Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) : I move, That the Aviation Security Legislation Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the Aviation Security Legislation Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, that the committee reports finally to the House on or before 16 July 2007, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on the Friday in a week when there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).

In today’s aviation security environment we are faced with new and evolving threats to personal and national security. Such threats are dynamic, can be highly sophisticated, and are difficult to predict. Aviation remains an attractive target because of the disruption that can be caused. Each State must consider the implications of these ongoing threats, not only to itself but to its neighbours and the wider international community. We must ensure that New Zealand’s reactions are appropriate for our circumstances and that we are not out of step with the approaches taken by our closest neighbours and the international community. In addition, we must be mindful of the impact on the aviation industry and on the passengers.

New Zealand has long been a contracting State to the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is known as ICAO. As a contracting State, New Zealand is expected to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization safety and security standards. This Government does not believe that non-compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization standards is an option for New Zealand. Non-compliance would undermine international confidence in New Zealand’s aviation security and would damage our ability to maintain air links with other countries. The provisions contained in the bill will enable New Zealand to continue to comply with the International Civil Aviation Organization standards and strengthen our own aviation security. The bill will therefore help ensure continued confidence in the security of New Zealand’s aviation services, both domestically and abroad. It will also strengthen the legal framework for New Zealand’s aviation security system.

The bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and does not in any way target or profile ethnic, religious, or political groups. The main elements and objectives of the bill are to provide aviation security officers with the power to search for and seize items prohibited or restricted from being taken on aircraft; to enable the screening and searching of airport workers; to provide a power for aviation security officers to search passengers’ outer garments and undertake pat-down searches; to require that airlines deny carriage to passengers who refuse to be searched; to provide a power for aviation security officers to seize potential weapons; to enable foreign inflight security officers to enter and depart New Zealand and enable New Zealand to deploy inflight security officers should the Government decide to do so in the future; to formalise the process for checking the background of people working in areas critical to aviation security; and to provide a general regulation-making power to ensure that the law is able to respond to new aviation matters in a timely fashion.

The bill is an omnibus bill that amends the Civil Aviation Act 1990, the Aviation Crimes Act 1974, the Arms Act 1983, and the Civil Aviation Rules. Recent threats to international aviation security have drawn attention to new groups of items that may need to be prohibited or limited from being taken on aircraft by passengers or crew. These include components of weapons, such as chemicals and electronic components, and items that are not weapons but that look like or could be used to disguise weapons, such as a liquid explosive disguised as a sports drink.

Existing aviation security legislation clearly prohibits dangerous goods and traditional weapons such as firearms from being taken on aircraft. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding whether potential weapons are also covered. Recent consideration following the alleged UK terrorist plot shows that the legislation is not sufficiently clear on this particular point. To address this, the bill clarifies the position around items that have an innocent purpose but that could be used as weapons, such as, for example, cricket bats or scissors. It also ensures that items or substances that could be the ingredients of weapons are prohibited where there is an intention that those items or substances will be used as weapons.

In the past no formal procedures have been in place for screening and searching people who work at airports. Although passengers and crew boarding aircraft are screened, those who have access to baggage and in-service aircraft are not. The International Civil Aviation Organization has introduced a standard that New Zealand is required to meet to ensure that a proportion of people with access to secure airport areas undergo the same screening and searching as passengers and crew. The bill provides a mechanism for this to occur. However, searching and screening by themselves are not likely to be enough. There is a need to formalise the process for checking the background of people who work in areas critical to aviation security. In any case of background checking it is necessary to provide appropriate natural justice provisions for people whose backgrounds are checked, and the bill fulfils this need.

The bill also establishes a power for aviation security officers to search passengers’ outer garments and conduct pat-down searches. Currently the search power is limited to searching a passenger’s “coat or similar article”. The limited scope of the current search power creates a risk to New Zealand’s aviation security as passengers could carry non-metallic potential weapons on board aircraft concealed in garments other than coats. The extension of search powers to include outer garments will allow more effective searching to be carried out by aviation security service staff.

Further, it has become evident that there is a need for legal clarification regarding the powers of aviation security officers to seize potential weapons. Prohibited items pose a security risk because they could be used to hijack or damage an aircraft. Aviation security officers are responsible for preventing prohibited items such as potential weapons from being taken into the cabin of aircraft. However, they do not currently have the power to seize such items discovered during screening in order to prevent this offence from occurring. Instead, they rely on passengers voluntarily relinquishing items subject to the airlines’ refusal to carry passengers who do not comply. The bill formalises requirements for dealing with potential weapons and for airlines to deny carriage to passengers who refuse to be searched.

Existing legislation does not permit foreign inflight security officers to enter New Zealand. This would pose a problem if an aircraft carrying foreign inflight security officers diverted to New Zealand, or if another country wanted to deploy inflight security officers on its aircraft at short notice. Under our air services agreements that enable us to fly to other countries, we are obliged to consider security requests from those countries. This could include a request for inflight security officers to be on board foreign aircraft flying into New Zealand. New Zealand has not received any such request to date, but the Government does not want to be in a situation where flights are cancelled because we do not have the right legislation in place.

New Zealand does not currently possess an inflight security officer capability as part of its aviation security regime, and this position is not changed by the bill. The Government has decided that inflight security officers should not be deployed on New Zealand aircraft at this time but that we should continue to rely on ground-based security measures. However, as we have seen in the past, the global aviation security environment can deteriorate very rapidly. Therefore, the bill allows New Zealand to respond quickly to worsening conditions. Future-proofing provisions in the bill will allow foreign inflight security officers to enter and depart New Zealand and allow the deployment of inflight security officers on New Zealand aircraft should the Government decide to do so in the future.

