McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): National is supporting this legislation because we do think it's important but as our spokesperson David Bennett said there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. I listening to the debate so far was quite hopeful that they could be addressed in a constructive intelligent focused dedicated way until I just heard that Greg O'Connor is the chair of the committee that will deal with it. The first thing he did was he started talking about some dairy company which is not covered by the scope of the bill and then he took a whole of—a whole of—one minute and 43 seconds to say how important it was and the great work the committee would do. Greg O'Connor: Quality not quantity my friend.Hon TODD McCLAY: There's a reasonable chance his interjections will be longer than his blimmin speech which is something. It's quite ironic because he did say that this is important. If this is an important piece of legislation members of the Government should take more than the few measly minutes they are to talk about it. And the reason for that is that we have airports up and down the country; there are a lot of things that should be important should be discussed at first reading and at all other stages but here's the thing: they're ticking the boxes and they're going to rush it through quickly at least in as far as their speaking is concerned.There is an opportunity for all parties in this Parliament to work together to make this better than it is because there are some things that need to be delved into a lot more deeply. But that's only going to happen if the Government actually pays attention to it rather than rushing things through coming back to the House and saying We've done our job. We've finally started to pass some legislation."There's parts of the legislation I want to speak at to some degree. But the first really is around secrecy. Now New Zealanders before the Government locked us down last year used airports much much more than they do. Indeed $17 billion worth of exports came into the country through our international borders airports when it came to tourism. None of that is there any more. All Kiwis have an interest in this legislation being correct the Government getting it right and there should not be any secrecy. There should not be anything hidden. All the advice the Government has received they should share fairly and openly when it comes to safety and security but the last speaker Greg O'Connor spoke much more about culture in his one minute and 43 seconds than some of the detail. One of the important parts of this as in what's changed is around remotely piloted and autonomous aircraft—drones but many other things. Some of that could be that one day aeroplanes will take off and land by themselves without a significant amount of human intervention. But in the meantime there are the challenges around increases in the use of drones and the impact they could have both around airports but from an airport. If I have a look at the regulatory powers statement that has been provided to the Government and the Government has released in the House there is an awful amount of black ink in here. There are many many parts of this document that have been blanked out by the Government. And they owe it to us—the Minister when he spoke earlier—to explain why that is. The reason this is important is the Government has made decisions around security around safety around what they're going to do with these autonomous aircraft; why they're at risk why they need to be dealt with why they're taking two pieces of legislation and putting them together with the hope that it will be better. But they have not provided all of the advice they've received to make those decisions to the public to the Opposition or to I would hazard a guess even Labour Party backbench MPs. So the Government is asking us the public to trust them with security but they're not providing the information that they've received to make these decisions. Secondly they're also not explaining why they won't release it. I would hope that other members of the House when they speak would take some time to explain that. I'm sure there's a very good reason actually. Not everything is always put in the public domain. But in this instance when it comes to security and decisions the Government is making it should be released. You know the thing about the borders the airports the people that work there is they're very very professional. Another area where the Government hasn't provided enough information around our airports and aviation is when it comes to COVID and the border. I draw a comparison to that because in the case where we've seen this virus get over the border and back into the community with successive lockdowns in Auckland last year where we had border workers that weren't vaccinated and many that still probably aren't where they're not allowing the testing they should that the rest of the world allows the Government says "Trust us." But in this legislation when it comes to national security checks the way they're going to look at drug and alcohol management across the border these remote and autonomous aircrafts and so on they're saying "Trust us again." and not providing the advice. There is one part of the legislation I think is very important. It's not all that exciting but I do hope the committee takes the time to understand it and make sure it works and that's around airline alliances. Pre-COVID we had a very open borders policy a free-skies policy where within reason we wanted airlines to come here because when more airlines come to New Zealand they can bring more visitors. I see the Minister of Tourism is here. He doesn't want all visitors just a few high-paying ones but they do bring visitors. But at the same time when those visitors come on the aeroplanes even when they are budget aeroplanes when they leave again those aeroplanes take New Zealand goods with them for export and that's very very important. So we need to get these rules right around airline alliances the regulatory decision-making. It should not just be left to the Minister or Cabinet to set many many regulations because regulation is not necessarily the way you fix all problems or make things better or easier or simpler. In fact regulations often have the opposite effect. But in this instance it is very important. Airlines will want to come back to New Zealand again. We need to make sure there is a good regulatory framework that meets the requirements the expectations of the public but at the same time encourages them to come here; doesn't discourage them. Again slightly away from this not in the legislation but it is linked I notice this week the Government has announced that the border clearance fees costs taxes actually at our airports—at our airports not covered by this bill but actually have the same effect as things within this legislation—are to be more than doubled; a 117 percent increase. What that actually suggests to people who might want to come to New Zealand Kiwis who want to come home for Christmas if they could get a spot in managed and isolation quarantine is that actually the Government's going to charge them more.All of these things are linked. You can't just take this legislation by itself and say we're going to do some work here we're going to do it better and it has nothing to do with all of these other things at the border because they are linked. It is a cost. It is a tax. And if the Government is as ham-fisted with this legislation as they have been as an example on the border when it comes to COVID management when it comes to the taxes that they charge there then they won't get this right. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Just come back to the bill.Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes Madam Speaker I know but I am trying to bring it back to this in as far as examples elsewhere of what the Government has done around the border that have not helped and if they follow the same procedure or make the same types of decisions with this legislation then actually it won't be better. We will have missed an opportunity. National through our spokesperson the Hon David Bennett have pledged to be constructive to work with the Government to find solutions in all of these areas. I noticed some of the stakeholders who have looked at this already who actually are the experts—much more than the Minister will ever be or many of the officials—the people who have skin in the game have cautiously welcomed this at least supporting it at first reading they believe to iron out some of the challenges that the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand have said they have concerns around entering and remaining in the aviation system. The independent appeal authority reasonable cost—reasonable cost always comes up. The challenge we have is there's never a problem that the Labour Party doesn't think a new tax or a new levy would fix. But actually they in themselves will create problems and best international practice is very important. Just don't adopt it because they're doing it overseas but if it is best practice why don't we bring it here rather than having to start from scratch and New Zealand trying to make things up as they go along through the Labour Government. The Airports Association has concerns around the clarity of the Public Works Act. David Bennett mentioned this—changes and enforced regulatory undertakings. That's because they want certainty. They don't want the Government just to use the Public Works Act to do whatever they want because this is a Government with a majority that does just whatever they want not what's in the best interest of the country or of the stakeholders they're dealing with. They must listen to the New Zealand Airports Association and the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand. They know more about this than members opposite ever will or that we will on this side of the House. It is upon us to listen to them when they come to the select committee.The New Zealand Airports Association the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand—their opinion is to support the bill at first reading and they ask for their concerns to be looked at and considered. We'll be constructive. We'll be supporting this. But members opposite need to take more than one minute 43 seconds in their debate if they actually want the public to take them seriously."