Gosche Mark: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Gosche Mark: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11499] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 This is an important piece of legislation. I guess it is a piece of legislation for our times. I think most of us in Parliament would prefer that we did not have to continue to beef up aviation security law in the way in which this bill does but that is unfortunately the reality of the world. New Zealand needs to meet its obligations under the various international agreements that allow airlines to travel to and from New Zealand and allow New Zealand airlines particularly Air New Zealand to access very important markets throughout the world. 
I guess it is with some regret that we progress pieces of legislation that allow for things that in the past we would never have dreamt of. I refer to things like the ability to screen and search airport workers which the Minister spoke of in his speech; the power for aviation security officers to search passengers’ outer garments and undertake pat-down searches; the requirement that airlines do not carry passengers who refuse to be searched; to potentially in the future enable foreign inflight security officers to enter and depart New Zealand; and should it be necessary enable New Zealand to deploy inflight security officers should our Government decide to do so in the future. 
I think that was probably the most contentious issue in this bill and I think the way in which this has been dealt with is important to note. This bill passed into law would allow the Government to do so in future but it is not in the law as it will be passed. It is something the Government would have to trigger at a future date through an Order in Council. There was some criticism about that as a mechanism but I think it is an elegant way of dealing with an issue that could impact on New Zealand in the future. It sends a clear signal to New Zealanders that we do not want to implement this unless we absolutely have to and that would be in the case where airlines would be coming from a State that required it. If they did not have the ability to legally touchdown in New Zealand with inflight security people on board then our potential trade with those countries particularly in relation to tourism and the like would be deeply impacted. 
There may be some who will say in this debate that it is a terrible thing and it should not happen but they have to contemplate the realities of what might happen if that were not in the law. It could mean that New Zealanders would not be able to travel anywhere of any note in the world at all either by way of international airlines or our own. I do not think anybody faced with that situation would want this law not to be passed. We are so very reliant on air travel these days for all sorts of reasons—business reasons holiday reasons tourism reasons. So it with some regret that we have to pass legislation like this but it is absolutely necessary to have that covered off should it be needed in the future. 
Also there are issues around checking the backgrounds of people working in critical areas. Obviously those who watch international developments can see that there can be weaknesses in security and when people are working in airport areas that require high levels of security we have to know about the backgrounds of those people. We have to have regulation-making powers so that the law is also able to quickly respond to new aviation security matters as we found not so many years ago after 9/11. We had to suddenly put in place measures we had never contemplated before. That may occur again in the future and this bill would allow that regulation-making power to make the types of changes that would be necessary. 
Clearly there needs to be the power for aviation security officers to search for seize and dispose of items that are prohibited and as Pansy Wong mentioned we have to make sure that people taking items in their carry-on baggage know the rules. We did contemplate the bill as it was drafted and I think we can understand that there was a desire to inconvenience the public as little as possible. We learnt from the aviation industry players—the airport operators and the airlines themselves—that planes could be delayed for up to an hour as people wrote down the details of their perfume or their jar of honey or whatever it may be so that it could be returned to them at a later date if they happened to be in the country. The balance between if you like the rights of that individual who unwittingly carried or attempted to carry that sort of stuff on in his or her carry-on luggage had to be weighed against the rights of the rest of the passengers who had obeyed all the rules and regulations and could be delayed on an international flight for maybe an hour. In the end the practicalities of storing that stuff for 30 days probably never to be returned to anybody meant that the committee as a whole put forward the amendment that the bill has in it. 
I am very pleased that the Minister picked up on our suggestion as a committee to look at whether we were absolutely clear about what could or could not be done with the technology that people will pass through in many airports throughout the world that scans people to see what they are carrying about their person. There is some technology that can see through clothing and the Supplementary Order Paper the Minister has put forward is welcomed because it clearly states that the purpose of such technology is not to see an unclothed image of a person. So I thank the Minister and the officials for taking up that suggestion from the select committee. We are pleased with that and obviously that will be supported by all in the Chamber when that Supplementary Order Paper is voted upon. 
There were a couple of other issues that the committee dealt with in its report that in the end did not lead to amendments. But there were some very good suggestions notably from the Air Line Pilots’ Association about on-board cameras and the difficulties pilots have. When they are sitting behind a locked door in the cockpit all they can see out of is a little peephole. Obviously voice communication is available to them but they are very desirous of having on-board cameras. We were told by Air New Zealand in particular that many of its new planes have them already and in the future this will probably be a standard item that larger planes will have. So in the end we did not seek an amendment that would require a rule to be made but that is an issue I think future Parliaments will have to look at and keep an eye on. Obviously in the end it is the pilots who make the decision as to whether the plane leaves the ground and they have to be sure they are in an environment that is safe when they take the plane and its passengers out. So they made some very good suggestions. 
Pansy Wong also talked about the cultural issues surrounding the Sikh community and others and we worked through those issues very well as a committee with the officials. We take on board the advice we got from the aviation security people in particular that they will be doing enhanced training in cultural diversity this year and next. We do not want to have incidents where people like those in the Sikh community get into some sort of difficulty with the items they carry such as a kirpan. The committee will want to check in the future if it can by way of financial review that what we have been told by the Aviation Security Service and the Civil Aviation Authority in terms of training its staff will in fact be carried out. Obviously the matters brought up by the Sikh community were taken very seriously by the Committee and the officials. We did decide not to amend the bill but it will be a matter of good communication good staff training and a good clear understanding by those cultures that the appropriate procedures will be undertaken by security staff whether it be dealing with kirpans or with the searching of a person who may have a head covering like the members of the Sikh community do as to where a search would take place if that had to be done. 
 So I am very appreciative of the work of all the members of the committee. This is legislation that I think as I said at the beginning of my speech regrettably is necessary in a changing world. I think we did a good job of making sure that any bugs in the system if you like had been ironed out and that led to the major amendment to the bill in respect of not requiring items that were confiscated to be held and kept for 30 days then given back. I am sure that the Hon Maurice Williamson will feel a tinge of regret about that because of his recent experience with a bottle of perfume that he lost which was destined for his beloved wife. Even though he saw the personal side of having that perfume taken off him I am sure he agrees with the rest of us. I have had some interesting emails from people demanding their right to carry chainsaws full of petrol on to planes and therein lies the difficulty. Some people see a right and others see a madness.