I want to be clear that Cabinet would need to approve any agreement between New Zealand and another State seeking to deploy inflight security officers on its aircraft flying into New Zealand. In addition, in the unlikely event that New Zealand deploys inflight security officers on New Zealand aircraft, this will also require Cabinet approval. This role would be undertaken by specially trained members of the New Zealand Police. The current rule-making powers can be time-consuming and can limit the Government’s ability to make rapid changes to aviation security legislation in response to international security events or short-notice changes to international practice. The bill, therefore, includes a general regulation-making power to ensure that the law is able to respond to new aviation security matters in a timely fashion. At stake is the economic and trade security of the country. The Government would welcome a discussion at the select committee on the advantages and disadvantages of this provision.

I consider that the amendments contained in the bill provide an appropriate balance between the rights of New Zealanders to travel to destinations of their choice, their expectations of privacy, and the need to ensure that aviation security measures meet international requirements. I commend the Aviation Security Legislation Bill to the House.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) : I am happy to tell the House today that the National Opposition will indeed support this legislation to go through to the very fine Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—

Hon Mark Gosche: Very well chaired and deputy chaired.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: —which is very well chaired and deputy chaired, as one of the members points out. If I were not in my very cooperative mood towards the Government today, I would stop right there, and I would ask all the other National MPs to stop right there as well, because, frankly, the Government desperately needs National members to talk today. If we look at the Order Paper, we see that, for the first time in my history in this place, it is now down to a single sheet of A4—on which the first two items are first readings, which will be out of the way today. We would be in grave danger of getting down to the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill, if I were not in my cooperative mood and choosing to take my entire 5 minutes—as will other members of National’s team today—in speaking on this bill.

It is not very easy to speak on a bill that you believe is sensible, but I am going to pose some questions that I hope the Minister for Transport Safety, Harry Duynhoven, will actually think about. The first thing that always worries me with legislation like this is its time frame. If, in fact, Osama bin Laden is sitting around in the cave tonight and it says on his Internet service that New Zealand has introduced the first reading of this bill, is that likely to get Osama and the boys saying: “Right, that means we have no more than 4 months for our next attack, because once the third reading is through, it will be law and we can’t do it.”? That is how silly this legislative sort of approach to things can be. This bill will not be law for at least 4 months—probably more, although I am not sure—and that means we have signalled to the terrorist community that in the meantime they will not be searched like this and that there will not be air marshals on planes when they come from other countries. I wonder why, when the big terrorism attack occurred in 2001, it is 2007 when we are introducing legislation like this. But it would be churlish and flippant to suggest that the Minister has probably sat on his hands for 6 years and done nothing.

So what are we doing here? Well, according to the explanatory note, we are providing “aviation security officers with the power, … to search for or seize items … prohibited or restricted from being taken on board an aircraft;”. That seems pretty sensible to me—why would anyone oppose that, why would we not do that, why have we not been doing that all along anyway? I thought security officers did have the power to search for and seize items prohibited or restricted from being taken on to an aircraft. Certainly, I have experienced long, long queues at airports when going out of here internationally, with people having all sorts of things taken off them, like snippy scissors. One lady the other day had some tweezers taken off her because one side had a sharp edge on it.

The bill will “enable the screening and searching” of airport workers—and there, I think, is a real hole in security. I have worked at an airport. I worked out there once when there was a big strike on, and management were actually called out to the airport for 2 weeks to load bags, check out the aeroplanes, fuel them, and so on.

Hon Mark Gosche: The only time he earned his money.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yeah, yeah—of course all the trade unionists will say “Scab worker!”, and that was probably true. But that is how I earned—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: No, no—for once you earned your money.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yes, for once I earned my money. I can remember walking in and out of the engineering shops where we were, and then going down to the conveyor belt, and actually going up into the belly of the aeroplane, and not a single person stopped us from the moment we arrived at work till the time we drove out the driveway and back to town. Of course, this idea that the only people who can get explosives on to a plane and blow it up are passengers is silly. It is the silliest person who would try to get explosives on to a plane, because they would kill themselves. If terrorists were going to target a plane, the best way would be to try to get the explosives on to the plane when it was in the engineering shop and being serviced. They could get the explosive in there and have it activated to go off at, let us say, an elevation level, so that it triggered at 3,000 feet or something. So that is another sensible move.

Moana Mackey: The member is talking about this a lot. Talk about something else.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I thank the member for the interjections. It is helping me fill my 5 minutes of filibustering to keep the Government away—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Ten.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: —10 minutes; oh, this is even better—from having an Order Paper collapse altogether.

The next item is to “provide a power for aviation security officers to search passengers’ outer garments …” and to undertake pat-down searches. Maybe the Minister will help us with the definition of “outer garments”; how many layers of garments can people have before they can finally start saying: “Hang on—those are my middle-layer or under-layer garments.”?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Maurice’s imagination is running riot.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The Minister says there is a definition of outer garments? That is excellent. I will look forward to having a look at that, and then see whether I always comply in terms of the stuff I wear.

The bill will “provide a power for aviation security officers to seize potential weapons;”. Again, I would have thought that that was just straight common sense; I thought we already had that. “Potential weapons” is interesting. What did the 2001 terrorists use in New York? They used what Americans call box cutters, and I think we just call them—come on, what do we call them—Stanley knives, or something.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: No, no. Stanley knives are much bigger.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Are they? So a box cutter is not even as big as a Stanley knife.

