Key John: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Key John: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11451] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I had the pleasure of sitting in on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when this bill was proceeding through the committee and I was privy to the reason that we are obviously supporting this legislation: the benefits that can happen on the commercial front with mutual recognition between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in Australia and the New Zealand authorities. If we look at the changes that are likely to happen in aviation in the next decade or so in New Zealand I suspect that we will see that these provisions will be very beneficial in allowing New Zealand companies that choose to operate a domestic service in Australia to have some real benefits and to make cost savings. 
One of the things we see in the aviation industry is a move to having more niche players. We have seen that with the entry into the industry of companies like Virgin Blue Airlines and Freedom Air and it can be seen now in Australia through Jetstar. On a point-to-point basis airlines are choosing to cut out a certain segment of the industry and to make a good return on that segment without being a full-service provider. In fact if we look for a holistic sort of airline then probably the only player we can see attempting to do that in New Zealand circles nowadays is Emirates Airline which is definitely looking to take on Singapore Airlines as a full-service multinational provider. With that in mind I think it is quite possible we will see New Zealand carriers established and running services that may include a small segment within Australia or a domestic service in Australia. 
These provisions are good provisions and National supports any legislation that will reduce compliance costs and make doing business more friendly. We would like to see the Government respond with a cut in the corporate tax rate rather than the garbage we currently see coming from the Minister for Small Business which is fluffed-up. I know that Harry Duynhoven the Minister in the chair would support a lower corporate tax regime for all the companies that are likely to be in this sector. I am sure that when this amendment bill is passed he will go straight up to the office of the Minister of Finance on the seventh floor and beg a meeting with him to discuss that very point. 
Darren Hughes 
: The member has done the tour. 
JOHN KEY 
: It is lovely to have the new junior Government whip in the Committee and I congratulate him on his rapid advancement through Labour’s ranks. I hope he has as many members around him in the years to come as he has now although I am very sceptical as to whether he will have that. 
I move on to new Part 5A inserted by clause 24 in Part 2 to talk for a moment about unruly passengers. As I prepared for this wonderful address today I was looking back at my remarks some months ago about unruly passengers. We have all had our own experiences of unruly passengers— 
Hon David Carter 
: Judith Tizard has been playing up. 
JOHN KEY 
: Well we have had false accusations about members of Parliament—that they have been unruly on planes. Those accusations are not correct but we have seen unruly passengers and the kinds of situations whereby people go up to the Koru lounge get absolutely laced up and then get on an aircraft. Of course they become a real problem—certainly during international travel when the flights are long. It is a well-documented medical fact known even in the banking industry—and I come from an investment banking position in my former career; I am not a medical person—that if one consumes alcohol at 10000 or 30000 feet above sea level it is far more likely to have an impact of greater magnitude than if one were just to have a quiet glass of wine at home. It is actually no different from the effect of a spa pool which is one of the reasons that if this legislation were to propose having spa pools on a plane at 35000 feet above sea level I would be totally opposed to that—to the drinking of alcohol in a spa pool on a plane. 
I want to move on to the far more important issue of unruly passengers and I point out to the Committee— 
Hon Member 
: Good point. 
JOHN KEY 
: It is a very good point and it has not been raised before in this debate which is where I am making an extreme contribution. New clause 65A “Application of this Part” which is inserted by clause 24 sets out exactly who an unruly passenger is. Quite correctly the provision points out that the situation applies: “(a) on an aircraft in New Zealand regardless of the nationality of the aircraft:”. That is very important. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. If any of us for instance were on an airline of any nationality—whether it is Emirates Airline Singapore Airlines Cathay Pacific Airways or Qantas—and were unruly the issue is not whether we are New Zealanders but whether the plane is in New Zealand or on its way having embarked from New Zealand regardless of the nationality of the aircraft. At the select committee we took some time with the officials.