. In the past box cutters would have been seen as being something relatively harmless. We all know the consequences of that. 
I want to talk specifically about the mutual recognition provisions because these are clearly the most important part of the legislation and they are intended to create a single aviation market. By that I mean operators in Australia notably Qantas and Virgin Blue Airlines will be able to operate in New Zealand and Air New Zealand will be able to operate in Australia. Earlier the Minister observed in a conversation that if this provision had existed back in 1998 one would imagine that Air New Zealand would not have purchased Ansett Australia. That purchase led to the various problems that resulted in the Government bail-out. So clearly this is major legislation that builds the unity of the two markets. Obviously National will support that part but my concern is this: do the mutual recognition provisions then lead to the lowering of competitive barriers to mergers? Clearly it is the preference of the Government to allow a merger—in fact it desires a merger—between Qantas and Air New Zealand because the Minister Dr Cullen was adamantly opposed to the rescue package proposed by Singapore Airlines. The Government put every blockage in place to that and that ultimately cost the taxpayer a billion dollars. The clear intention was not so much the rescue of Air New Zealand by the taxpayer as to merge Qantas and Air New Zealand and I guess the Government intends to reduce its ownership through that mechanism. 
It has never been satisfactorily explained to the House exactly why the Government places so much importance on the Qantas - Air New Zealand merger as opposed to for instance the intervention by or involvement in Singapore Airlines. I have often wondered whether the intent is to take the view that Australia and New Zealand’s aviation companies essentially have to be merged to be a global player and the involvement in Singapore Airlines would have cut right across that. The Government seems to be willing to use New Zealand taxpayers’ money to achieve that outcome. With the mutual recognition agreements reached in November 2000 one wonders whether they are part and parcel of that overall process. 
I have a specific question for the Minister—and I know he might take the view that this legislation is not directly material to this; nevertheless it is an important question. Will the Government make an undertaking that there will be no legislation to override the decision of the New Zealand Commerce Commission which at least currently prevents the merger of the two airlines? It is a very specific question and I believe the public deserves an answer. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Can I help the member? My delegation is on the safety side. Perhaps he would like to put a question down for Dr Cullen on that issue. He is the shareholding Minister. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer but it does give rise to the implication that that is exactly what is intended. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to suggest that Keith Locke move an amendment to clause 15A because I think that he is absolutely right—people who take knitting needles on to planes should be exempt. It would be very easy to draft an amendment and I suggest that he does so that we have an amendment in the bill that respects the right of knitters. Also I say to the Minister that it does not appear to me that there is a treaty clause in the bill. There is nothing in the bill that states that it must not act in a way that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I would like Mr Mallard to come down and explain why that is because I think it is an absolute disgrace that this bill does not respect the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I turn now to New Zealand First which is obviously setting itself up to be the new coalition partner for Labour—if it thinks that Labour will be re-elected. That is a dance of the desperate if there ever was one. But I return to the issue of self-defence. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Let me answer you on the Treaty of Waitangi. The Australians don’t have the Treaty of Waitangi. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I thank the Minister. That is very wise too. They have Mabo. When I went to Cambridge there was an incident on the plane— 
Darren Hughes 
: Who paid for it? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: —Qantas paid for it—and everyone was told to return to their seats and do their seatbelts up. It appeared that somebody had run amok—one of the passengers was threatening to kill everybody on board. The Qantas aircrew managed to restrain him and handcuff him to the seat 2 hours out of Heathrow. If I had had a gun I would have quite happily put a bullet between his eyes in order to save 490 people in that jumbo jet. What is more important? The lives of 490 people or some nutter who cannot handle his alcohol on a plane and threatens to kill everybody else? To me there is no question. 
Brent Catchpole 
: What about tweezers? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The member questions not being able to take tweezers on to the plane. As Keith Locke pointed out it is probably quite sensible that one cannot take tweezers on to a plane because as Keith Locke says one could pluck people to death. The same is true of nail files—one could file them to death. Those thick-skinned New Zealand First people would be fine because one would be filing away for ever and it would take too long to kill them. 