Then we get into the whole debacle about what is really a potential weapon. Just about anything can be used. I do not know for sure, but a story I was told was that the people on board the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania—the fourth plane that did not crash into buildings—used jugs with boiling water. Because the terrorists had taken weapons off people, and had them all seated so they could not do anything, people boiled some water in the galley and then threw the boiling water at the terrorists to disarm them. So where is the limit for what is a potentially dangerous weapon? Now a jug in a galley or a kitchen can be dangerous. Even a glass of boiling water—if people asked the hostess whether they could make their own tea and just asked for boiling water—could be a potential weapon on a plane and used to overpower someone and take the plane over. So setting definitions and boundaries as to what is potentially a dangerous weapon becomes very difficult.

The next proposals are very interesting. They are to enable foreign inflight security officers to enter and depart New Zealand and to enable New Zealanders to deploy inflight security officers should the Government decide to do so. I think it will be a very long time before New Zealand has to invoke its own security officers on aeroplanes that are New Zealand domiciled, such as Air New Zealand flights going out of here. But I accept that we are flying into some potentially dangerous zones, and some airlines are coming out of them. The difficulty in New Zealand is that we do not have an American airline flying into New Zealand—because Air New Zealand, to its great credit, was able to see off all the competitors. I think we have seen off five major competitors in the past. United Airlines tried and could not do it, Pan American World Airways tried and could not do it, Continental Airlines tried and could not do it—there is one other. I ask members to help me with this. There were five.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: American Airlines.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: American Airlines was along the way. They all had a crack and could not do it.

Hon Member: BA.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yes, and British Airways from the other side. We do fly to the United States.

One of the things we always have to worry about in terms of the security issue is what will happen if airlines really toughen up. El Al has always been tough; the Israeli airline has made it impossible for terrorists to hit at it. What the terrorists can then do is shift their target to a softer touch. I am pleased that New Zealand is at least enabling this legislation, which will allow air marshals. I would like to know from the Minister whether he thinks air marshals have come in and out of New Zealand already on some foreign carriers. There probably have been some.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: How would you know?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: A great question. How would we know? Air marshals could be on any flights coming in and out of the country and we would simply not know. I guess the whole point of having an air marshal on a plane is that we should not know. Passengers should not know.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: You have a big badge!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yes, a marshal would have a big badge on the front saying “I am the marshal.”! I do not think that would work because the terrorists would probably deal to that person first.

This is sensible legislation. With any legislation one always wonders whether it will have the desired impact. We have not made ourselves a target. To New Zealand’s credit, our behaviour on the world scene has been a reasonably exemplary performance, and we have not attracted radical terrorists who say they are going to get us. In fact, to be fair to Osama bin Laden in the cave tonight, he is probably first asking the question: “Where is this New Zealand you are talking about?”, rather than wanting to get his bombs and come down here before the passing of the legislation.

Finally, the legislation proposes to formalise the process “for checking the background of people who work in areas critical to aviation security,”. That is probably where the biggest hit of this legislation will be. We need to do thorough and proper background and character checks on those people. That is a much better process. Good people will ensure that, even if the systems do not pick up things, people will still be safe. If good people are not employed, even with the best checking, then people will still be able to sneak stuff in, hide stuff under their overalls, or bring stuff in on the back of a tractor. If anyone has ever done a shift out at an airport at night, they will have seen the machinery, the loaders, and the volumes of big containers moving on and off the runway.

I am happy to say that not only will the National Party support this legislation but all our speakers will take the necessary time to keep the Government’s Order Paper looking OK.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : I look forward to the Aviation Security Legislation Bill coming to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am pleased to hear from the previous speaker, the Hon Maurice Williamson, that the National Party will be supporting it.

I would imagine that every party in the House will look at this bill and ask the question why—as most New Zealanders will. It is important to explain, as the Minister for Transport Safety did in his speech, why we have to take steps in legislation that, hopefully, will never have to be implemented. It is largely because of the international scene in which we operate. Although New Zealand is perceived by most people to be a very safe place to live in, a very safe place to visit, and a very safe place in which to fly, it is necessary to take account of the laws that apply internationally, particularly if we want to be able to fly to other parts of the world that are less safe. As people line up at the security checks at Auckland International Airport, or at other international airports throughout New Zealand, they may wonder why they are have to do so, as they did when we first implemented screening. The reason is largely so that the planes they get on can land somewhere. That is the difficulty of the environment, internationally, we now operate in.

The legislation talks about enabling foreign inflight security officers to enter and depart New Zealand and enabling New Zealand to deploy inflight security officers, should the Government decide to do so in the future. But it is important to note that provisos sit alongside that. In fact, if we ever reach that stage, such a step will require full Cabinet approval. I think that is a very good thing, because in the past I have heard in this House, and in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from airline pilots organisations in New Zealand, that pilots are very reticent about this step—and rightly so. They get into those planes every day, as we go to work here, and they want to go home at the end of the day, just like we do. They are very wary of the idea of having security people in the air with them because of the potential difficulties that that could entail—and nobody needs to have those spelt out to them. I am sure the select committee will hear such views, take them into account, and consider what is probably the most significant change in New Zealand legislation and aviation security for a very, very long time.

As the Hon Maurice Williamson pointed out, the other matters need to be in law and need to be clarified. The Minister has pointed out that there is some lack of clarity around the carriage of certain items that at the moment we could very easily describe as dangerous goods, such as firearms and traditional weapons. But we are getting into other areas where people might carry something else that on a sports field would be considered quite normal but on an aeroplane could be used as a weapon. These things need to be more clearly defined in law.

