Turia Tariana: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Turia Tariana: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11507] 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Pika tena tatou katoa. When this bill last came before the House on 20 March a torrent of abuse from the member for Wairarapa followed the speech by my esteemed colleague Te Ururoa Flavell. The member deemed that Mr Flavell’s korero was “fatuous twaddle” and went further to say: “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.” That was a very interesting observation by the National member. Quite how he could then make an association that using the Treaty of Waitangi as a context for assessing any policy measure was “fatuous twaddle” was beyond me. Indeed many claims and cases presented to the Waitangi Tribunal over the years bring into account the airwaves the use of Maori land for airfields the impact of the aviation industry on Maori land and so on. 
The point is that the contemporary issues of the day are based on a context that this Parliament must respect. The Treaty provides us all with a foundation for considering how any political matter is debated and that includes the relevance of measures to improve our aviation security. The Treaty is a historic covenant reached between two sovereign peoples based on broad principles of partnership protection and participation and that covenant gives shape to the nation. It is the key source of the Government’s moral and political claim to legitimacy and is therefore relevant to every bill in the House. 
The Aviation Security Legislation Bill aims to strengthen the legislative framework and meet international obligations in relation to aviation security. The issue of compliance with domestic and international standards is of course of great interest to the Maori Party. The bill makes the case that as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization New Zealand is obliged to comply with security standards. We are told that the policy objectives are to respond to aviation security threats to comply with requests from other countries and to search and seize certain items in order to ensure that New Zealand is able to participate in an international response to aviation security. In fact the challenge is put that failing to meet those goals could damage New Zealand’s reputation which could have significant economic and social impacts. A worst-case scenario might lead to a reduction in international flights in and out of the country. 
The provision of enhanced security measures is obviously a key issue of interest to both Treaty partners but there are three particular issues that I bring to this debate. They are what I would call the three C’s: cultural compliance consistency and the costs of the legislation. One of the underlying themes running through this parliamentary debate has been the assumed security threat arising from the events of 9/11 and demonstrated in other legislation such as the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill and the Immigration Bill and in the Law Commission’s  
Search and Surveillance Powers 
 report. And this bill adds a whole new inventory to that list: the Arms Act the Aviation Crimes Act the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Rules are all amended by the bill. 
An associated theme however has been that while legislation is being amended we must be careful to ensure that the implementation of changes still functions within what the Sikh Centre submission described as: “the bounds of governmental responsibility to safeguard the freedom of its citizens and the paramountcy of their human rights.” The Sikh Centre brought to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the need to be sensitive to the diverse cultures and beliefs of individuals who pass through airport control to ensure that they are not unfairly targeted during security checks. For its part the Sikh community has made a conscious decision to recommend that Sikhs’ kirpans their ceremonial knives are removed from under their robes and included in their check-in luggage. Contrary to perhaps the preconceived view the kirpan would be appreciated as a symbol of the Sikh religion not as a weapon. But Sikhs remain concerned that employees might be asked to remove their kirpans or that turban wearers will be improperly targeted for profiling and additional searches. 
We have previously raised in this House our concerns about profiling practices at airports that could be discriminatory and we believe that the same concerns for natural justice apply here. We note the advice of the select committee that the Human Rights Act and the Employment Relations Act provide adequate protection against discrimination and that the Aviation Security Service has protocols and training in place to treat all people with respect. But we would emphasise that in light of the very real concern and experience set out in the Sikh submission regarding the sacred respect Sikhs place on their heads and hair the relevant aviation authorities should be encouraged to give priority to ongoing consultation with the ethnic communities of our nation. To a person of the Sikh religion removing the turban in full view of other passengers would be the equivalent of being strip-searched in public. As Maori we absolutely understand that concept because we also recognize the head as being a highly tapu part of the body and the hair taken from the head as being similarly tapu. It is also in respect of cultural sensitivity that we will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister to clarify the legislation in order to ensure that an unclothed image of a passenger cannot be used. 
The proposals in this bill include providing aviation security officers with search and seizure procedures to enable the screening and searching of airport staff and to strengthen the provisions for checking the background of people working in aviation security. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 bans on sharp-pointed objects were put in place and in the initial months security staff confiscated bin-loads of pocket knives scissors and nail files from loads of hostile passengers. Stewart Milne the executive director of the Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand believes that it took nearly 2 years for passengers to really get used to that set of restrictions. It was not just a matter of time; it was a matter of skilled negotiation and explanation and of providing storage facilities. We in the Maori Party therefore support the select committee recommendation to remove the requirement to record and store the seized items as a way of easing those compliance costs. 
Finally we cannot leave this bill without pointing out the obvious hypocrisy that although this bill is another chapter in an ongoing series of efforts to comply with international standards in other areas of international concern to do with meeting basic human rights standards this Parliament is showing wilful disregard of the same principles of cooperation. I think particularly of the recent criticism of our human rights failings from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the opposition of our Government to the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples currently before the United Nations. 
I want to share a commentary with the House from the  
Seattle Post-Intelligencer 
 of 27 August 2007 from Professor Alan Parker co-chair of the special committee on indigenous nation relationships for the National Congress of American Indians. In describing the actions of the current Bush Harper Clark and Howard administrations he said: “It is evident that these national governments share a common commitment to restrict the rights of ‘their indigenous people’ strictly to the domestic law of each nation and oppose any U.N. policy that would recognise indigenous nation rights as a matter of international law and policy.” Obviously it is one thing to recognise international law and policy when one is considering aviation security but when it comes to honouring the sovereign rights of the Treaty partner to partnership protection and participation this Government clearly prefers to exert power and control at the expense of indigenous peoples. 
The Maori Party will support the revised bill that has returned from the select committee but we will never support the antagonist hostility that this Government continues to demonstrate towards Maori people. Kia ora.