I turn now to the provisions in the bill that deal with airlines delaying passengers and having to be responsible for that. We did argue about that at the select committee and it was pointed out to us that airlines do take their responsibilities very seriously voluntarily and if they muck passengers around they do in general help them out put them up and that sort of thing. What about the other way round which the bill does not deal with? What about people who delay an aircraft? I have seen members of Parliament sitting in the Koru lounge eating and holding up a flight. There are no prizes for guessing who that was. 
Brent Catchpole 
: They should be left behind. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Absolutely! They should be left behind because they disadvantage the whole airline. The whole schedule gets behind. There is no compensation for the airline in terms of that. 
Hon Members 
: Shoot them all! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: New Zealand First members are agreeing with me. “Shoot them all” they are saying. But I think that part of the bill went a bit too far. Perhaps the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven might like to take a call and explain. He is gesticulating at me and trying to talk to me in sign language with a bandaged hand and it is very difficult to read sign language from someone with a bandaged hand. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I start by thanking Deborah Coddington for the warning. She spoke briefly about New Zealand First going into coalition with Labour and then immediately spoke about courses on self-defence. I say to the honourable member that I have taken it on board—we will not get any closer than we are right now. 
There is one unique clause in this bill—probably several clauses—and it is a bit unusual. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has increased the fines for the carriage of dangerous goods and I think that some comment must be made on that because usually select committees are prone to reducing fines. Fundamentally there are two types of passengers who carry dangerous goods. One is the person who innocently takes on cans of paint or swimming-pool chlorine or something. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Or a swimming pool! 
PETER BROWN 
: Well chlorine can be used for a number of purposes and I say to the honourable member that the select committee was shown a series of videos about some very innocuous substances that when blended together give quite horrific results. So there is the type of passenger who innocently takes on some dangerous substance not knowing that it is a dangerous substance. Then there is the second type of passenger—who I think the select committee termed “the travelling salesman”—who specialises in carting dangerous goods from one part of the country to another and deliberately flouts the law. This bill hugely increases the fines for both types of passenger and I think that that is worth recording. 
One submitter in particular made the select committee sit up and take notice. I think he was from Qantas and I think he had flown from Singapore that day to talk to the select committee for half an hour. He explained some real concerns about dangerous and unruly passengers. He told us quite informatively in quite some detail about Qantas’ move—I hope he was from Qantas; I am either giving it a lot of credit or I should be referring to another airline but let us say he was from Qantas. 
Simon Power 
: Just say “an airline”. 
PETER BROWN 
: He was from an airline. He flew from Singapore. 
Deborah Coddington 
: A big one. 
PETER BROWN 
: It was a big one. He spoke about the training of air marshals. I know that the Minister takes safety very seriously but that submitter encouraged the select committee—and I regret not having it put in the commentary on the bill—to recommend that New Zealand get involved in the training of air marshals. That would give us the long-term choice about whether to go down that track. He recommended—quite strongly as I recall—that New Zealand have about 100 air marshals at its disposal. They could come from the army I think— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The army. 
PETER BROWN 
: —yes—or the police. It is worth considering and I regret that I did not endeavour to have that recommendation included in the report. One tends to think that those guys are just policemen or soldiers carrying guns discreetly but there is quite a lot to it. I will not go into the details but I was very impressed with the sincerity and the detail that that airline spokesperson gave us at the select committee. When one comes across an unruly passenger it is quite disconcerting. I have said this several times in the debate on this bill. I sympathise though with Keith Locke who cannot take his knitting needles on to a plane and knit away—probably making a hat for Nandor Tanczos or something like that. I have to say to Keith Locke that he just has to leave them at the terminal. He should give them to the security guards and buy another pair when he gets to Wellington or vice versa. Or he could have a pair in his desk here because sometimes the Speaker allows us to knit in Parliament. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Disgraceful. 
PETER BROWN 
: Disgraceful? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: You lose all the stitches. 
PETER BROWN 
: I could not understand what the Minister said but I am sure that Hansard will record it and I will read it with interest afterwards. This is a good bill and New Zealand First will support it. 
Progress reported.