We all sit here with some trepidation in terms of passing such legislation, asking ourselves why we need to and why it is necessary in a safe little country like New Zealand so far away from the rest of the world. We have to answer that question very simply by explaining to the New Zealand public that many parts of the world now will just not allow aeroplanes to touch down—whether they are aeroplanes flown by Air New Zealand or by airlines that have passed through New Zealand and are going on to another part of the world carrying visitors and tourists.

It is a plain, simple, and awful fact that we have to abide by these international standards. We need legislation that copes with the international standards if we are to be part of the global economy. Of course, tourism in New Zealand is a massive earner of income. It is a huge employer of people, and we have to ensure that tourists are able to fly to New Zealand, as they do now, and not get held up by the fact that in our own laws we have not sufficiently guarded against danger and have not sufficiently satisfied our trading partners in other parts of the world that allow our planes, or planes transiting through New Zealand, to land.

I look forward to what I think will be an interesting round of public submissions on this bill. It raises some very interesting and important matters of civil rights—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Are you going to write to any terrorist organisations seeking their views on the matter?

Hon MARK GOSCHE: I would not be sure about who will make those submissions, but we will probably have the security guards checking them as they come through the door, as we do already. Seriously, I know that a lot of people will be looking at this legislation very carefully, wanting to be sure that New Zealand has to pass this law. I think that will be an important aspect for the select committee to consider and I am looking forward to being part of that process as the chair of that committee.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : The Aviation Security Legislation Bill seeks to enhance New Zealand’s civil aviation security measures and to support its obligations under international covenants. The catalyst for this legislation was the terrorist attacks of September 11. The bill also amends a number of other Acts. This major legislation coming before this House—as Maurice said, to fill in the Order Paper—does not represent any major controversy, so National supports it.

Security is vital for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. Our biggest industry is tourism. Our failure to retain world-class standards in security will diminish our base as a tourist destination, and it could potentially affect international visitors’ perceptions. The relative safety of New Zealand has been a driver for increased migration over a number of years, since September 11. Our country has an international airline in Air New Zealand. It is also very important that we maintain top-rate security in order that Air New Zealand can be competitive as an international carrier.

Let us have a look at some of the contentious parts of the legislation. First, there is now the possibility of armed marshals on foreign airlines flying into New Zealand and the possibility of armed New Zealand police on New Zealand - based flights. Although there are no immediate plans to take advantage of these possibilities, it does open up New Zealand aviation to a whole new travel dynamic.

Hone Harawira: What are the advantages?

DAVID BENNETT: The changes have some advantages. They will give us the security we are looking for in our industry, such as being able to counter threats when APEC leaders gather in our region later this year, and they will bring New Zealand into line with countries such as Australia, Canada, Britain, and the United States. It is inevitable that we would do this, as those major countries of tourist origin and destination deploy many people as air marshals on their own flights. With APEC leaders gathering here, it is important that we have that international comparison with our neighbours and are able to provide security for world leaders as they pass through this region. New Zealand has required specific threats to be notified to the Government, and then it will decide whether to grant the air marshal request. That seems a fairly reasonable request and process. This is not, as some people may contend, a bowing to pressure from major countries; rather, it represents New Zealand playing its role in the international community.

New Zealand has no intention of cramming New Zealand flights with armed officers. It is to be only in certain special cases, where certain processes have been complied with. When we fly in New Zealand we often think that our major cities, like Auckland and Wellington, are very vulnerable, because in many cases they have major large buildings in direct flight paths. It would not take much for someone to turn one of our domestic airliners into one of our major city buildings. The risk to New Zealand from terrorism is quite great.

Greater restrictions on what needs to be limited or prohibited from being carried on to planes will be imposed. Anyone travelling through the US would have encountered the 100-gram limits that mean that most toothpastes and allied products cannot be part of passengers’ carry-on luggage. Somewhat innocent products like these, and sports drinks, could in fact be liquid explosives. New Zealand needs to be aware of such risks and play its part in reducing the likelihood of such occurrences.

The greater search powers of security officers are aligned with this issue. It is common place when travelling internationally to have to take off one’s shoes when being screened. Other outer garments, as Maurice has disclosed, are undefined to a large extent, but they also have to be removed. There are also pat-down searches, if it is felt there is a need for them. Airlines will also have the power to deny the carriage of passengers who refuse to be searched. This mandatory searching requirement also maintains the integrity of the system.

Overall, there are a number of changes. The desire is to make New Zealand’s rules comparable with those of its major tourism countries. Although New Zealand aviation has an international element, its most likely weakness is in domestic air travel. There is little or no security at provincial airports covering domestic flights. Planes flying domestic routes can still be hugely dangerous and would be seen as an easy target for terrorists. For example, this weekend a passenger carried a rifle on board a flight from New Plymouth to Auckland.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Wrong. It was over a year ago, and it wasn’t a rifle.

DAVID BENNETT: That was from the Minister’s own area. The passenger was pulled aside after his plane landed in Auckland and as he was boarding another flight to Kerikeri. The gun should have been in the cargo hold. This incident serves to represent how relaxed we are about provincial airline travel in New Zealand. Our relaxed attitude could, one day, spell disaster. People often fly from Hamilton on packed planes. Those planes could be just as dangerous as a 737 airplane that is full. They could do as much damage to a major city when flying from there to Auckland or Wellington. Those are the kinds of areas that New Zealanders need to be aware of, as well.

A campaign called FLYSMART has been designed to educate people who are travelling overseas. It covers the new limits on the amounts of liquids, aerosols, and gels that can be in people’s carry-on baggage. That is quite a good policy, as it educates people at this stage. Such education programmes are necessary, because the travel environment has changed. People need to know what they are dealing with post - September 11. Similarly, the new International Civil Aviation Organization Aviation Security Training Centre, which is based in New Zealand, recognises international training standards that also have a role in assisting in aviation security throughout this country.

