Coddington Deborah: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7402] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party supports the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill but speaking as one who is on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I point out that ACT does not believe there is a need for urgency in dealing with this bill. That select committee is already overloaded with legislation. If the Government keeps piling on legislation in urgency that is when we get the passing of laws that are faulty and have to be decided by the courts. 
This bill is an enlightened piece of legislation. I am interested to see that the general policy statement states that the Government released the New Zealand Transport Strategy and that the provisions of this bill contribute to the objectives of that strategy. One of the objectives of the transport strategy is stated as being “assisting economic development”. I have to say that this is the only piece of legislation relating to that transport strategy that at this stage does promote economic development. This bill does recognise that increased competition will benefit consumers and will have the potential to lower the cost of airfares for international travellers and that will be a good thing. After listening to the speeches made tonight I think that there must be unruly passengers on damn near every aircraft that flies around the world because we all seem to have a story about unruly passengers. 
Peter Brown 
: It’s the same guy! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Peter Brown says it is the same guy—and it is Peter Brown! Well Peter Brown was on the last flight I took to London and we experienced a case of air rage as it is called. It is very very frightening when six passengers have to restrain a passenger handcuff the person to the seat and when for the rest of the flight they hear someone raving swearing and carrying on. One of the issues concerning increased penalties for unruly passengers is that one would hope that when this bill is passed there will be advertising and education as well as signs to act as deterrents to those people who believe they can climb on board an aircraft and make the flight hell for everybody else. It is impossible for security screening to pick which passengers will be unruly even though security staff X-ray baggage and so on. One cannot just look at people decide who is going to be unruly and exclude them. This bill probably will not stop air rage but hopefully it will go a long way towards reducing it. 
I notice that one of the other benefits of this legislation is that it will reverse the burden of proof regarding mental injury. I will be interested in watching this issue when the bill comes to the select committee because so far the bill refers to mental injury only where it is caused to other passengers who might be sitting in a plane and see somebody sucked out. John Key mentioned a flight—I think it was a United Airlines flight—during which the top of the plane was ripped off. I remember that the parents of one of the passengers—a New Zealand guy—spent a considerable amount of time trying to find out why that plane was faulty and why that accident happened. They went to huge lengths to overturn the finding—I think it was in America—which was sort of a whitewash. The mental anguish and injury that those parents suffered was quite considerable. I am not saying that the mental injury clause should be extended but I think this issue is something that should be canvassed at the select committee and I will be interested in looking at that. 
The only other issue I would like to flag which I will also be interested in when it comes to the select committee is clause 31 which covers the function and duties of the Aviation Security Service. It means that the Commissioner of Police will be able to use aviation security to assist the police on the basis of a security threat. As it stands I feel that that provision is a bit loosely drafted. I understand the intention is for a situation like APEC or a visiting dignitary and when it is not going to compromise aviation security at the airport the Commissioner of Police can say: “All hands on deck”. We will be looking at that issue.