Hayes John: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Hayes John: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8117] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak in support of this Aviation Security Legislation Bill this afternoon. I was very pleased to hear through that fatuous twaddle spoken by my colleague from the Maori Party that the Maori Party will support this bill because it is a very important issue that all New Zealanders are able to travel safely on our public transport. I just point out to the member that the Treaty of Waitangi was in place some years before the issue of airplane security became important—in fact some years before airplanes were invented. But the fatuous twaddle from that colleague was not as bad as what I heard from the Green Party member Keith Locke in his wholesale slaughter of the American people and American air marshals and his assertion of irresponsibility. 
I say to this House that this issue is not on the House’s agenda this afternoon by accident. It is there because that “itinerant masseuse” Helen Clark is off to the States to massage President Bush’s political erogenous zones. This bill is on the Table today because Helen Clark needs to be able to say to George Bush: “Yes we have this issue under control.” 
The issues began to arise as people will recall back in 2001. I note that the Australian Government was able to move very quickly—in fact far more quickly than the New Zealand Government—and it introduced new aviation security laws back in 2005. If my memory serves me correctly when there was a scare in London about the use of liquids on aeroplanes Heathrow Airport was closed down the next day and the taking of liquids on to planes was banned immediately. It surprises me that we have to mess around with this legislation—it is now 2007 some 6 years after the twin towers incident—for something that I would have thought this Government could more efficiently put in place through Order in Council. Nevertheless we are going down the road of spending probably the next 3 to 4 months putting this important legislation into place. 
I particularly commend the select committee and its staff who have done what I think is arguably the best general policy statement preceding a bill that we have seen in the life of this Parliament. I make that point because this piece of work identifies the major issues of concern sets out the consultation with stakeholders—other Government agencies and businesses—and then sets out under each of the areas where change is being recommended feasible options that can be considered. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: They’re in the gallery. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Well I commend those people up in the gallery. I think they have done a really good job. 
Darren Hughes 
: Must have used simple language to help the member out. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Most important—I will use very simple language for the member for Otaki—in the bill’s explanatory note there are little headings “Statement of public policy objectives”. The people in the gallery should really be congratulated on that because when I go to my own select committee and look at other reports coming before Parliament I do not find clearly identified statements of why particular legislation is under consideration. Certainly in our select committee we have had occasions when we have asked officials what the consequences might be of not doing something or why we are not doing something and very often they have been unable to answer us. So I commend those people who have put this bill together. 
For example when we come to “Issue 3: potential weapons” we see that the public policy objectives are to ensure first of all: “New Zealand has an aviation security system that gives the public confidence that every reasonable measure has been taken to ensure their security; …”—and I would recommend that Mr Locke of the Green Party read that—and secondly “the confidence of our international trading partners and tourists in New Zealand’s aviation security.” These are fundamentally important issues and I cannot understand that any party in this Parliament would regard this bill as an infringement of civil rights or civil liberties. We have huge interests to protect in tourism and trade and in the context of providing security to our own community. 
If we go through “Issue 4: in-flight security officers” we see that legislative change is needed because the current law does not allow for the discharge of a weapon on board an aircraft in the event of a security incident. Mr Locke thinks it will be an everyday occurrence that weapons will be discharged people will be injured and the skins of planes will be broken. I have spent many years flying—including in areas of the Middle East—when armed security officers have been on the planes and generally I have appreciated their being there for the safety of those flights and for the safety of the people on them. 
One particular issue I would like to canvass is that of searches of persons. I am interested in the phrase “rubdown searches”—and this interfaces with what I was suggesting before about the “itinerant masseuse”. We will have to carry plastic bags everywhere particularly those that fit over our hands because under the new legislation the search of a person must be directed by an aviation security officer. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Oh so you can’t just request one. 
JOHN HAYES 
: No but people will be instructed under new section 12 to be substituted for the current section 12 of the Aviation Crimes Act by clause 6 of the bill to “remove raise lower or open any outer clothing including (but not limited to) any coat jacket jumper cardigan or similar article that the passenger is wearing …”— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What about a kilt? 
JOHN HAYES 
: There is a problem here because kilts are certainly not mentioned in this legislation. But one may be asked to “remove any gloves footwear … head coverings belts jewellery or other accessories:”. Then one is to “allow … an aviation security officer … to carry out a rubdown search:”. The legislation will require that “a female may only be searched by a female unless the search is made by means of a mechanical or electrical or electronic or other similar device.” This is absolutely wonderful legislation; I think it is really quite brilliant. But it is in contravention I suspect of the equal employment opportunities legislation. Why should male aviation security officers be disallowed from rubdown searches of female passengers? 
New section 12 provides: “(6) For the purposes of this section rubdown search—(a) means a search of a clothed person in which the person conducting the search may do all or any of the following: (i) run or pat his or her hand over the body of the person being searched … (ii) insert his or her hand inside any pocket or pouch in the clothing (other than any underclothing) of the person being searched: (iii) for the purpose of permitting a visual inspection require the person being searched to do all or any of the following … (A) open his or her mouth: (B) display the palms of his or her hands: (C) display the soles of his or her feet: (D) lift or rub his or her hair; and (b) includes the authority to search—(i) any item carried by … the person; … (ii) any outer clothing … and (iii) any head covering”—burka—“gloves or footwear … for the purposes of the search.” These are very thorough rules. We in the National Party are in total support of them although I think there will be a certain scrutiny of these arrangements in the Committee stage of this bill. Accordingly I will now resume my seat in full support of this bill.