Overall, this legislation contains a number of initiatives that will lead to a safer environment for New Zealand travellers and for international travellers coming through New Zealand. By doing something to counter the major terrorist threat to our world, our reputation in the world of travel will be enhanced.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : Let me say that New Zealand First will support the Aviation Security Legislation Bill’s first reading, but it is a very, very sad day for New Zealand. I can remember the time when I first came to New Zealand from the UK, and this country had absolute maximum freedom. People could leave their doors open and go down the street, and could leave their cars unlocked.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Was that before airplanes?

PETER BROWN: Did the member say something?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: He said: “And then all the Brits arrived.”

PETER BROWN: Oh, did he?

Hon Maurice Williamson: I didn’t say anything. But I think it’s a sad day, too.

PETER BROWN: It is a sad day, because this bill represents a little bit more loss of freedom. Freedom and security pull the country in different directions. If we want maximum freedom we have minimum security, and if we want maximum security then freedoms have to be impinged upon. Freedoms get lost. Freedoms are put in the too-hard basket.

We live in a very, very volatile world. There is an obligation in this country to strengthen security again, and New Zealand First supports that. Sad as it is, we support the passing of this bill. We know that it will restrict freedom, it will inconvenience passengers, and it will make extra work for many people who work at airports. I think I recall the Minister for Transport Safety, Harry Duynhoven, saying that the economic and trade freedoms of this country are at stake. It is more than that. At stake is the economic well-being, the trade well-being, and the social well-being of many people in this country who want to travel. It is a sad day for New Zealand, but this sort of legislation is essential in the world in which we live nowadays.

I will not go into the details of the bill because they were well canvassed by the Minister earlier on and by some members who have spoken before me. But one area does concern me, and that is the little bullet point that states: “require airlines to deny carriage to passengers who refuse to be searched;”. I have to say to the Minister that I hope the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, when it considers the bill, looks at that point very seriously. I am aware, and I know the Minister is aware, of a young woman who went through an airport and had to be searched. Something made the bell ring, but the staff could not find it very readily. They could not find what was setting off the alarm, so they asked the woman to remove more and more clothing, or unzip whatever she was wearing, to the degree that she was totally embarrassed.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Not in New Zealand, though.

PETER BROWN: I am aware of a similar type of case occurring in New Zealand. The member has corrected me; the case he is aware of did not occur in New Zealand. But it could easily occur here. The select committee will have to consider such situations. If people refuse to be searched in a public area, then they should be able to go into a private cubicle, where the situation can be handled with a degree of decorum, or whatever. It is not the right of aviation security guards to embarrass people, particularly young people or old people. So New Zealand First will want to see some alternative option for people who do not want to be searched publicly.

But we cannot fault this bill. We wish we could say that New Zealand does not need this legislation—that we do not live in such a world and that we do not want to be captured by this sort of legislation. Unfortunately, those are not the facts of life. The world is getting more and more volatile, more or less as we speak. The problems are of a huge dimension. It is not impossible that some terrorist will get into this country and try to use his—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Or some soccer hooligan.

PETER BROWN: That is not impossible; some of them get up to weird tricks. On a more serious note, it is not impossible that somebody will want to do something very, very sinister in this country in terms of airport security and what have you. We need this bill to protect the many New Zealanders and tourists who travel internationally and throughout the country. New Zealand First supports the first reading of the bill. As I said, we wish that the bill was not necessary, but it is very necessary. In fact, it is essential.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party is very disturbed that the bill allows for armed marshals on planes flying in and out of New Zealand. Those marshals are supposed to make plane travel safer in New Zealand, but in fact they introduce more danger. It is quite obvious that allowing people to use guns in the confined space of an aeroplane is dangerous. Innocent people are liable to be hit accidentally, and if a bullet goes through a cabin wall it could have disastrous consequences for those on board. A bullet hole could cause the cabin to depressurise and bring the plane down.

In the years since the United States put air marshals on planes, I do not think they have dealt with an actual terrorist. But air marshals themselves have terrorised many passengers. In 2005 one air marshal on an American Airlines flight shot and killed RigobertoAlpizar, a schizophrenic, despite pleas from his wife that he was a sick person, not a criminal. Mistakes like that are perhaps even more likely to occur now, when more and more people can qualify as terrorists—such as anyone having in their possession more than 100 millilitres of hairspray or shampoo.

The explanatory note of the bill talks about the danger of “liquid explosive disguised as a sports drink". A Time magazine in 2004 had an article with the headline “Air marshals or cowboys?” detailing 600 cases of misconduct, including one air marshal who drew his gun on a man who had stolen his airport parking space and other marshals who had left their guns in the plane’s toilet, been on drugs, been drunk, etc. I do not think that airliners in the sky are the places for any sort of armed exchange. If there is any possible specific threat to a plane, that plane should not be let off the ground. That is the view of many of the pilots and why they have expressed concern about the proliferation of air marshals on planes. They do not want the airlines saying: “Oh, there’s been a threat to this flight, but rather than lose money by cancelling it, we’ll put an armed marshal on board.”

Do we want to gamble with the lives of New Zealanders by seeing an armed marshal as the answer to a specific security problem on a plane? I ask members not to take my word for it, but there is some counterbalancing of a specific threat to a plane, either cancelling it or putting an armed marshal on board. The explanatory note states that in the absence of air marshals we could have a situation where “Air New Zealand could sustain a loss of revenue associated with the cancelling of flights occasionally”.

