Key John: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Key John: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11454] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I want to discuss the title of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill and I want to follow on from the comments made by my esteemed colleague Dr Wayne Mapp who is quite an authority in this area. 
Hon Member 
: He’s a pilot. 
JOHN KEY 
: Yes he is a private pilot. I can publicly say on record that he is one of the few pilots in the Chamber that I would take great pleasure in flying with. Dr Mapp is an “attention to details” sort of man and I have great respect for his ability to command an aircraft. 
In relation to the title of the bill I think Dr Mapp made some quite good points. This is quite important legislation. As members will be aware it is legislation that National is supporting for the reasons I outlined in my speech regarding Part 2. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes that is right. The spa pool was a minor sort of distraction. 
I want to talk about the issue of safety. I think that the word “safety” could be included in the title of the bill because one of the things that the bill attempts to do as the public has had the opportunity to read is make quite significant changes to the demarcation of and fines for unruly passengers—defining who is unruly and under what conditions passengers would be deemed unruly—and for very good reasons. 
All of us who have been on aircraft know the danger that could be involved if an unruly passenger who was drugged up or drinking or not in full control of his or her thought processes and faculties were to somehow get command of an aircraft or interfere with its safety systems. Because safety is so heavily highlighted in this legislation I think it would serve Parliament and the people of New Zealand well for the title to be something like the “Civil Aviation Safety Amendment Bill” or the “Civil Aviation Safety Bill”. 
Secondly a very important point raised was that this legislation was negotiated over for a very long period of time between officials in New Zealand and Australia. The Minister Harry Duynhoven will know what I speak of when I say that at the very last moment it appeared as if the Australians having negotiated an issue of mutual recognition with New Zealand then seemed to be backing away from those conditions. Without wishing to take in vain the name of our good friends across the Tasman we all know that a similar sort of thing occurred with the open skies arrangement which ultimately probably led to Air New Zealand’s purchase of Ansett which ultimately led to the demise of Air New Zealand and its renationalisation. So it is quite a significant issue. 
I think the Australian officials balked at the last moment as they looked over the precipice at what could be great legislation for mutual recognition. Only through the intervention I understand of the Minister and his officials in New Zealand did the Australian officials finally see the light of day and see that they were putting the kangaroo well ahead of the kiwi which is not a position we like. The issue of mutual recognition is not flagged in the title and I think that it should be. 
Hon David Carter 
: Move an amendment. 
JOHN KEY 
: I think an amendment would make sense. The Minister may wish to take a few moments to reflect on whether the “Civil Aviation Safety and Mutual Recognition Amendment Act” is not a far more inclusive title for members of the public and of the industry. They will be quite significantly affected—I think positively—by this legislation although some members of the public may have concerns regarding safety and the fines. Some of the fines are now in the order of $10000—they are not insignificant fines. Members on this side of the Chamber argued pretty vigorously that those fines should be increased because of the risks to the travelling public of New Zealand. 
One of the things I am pretty sorry about is that there is no clause to allow random drug-testing of employees working for an airline. I would have thought that although it is largely an employment relations issue the Minister would see that it makes a lot of sense to have such a clause in the bill. Without wishing to discuss details members of the public will be aware that Air New Zealand is currently involved in a court case to be given the right to randomly drug test its employees. Internationally random drug testing has been the case and for very good reason. 
We are not suggesting that Air New Zealand has any issue it is specifically trying to deal with but we are certainly seeing—[ 
Interruption 
]. That is right. The question is whether we would want Nandor Tanczos piloting a plane.