Catchpole Brent: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7407] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 Before I express New Zealand First’s support of this bill I express our concern about the need for urgency in dealing with it and particularly the need for select committees to sit on Fridays and to late hours. I do not see that it is necessary for this bill and I have great concern as to the reasons that the Government would want to do that. If the Minister could convince us perhaps we would agree but so far the Minister has not been able to convince us that such action is necessary. 
New Zealand First supports the majority of the provisions in this bill. One of its provisions that I like is the extension of the open skies agreement particularly the seventh freedom of traffic rights. We already have the fifth and sixth freedoms for passenger and freight pickups and drop-offs in multiple ports in the destination country and the seventh freedom takes it a step further in allowing an airline to begin and end a flight in a country without passing through its home country. That is a concept that will allow for an increase in tourism. 
One issue that I would like to raise is the agreement between the Australian Minister of Transport and the New Zealand Minister of Transport in 2002. They agreed on the grounds of safety and ease of access on the two countries working together and passing legislation that would allow air operators certified in one country to operate in the other country without having to go through the process of getting a new operator’s certificate in that country. That is a good result. However it does remind me of the problem when Ansett Australia was owned by Air New Zealand and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia suddenly closed Ansett Australia down for the reason it said that it was unsafe. I would hate to see those powers passed on and used particularly when one considers that the explanatory note to this bill gives a lot of weight to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia—the same authority that closed Ansett down. I would hate to think that it would have far more powers to shut Air New Zealand down within New Zealand boundaries because that would go against the sovereignty of our State. To allow an authority that has a mutual agreement with a country the extreme powers to do that—in particular the power to shut down an airline that originates from another area—would be a concern. 
The Government of Australia does agree to that mutual arrangement but I would like to make sure that before we finally agree to allowing this bill to pass we are certain that the Australians are going to mirror our bill. If they do not we have allowed them to have the upper hand. I would hate to see that because tourism in New Zealand is very important and our airline is a very very important aspect of that tourism. To have an overbearing regulation that would limit tourism and direct it to Australia would be a gross overuse of the powers in this legislation. 
A number of members have talked about the provisions relating to unruly passengers. Unruly passengers on aircraft are a frightening concept. I have had a first-hand experience not on an aircraft but on a tour bus on which a passenger suddenly got out of his seat carrying a knife. It would be much the same as on an aircraft except that the bus was able to stop while I attempted to disarm the passenger. With 45 passengers on board—it was a fully laden bus—it was not an easy feat. It came down to a lot of calm talking and we eventually persuaded the passenger to give up the knife. 
Alcohol at altitude has a much more damaging effect on the brain and actions because it takes effect rapidly and a person gets out of control if he or she is that way inclined; that is one of the problems on aircraft. If the passenger with the knife had been so inclined I suspect we would have had a far more sinister situation at the end of the day. In that circumstance we were lucky and were able to disarm the person. 
New Zealand First has reservations about civil liabilities for delay because when an aircraft is delayed there are often ongoing connections that it is necessary for a passenger to make in order to carry on to another destination. If an airline abdicates its responsibility to get passengers to their destination that is one thing but it is a weakness in this bill to allow the airline carte blanche with regard to its reliability in getting them there with no responsibility to look after passengers because they have missed their ongoing flights. The select committee really needs to look at that aspect and make sure that it is not giving the airlines unnecessary powers or freedom to neglect their passengers and not be responsible for their well-being whether or not they are outside their own countries. If that support is not in the mechanisms in the legislation we will be letting them down. The passengers are an important aspect. 
In summary New Zealand First supports the open skies agreement. Under the open skies agreement Air New Zealand and Qantas have often had code-share agreements so it is a case of allowing a little bit more freedom in that. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh come on. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I hear Jill Pettis piping up over there. She wants me to hurry up and finish. I say to her that she takes very short calls but we have some very grave concerns about a few aspects of this legislation. We are supporting the bill for her party but she should give us the due of allowing us to express our concerns where we see them. I would like to make sure that the select committee has the opportunity to listen to our concerns and not be shut down by her comments. I recap on the issue of unruly passengers: we do find that it is most important to support the flight crew and make sure that unruly passengers are curtailed or even stopped in their tracks before they become a problem but our main concern is civil aviation liability. 
Bill read a first time.