Then there are other dangers with air marshals, like one identified in the British Guardian that the system could “play into the hands of well-trained hijackers who could identify the marshal and use his weapon themselves.” A variation of that scenario could be a hijacker, smartly dressed with the right crew-cut, claiming to be a marshal when the stewards or stewardesses were otherwise occupied, and go to the front of the plane. Who would know who was the marshal, or whether there was a marshal on the plane, or whether a marshal was a fake—because marshals, as we know, are always in plain clothes. Masquerading is not very difficult. We read in this morning’s about two carjackers in Sydney who posed as police. They pulled a Sydney doctor over, asked for his ID, took his keys, robbed him, then locked him in the boot. So masquerading is not too difficult, and in an aeroplane it would be very dangerous.

Another reason why pilots have been worried about these measures is that their presence creates a problem as to who is in command—the pilot, who is supposed to be in charge traditionally, or the air marshal? In the bill the air marshal is allowed to take initiatives but is supposed to talk to the pilot at a later point, if he or she can. So there is a sort of joint security command on the plane, with the air marshal being in control of the cabin.

Just this month Dragonair pilots have complained about guns on flights within China. The crew have queried the need for guards armed with regular military-issue semi-automatic pistols and knives on Air China planes leased through the Hong Kong airline. The Hong Kong Airline Pilots Association wrote to the city’s aviation authority: “The carriage of armed personnel not responsible to the commander of the plane is the cause of particular unease. … There appears to be no legal indemnity for the commander, should one of his security personnel take actions that result in the death of or injury to passengers.”

It is quite clear that this air marshal provision in the bill is being driven out of the United States, and perhaps Australia, and not from any identified extra security need in New Zealand. We should not be buckling to the Bush administration in its over-the-top implementation of the so-called war on terrorism. I think Mark Gosche in his speech admitted that the driving force is really what some other countries and Governments are doing. He used the term “the awful fact” that we have to abide by their views. I do not believe we have to. Instead of just abiding by such measures enforced from overseas, we should be aligning ourselves internationally with those people and Governments that are resisting this measure—in Europe and elsewhere—and not just going along with it.

It is clear that the Government is a bit embarrassed about the way this measure is coming in and about the nature of the measures, because it is using the little dodge of saying that it is going to pass this legislation but that the provisions relating to armed air marshals are not coming into effect until Cabinet ticks off the implementation of those clauses. As we know, Cabinet meets every Monday. It would be very easy for Cabinet at its next meeting, the following meeting, or whenever, simply to approve these measures. I do not think we can take that as a reassurance. Similarly, Cabinet can, overnight, put armed marshals on Air New Zealand planes under this legislation, simply by passing something through its Monday meeting.

What about the cost of these measures? I think that has to be borne in mind, because we all know that sometimes we want to go to, say, Australia and when we check out the cost we find that about half of it is for the extra security measures that are coming in all the time. On 19 August last year, the Guardian newspaper stated that there were now over 1,000 American air marshals, and they have a budget of $700 million. Now who, in the end, pays that money? It will be the people buying tickets on the airlines. So do we really want to go down that line?

Of course, there are some good points in the bill, such as having more secure areas set aside, and having proper checking procedures for people moving in and out of those secure areas. Maurice Williamson talked about the fact that someone who wanted to put a bomb on a plane would likely put it in baggage in one of those secure areas, rather than just marching on board with it and probably getting caught at the security check. So, although the bill contains some good measures, I think the issue of air marshals is so dangerous that the Greens will not support it.

We have to look at the whole question of security checking. Maurice Williamson talked about tweezers being taken off people. We almost turned the older generation—women, in particular—into terrorists by taking all their knitting needles off them for a whole period. We have to assess what checking we are doing in terms of the real risk. Perhaps we need statistics from the Government on how many real security incidents have occurred in our several years of intensive checking on aeroplanes. If there have not been any, then perhaps we need to downgrade the checking somewhat.

I do worry sometimes about the powers being granted under this bill for the security people to take what is called outer clothing off people, which has already been talked about in this debate. “Outer clothing” is subject to different interpretations, and it can lead to very embarrassing situations. We could go too far down the road of intrusive checking. Perhaps we should not give the powers to the security people but, rather, give a sort of back-up security power to the police who are in every airport. In really difficult situations, such search powers could be given to police who are called in, rather than give them willy-nilly to the security people, who are often with private security firms.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) :Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa, itēneipō. One of the accusations that sometimes comes to us in the Māori Party is that our positions on bills seem predictable. If that is the case, we stand guilty as charged. We apply a methodology that is not subject to the whims of political number crunching to every vote. Our interests are always in how we defend Māori rights and advance Māori interests for the benefit of the nation, Aotearoa. We are not about being suppressed by Cabinet conventions or coalition conditions. Our position is a position driven by kaupapa and tikanga Māori.

So how does this methodology apply within the context of provisions to enhance the security measures for New Zealand civil aviation? Well, the relationship of our kaupapa is not always immediate, but it is always relevant, even if it takes a little bit of time to work through. We are always happy to do the hard work in order to ensure that a strong and independent Māori voice is brought to bear on every issue.

First and foremost, our concern is always to support initiatives that seek to create a clean, safe, and healthy environment in which the well-being of people is protected. Our belief in the value of kaitiakitanga entails an active exercise of responsibility in a manner beneficial to resources and the welfare of the people. We believe that aviation security threats lead to increased risk of danger, whether in the national or international environment. We support the intention of the Minister for Transport Safety, Harry Duynhoven, to ensure that New Zealand can respond to such threats responsibly, promptly, and immediately. We seek also, through the expression of manaakitanga, to create an environment where the care and welfare of people is still important. So we look to the Aviation Security Legislation Bill to ensure that passengers and the families they may have left at home are not exposed to any security risks that could be addressed through the course of the legislation.

We note the new groups of items that pose sufficient threat to safety concerns, including items such as chemicals and electronic components that could be disguised in one form or another as weapons. We also welcome the consistency that will be applied through the bill in prohibiting dangerous goods, traditional weapons, potential weapons, imitation weapons, components of weapons, and innocuous items and substances. The Māori Party notes the inclusion of traditional weapons in the list. This does cause us some concern, and we will be asking some questions around the treatment of our traditional taonga. Does this mean, for example, that our patu, our taiaha, and our mere pounamu will now have to be removed from inside an aircraft and placed in the baggage hold? It is a question to which the Māori Party will be interested in seeing some sort of answer considered when the bill comes before a select committee. This may well be an area of interest that Te Whare TuTaua o Aotearoa, the National School of Maori Weaponry, should be consulted on further, and we would be happy to facilitate such hui, should the Minister wish to take up this idea.

The key point is that there has been a revival in maurākau, or the use of taiaha, and in tikanga. The stories that go with our weaponry invest such taonga tūturu with considerable significance. They may have been passed down from generation to generation. In many cases they will carry the name of a tupuna, and as such they are treated with the utmost respect. Many such taonga may be classified or interpreted as traditional weapons, such as our pātītī, a whalebone-handled tomahawk, or the tewhatewha, a two-handed fighting weapon. Wrapping such taonga in plastic and shoving them in the baggage compartment of a 737 may thus bring more risks to one’s cultural essence than, perhaps, the bill anticipates. All we are saying is that there is an issue here that needs further consideration.

We also suggest that it would be useful for the select committee to consider the value of a public education programme so that people are fully aware of the requirements that lead to the new procedures. We would expect that such a campaign would also include what is to be expected of passengers, their rights, and the consequences of certain actions they may take.

The other issue we come to through the expression of manaakitanga is the anticipated impacts on staff of the increased compliance costs to airlines in increasing security measures. It is not as though this is an industry that needs any more industrial disruption. This House will recall that the threat of outsourcing of about 1,800 ground services jobs has only just this month been resolved. The airline had wanted to contract the work to Spanish company Swissport International, causing the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union to take action to the Employment Court. It alleged that Air New Zealand acted in bad faith regarding consultation over its plans to contract out. A different union, the Service and Food Workers Union, has also strongly objected to the company’s proposal, which it alleges will jeopardise the security of 300 check-in staff, mostly at Auckland International Airport. With such a fragile employment environment, it is essential that the impacts on staff operating at the international airports are taken into account.

Such industrial turmoil is, of course, made worse by the fact that the same airline company recently announced a $109 million half-year pre-tax profit and a special share dividend of $105 million. The Government, as the majority shareholder, receives $83 million of that. Meanwhile, back on the ground, staff are being asked to take a $12 million cut in pay and conditions—an average of more than $7,000 per full-time staff member. Although all these conditions and contractual risks are particular only to Air New Zealand, they will, of course, be highly relevant to the likelihood of this bill being successful in its implementation. The threat of work being contracted out at lower terms and conditions, the reality of staff working harder, and the prospect that many staff will be offered a pay cut or the path to redundancy is already placing the sector under considerable stress.

The analysis to which we subject every bill before we consolidate our position takes into account the influence and direction of kaupapa Māori, the foundation principles of the Māori world and the bedrock from which we frame our analysis. So finally, in relation to the kaupapa of rangatiratanga, we caution that our sovereignty may be put at risk if, in responding to the security paranoia of the United States, we succumb to having American armed in-flight security officers on our planes amongst our people. I mention this, as I have been aware of the trigger-happy nature of the Americans from tales related to me by my uncles and cousins who fought in World War II, the Korean War, and Viet Nam, and, more recently, from what our Special Air Service troops have reportedly said of their experiences in Afghanistan.

In balance, however, we consider that the opportunity in front of us to ensure that New Zealand can participate in an international response to a threat to aviation security is one that requires our full support. The possibility of a risk to life being placed by passengers who take firearms, explosives, or dangerous weapons on board is simply too great for any member to disregard. The Māori Party will be supporting this bill. Kia ora tātou.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in support of this Aviation Security Legislation Bill this afternoon. I was very pleased to hear, through that fatuous twaddle spoken by my colleague from the Māori Party, that the Māori Party will support this bill, because it is a very important issue that all New Zealanders are able to travel safely on our public transport. 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. But the fatuous twaddle from that colleague was not as bad as what I heard from the Green Party member Keith Locke in his wholesale slaughter of the American people and American air marshals and his assertion of irresponsibility.

I say to this House that this issue is not on the House’s agenda this afternoon by accident. It is there because that “itinerant masseuse” Helen Clark is off to the States to massage President Bush’s political erogenous zones. This bill is on the Table today because Helen Clark needs to be able to say to George Bush: “Yes, we have this issue under control.”

The issues began to arise, as people will recall, back in 2001. I note that the Australian Government was able to move very quickly—in fact, far more quickly than the New Zealand Government—and it introduced new aviation security laws back in 2005. If my memory serves me correctly, when there was a scare in London about the use of liquids on aeroplanes, Heathrow Airport was closed down the next day and the taking of liquids on to planes was banned immediately. It surprises me that we have to mess around with this legislation—it is now 2007, some 6 years after the twin towers incident—for something that I would have thought this Government could more efficiently put in place through Order in Council. Nevertheless, we are going down the road of spending probably the next 3 to 4 months putting this important legislation into place.

I particularly commend the select committee and its staff, who have done what I think is arguably the best general policy statement preceding a bill that we have seen in the life of this Parliament. I make that point because this piece of work identifies the major issues of concern, sets out the consultation with stakeholders—other Government agencies and businesses—and then sets out, under each of the areas where change is being recommended, feasible options that can be considered.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: They’re in the gallery.

JOHN HAYES: Well, I commend those people up in the gallery. I think they have done a really good job.

Darren Hughes: Must have used simple language to help the member out.

JOHN HAYES: Most important—I will use very simple language for the member for Otaki—in the bill’s explanatory note there are little headings, “Statement of public policy objectives”. The people in the gallery should really be congratulated on that, because when I go to my own select committee and look at other reports coming before Parliament, I do not find clearly identified statements of why particular legislation is under consideration. Certainly in our select committee we have had occasions when we have asked officials what the consequences might be of not doing something or why we are not doing something, and very often they have been unable to answer us. So I commend those people who have put this bill together.

For example, when we come to “Issue 3: potential weapons”, we see that the public policy objectives are to ensure, first of all: “New Zealand has an aviation security system that gives the public confidence that every reasonable measure has been taken to ensure their security; …”—and I would recommend that Mr Locke of the Green Party read that—and, secondly, “the confidence of our international trading partners and tourists in New Zealand’s aviation security.” These are fundamentally important issues, and I cannot understand that any party in this Parliament would regard this bill as an infringement of civil rights or civil liberties. We have huge interests to protect in tourism and trade and in the context of providing security to our own community.

If we go through “Issue 4: in-flight security officers”, we see that legislative change is needed because the current law does not allow for the discharge of a weapon on board an aircraft in the event of a security incident. Mr Locke thinks it will be an everyday occurrence that weapons will be discharged, people will be injured, and the skins of planes will be broken. I have spent many years flying—including in areas of the Middle East—when armed security officers have been on the planes, and generally I have appreciated their being there for the safety of those flights and for the safety of the people on them.

One particular issue I would like to canvass is that of searches of persons. I am interested in the phrase “rubdown searches”—and this interfaces with what I was suggesting before about the “itinerant masseuse”. We will have to carry plastic bags everywhere, particularly those that fit over our hands, because under the new legislation, the search of a person must be directed by an aviation security officer.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Oh, so you can’t just request one.

JOHN HAYES: No, but people will be instructed, under new section 12 to be substituted for the current section 12 of the Aviation Crimes Act by clause 6 of the bill, to “remove, raise, lower, or open any outer clothing, including (but not limited to) any coat, jacket, jumper, cardigan, or similar article that the passenger is wearing …”—

Hon Maurice Williamson: What about a kilt?

JOHN HAYES: There is a problem here, because kilts are certainly not mentioned in this legislation. But one may be asked to “remove any gloves, footwear, … head coverings, belts, jewellery, or other accessories:”. Then one is to “allow … an aviation security officer, … to carry out a rubdown search:”. The legislation will require that “a female may only be searched by a female unless the search is made by means of a mechanical or electrical or electronic or other similar device.” This is absolutely wonderful legislation; I think it is really quite brilliant. But it is in contravention, I suspect, of the equal employment opportunities legislation. Why should male aviation security officers be disallowed from rubdown searches of female passengers?

New section 12 provides: “(6) For the purposes of this section, rubdown search—(a) means a search of a clothed person in which the person conducting the search may do all or any of the following: (i) run or pat his or her hand over the body of the person being searched, … (ii) insert his or her hand inside any pocket or pouch in the clothing (other than any underclothing) of the person being searched: (iii) for the purpose of permitting a visual inspection, require the person being searched to do all or any of the following, … (A) open his or her mouth: (B) display the palms of his or her hands: (C) display the soles of his or her feet: (D) lift or rub his or her hair; and (b) includes the authority to search—(i) any item carried by, … the person; … (ii) any outer clothing … and (iii) any head covering,”—burka—“gloves, or footwear, … for the purposes of the search.” These are very thorough rules. We in the National Party are in total support of them, although I think there will be a certain scrutiny of these arrangements in the Committee stage of this bill. Accordingly, I will now resume my seat in full support of this bill.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) : I feel the necessity to take a brief call on the Aviation Security Legislation Bill. I was disappointed by the member who has just resumed his seat, John Hayes. He started his speech with unprovoked personal attacks on other members of the House who simply exercised their role, their right, and indeed their courtesy—I suggest to the member—by explaining to the House how they arrived at the conclusion they have on this particular legislation. I think that is a perfectly good thing. The member followed that with quite smutty personal references—[Interruption] To be fair, before Mr Power joined the House there really were smutty, and I thought quite unfortunate, references made not only to our Prime Minister but to the head of State of a very, very good friend.

The laboured discussion the member has just gone through of certain intimate and personal aspects of this legislation does draw some questions. I say to the member, though, in relation to perhaps the most important factual part of what he said, that the reason this bill is before the House now is simple: it is before the House now because it is timely for it to be so. It is consistent with similar legislative provisions of our international partners in terms of meeting our international obligations. It is as simple as that. For the member to go off on some wild and woolly tangent, with some great conspiracy theory as to why this legislation is here now, is simply nonsensical. I suggest to members that it is time we get on with it. I will bring my brief comment to a close there and commend the bill to the House.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) : I move, That the Aviation Security Legislation Bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committeereferred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee