Aviation Security Legislation Bill

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) Link to this

I move, That the Aviation Security Legislation Bill be now read a second time. The bill was introduced to Parliament in March 2007. Since September 2001 significant changes have taken place in aviation security and New Zealand has responded well to the challenges of the new environment. Aviation security calls for measures that can respond to dynamic and sophisticated threats. This bill meets these demands by enhancing and strengthening New Zealand’s civil aviation security measures. The bill improves New Zealand’s legislative framework and ensures New Zealand complies with international requirements and can continue to exchange flights with other countries.

As reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, the bill retains the provisions that enable the screening and searching of airport workers; that provide a power for aviation security officers to search passengers’ outer garments and to undertake pat-down searches; that require that airlines do not carry passengers who refuse to be searched; that 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 at some time in the future; that formalise the process for checking the background of people working in critical areas; that provide a general regulation-making power so that the law is able to respond quickly to new aviation security matters; and that provide a power for aviation security officers to search for, seize, and dispose of items that are prohibited or restricted from being taken on aircraft.

The select committee has made a very useful amendment to the provisions for seizing such items. I thank the select committee for its consideration and positive suggestions regarding the seizure provisions. The bill formalises the requirements for dealing with potential weapons. It provides a clear system for passengers and for the industry to ensure no potential weapons are carried in the cabin of aircraft. Originally the bill provided that aviation security officers would make a record of seized prohibited items and pass the items to airlines to hold for 30 days. During submissions to the select committee submitters from the industry provided insights into difficulties with this requirement. They were concerned that making a record of seized items and requiring airlines to hold them for 30 days would actually be unmanageable when numerous low-value items such as liquids, aerosols, and gels were seized. These requirements risk delays at the screening point. To ensure both efficiency and security the select committee recommended removing the requirement in the bill to record and hold items and replacing it with a power to dispose of seized items. The bill has been amended to give effect to this recommendation.

I acknowledge that the select committee accepted the need to future-proof New Zealand’s legislation by including provisions in the bill for inflight security officers. I also thank the committee for its hard work on this issue—it was not an easy one. The bill contains future-proofing provisions to allow foreign inflight security officers to enter and depart New Zealand. If the Government decides it is necessary at some stage in the future to allow New Zealand inflight security officers, then they can be deployed. Submitters raised the useful point that if New Zealand inflight security officers were ever deemed necessary, it would be desirable to consider industry views. A mechanism for the Director of Civil Aviation to do this has been inserted into the bill. Although it was a very sensitive issue, the industry supported the bill’s provisions in respect of inflight security officers and agreed that these provisions are necessary for New Zealand to continue flying to other countries. I am confident that the bill deals with this issue in the best way possible.

I thank the committee for its hard work and careful scrutiny of the new regulation-making power. The general regulation-making power will ensure that the law is able to quickly respond to new aviation security matters. The committee has recommended amendments to improve the regulation-making power. These amendments make the scope of the power more specific and clarify the relationships between the various forms of delegated legislation made under the Civil Aviation Act. I am confident that the regulation-making power is legally robust and at the same time allows New Zealand to respond to threats requiring immediate attention.

We have all come to accept security measures as a necessary part of international travel. The bill contains amendments to widen existing search powers allowing aviation security officers to request passengers to remove outer garments such as shoes or coats so that those garments can be searched. Naturally, some members of the public might feel anxious about these provisions. This was reflected in submissions to the committee. Submissions identified the significance of garments such as turbans for some groups, noting that any contact with or removal of these garments would be a very sensitive issue. The committee sought reassurance that these concerns would be reflected in operational practice. The training and operational procedures of the Aviation Security Service’s front-line staff emphasise the importance of maintaining people’s privacy and being sensitive to their needs. The service deals with many people of many cultures and from different religions on a daily basis, and is experienced in meeting their needs while still maintaining aviation security standards.

Members may also be aware of recent media attention on new body-scanning technology being used in some countries that presents an unclothed image of passengers. The committee requested that this issue be reviewed in terms of whether this technology would be able to be used in New Zealand under the bill. After further thought I consider that it is desirable to clarify that body-scanning technology that presents an unclothed image of specific passengers cannot be used. A Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled to address this.

I finish by thanking the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the Hon Mark Gosche for his excellent chairing. I also offer my gratitude to people from the Ministry of Transport, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Aviation Security Service, the New Zealand Police, and the Ministry of Justice, who have all contributed a great deal of hard work and expertise towards this bill.

I am confident that this bill meets the challenges of the modern aviation security environment. It reflects submissions made to a great degree. It will allow members of the travelling public to travel with peace of mind and will allow New Zealand to continue to play its part in the international aviation scene. As such, I commend the bill, as reported back by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, to the House.

PANSY WONG (National) Link to this

National supports the second reading of the Aviation Security Legislation Bill. I was somewhat surprised by the very subdued tone of the usually exuberant Minister for Transport Safety, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, during his second reading speech. But I acknowledge his gratitude towards the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because once again, I am happy to say, this bill has come back to the House in much better shape than it was in when it was first referred to the select committee.

I want to pick up on one of the quite significant amendments that were made at the select committee, related to the seizure of prohibited items. The select committee listened to the very sensible submissions made by the various airline and airport companies concerned, about the impracticality of retaining and keeping a record of the items that are being seized. I must say that it is quite an eye-opener to listen to details of the types of items that have been seized by security officers from passengers who tried to take the items on board. We were told that if airline and airport companies have to keep track of and retain those items, then an almost warehouse-sized storage space would have to be built around the airport facility. So we agree that there is a problem, and recommend that those items should be able to be confiscated and destroyed.

In agreeing to that, I want to pose a challenge and raise a question for the Minister. He informed the House and the public that he is confident this legislation will now be implemented successfully, but one would have thought that the officials would have consulted with major operators when they first drafted the bill and would have been informed about the quite significant scale of the problem of keeping confiscated items. The fact that it was left to the select committee to pick up this issue and make amendments raises a question as to how much consultation has gone on and whether that practical advice has been taken on board in addressing this legislation.

Now that the select committee has made the recommendation, and it looks like this bill will pass through the House and become law, it becomes increasingly important to have a promotional or educational campaign targeting the travelling public, particularly, about the risk if those items are taken on board. I think it is not the first time. Quite often when I have boarded a plane, I have witnessed the anxiety, anguish, anger, and frustration of the travelling public when foods are seized. Somehow they were not informed, or they have forgotten and it has slipped their minds, and they have packed that stuff in their carry-on luggage rather than in the baggage they have checked in. So it seems to me that we need to protect our staff, and the security officers particularly, because they become the face of the people who confiscate items, and we need to avoid having the public take out their anger on those people, I think that the Minister should take that on board and make sure that those staff are very well resourced and that we have a very smart public campaign to remind the public to avoid having that stress and antagonism that may arise in those circumstances.

But I want to spend some time highlighting the particular issues that New Zealand has come to grapple with for the first time. I acknowledge a submission that was made by the Sikh community, by the Sikh centre. I have read in various links to overseas websites in the United States and Britain quite a lot of material relating to the issues facing particularly, I think, the Sikh, Muslim, and other communities with regard to what they sometimes consider appropriate. For example, the Sikh community has what it calls the five Ks. The turban is something that I think New Zealanders are now familiar with. Another one is that the Sikh male carries a kirpan, which is a Sikh ceremonial sword about 6 inches long. They carry it from when they are young as it is of religious significance. In the United States and in Britain quite a lot of work has been done on the code of conduct and protocol that has been issued and agreed to between the security authorities and the Sikh community on how they can come to an understanding and not compromise aviation security, and, at the same time, take into account the sensitivities of individuals and respect them.

I will go into the background a little more because it takes quite an effort for ethnic or religious minorities to make a submission to Parliament, and some politicians and other lobbyist groups might take this for granted. First of all, how does the information about the invitation for the public to make submissions to Parliament happen? Usually the advertisement appears in what we call an English-speaking, mainstream newspaper, so that is another barrier for some of the minority communities to even know that such legislation is being considered.

The background of the New Zealand Sikh community’s involvement with this legislation has happened in two quite high-profile cases. One was in regard to a group of visiting Sikh priests who were on board a small plane from Auckland to, I think, Napier. The other passengers became quite alarmed and the Sikhs’ kirpans were confiscated and packed away, but because nobody knew how to handle the situation, it caused quite a lot of ill feeling. The second case took place on a plane from Queenstown, where some passengers raised the alarm and a young Sikh man was asked to leave the plane. I think one can imagine the embarrassment that man would have experienced on being told to leave the plane. But I am also positive that after those high-profile cases, the Sikh community has been very proactive when I have met with them. I have introduced them to the various airlines concerned, and when they have talked things through, some improvement has been made in terms of the Sikh community working with airlines in training their staff to understand some of the matters of religious significance of that community. When I invited the community to make a submission I was quite thrilled that the select committee agreed to extend the time line for it to make a submission.

I emphasise that the Sikh community, in their submission, made it very clear that they were not asking for special treatment or exemption. They knew that carrying a kirpan on to a plane is not allowed. So they wanted more publicity and more education, both in their community and in the wider community, to increase understanding. They also asked that in the case of a person who has forgotten to remove a kirpan when boarding, that person should be asked to board through the back of the plane where the removal can be conducted more discretely in a place where they will not be embarrassed. Ideally, they also want pilots in a small plane to know exactly how to handle the situation so as not to embarrass people.

I think this is quite a breakthrough for our ethnic minority communities to be involved in the passage of this legislation, and I am looking forward to the debate at the Committee stage.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) Link to this

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.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) Link to this

Speaking from the National Party’s perspective, I say that we are very happy to support the legislation. However, I do want to cover just a few aspects of it and say why I think it is a bill that has to be passed.

But first I will just give an explanation to people, in case they thought I was doing something subversive with perfume. I was returning from Paris, having travelled with my good friends Darren Hughes and Moana Mackey. I bought some perfume at the French duty-free shop because I was now on the airside of customs, which meant I was safe to do so. I put it in my bag, and away I went. What I did not realise was that when I got to Heathrow, instead of being able to transfer from the Air France plane across to the Air New Zealand plane, I had to come back through the security system to be checked. They put my bag through and said there was a liquid in it. I said, “No, there’s not.”, then said, “Oh, actually I just bought a bottle of perfume. It’s still sealed. It’s still in its wrapper. It’s still got the duty-free certificate and everything.” So the guy opened it up and had a look. It was Yves St Laurent. It had the receipt and it had everything else. He said: “That’s right.”, and threw it straight in the rubbish bin. I was pretty upset about it, because it was sealed—

SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak to the second reading of the Aviation Security Legislation Bill, and just want to echo the words spoken by Maurice Williamson right at the end of his speech with regard to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The committee did work very well, and swiftly, on this legislation, because this issue, although it is one that none of us really wished to be debating and would rather not have to consider, is an issue of our time and we had to take it seriously. It is Parliament’s role to make the sorts of decisions that other people would rather not have to make, and the committee worked together to make sensible, thorough, rational decisions with regard to aviation security. It is the nature of the world in which we live in these days that we have to make such decisions about our aviation security. The world certainly has changed since 11 September 2001. In particular, international aviation security bodies have changed their views on how we need to operate, and it is in response to one of those international organisations and its requirements that we find ourselves here debating this Aviation Security Legislation Bill.

The Labour-led Government is confident that this bill will meet the changes posed by the modern aviation security environment, because those changes will allow both domestic and international travellers to travel with peace of mind, knowing they will be in a safe environment. That is what the select committee was charged with.

This bill is a key part of enhancing the safety and security of everyone who uses New Zealand’s aviation transport system. It will also ensure New Zealand’s compliance with international standards in aviation security by strengthening the legal framework for New Zealand’s aviation security system; also, it will allow New Zealand to meet its international obligations as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

The bill will ensure continued confidence in the security of New Zealand’s aviation services, both domestically and abroad. As a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization, New Zealand is obliged to comply with its security standards. Failure to do so could actually damage New Zealand’s reputation and question the integrity of its aviation security. Of course, it is since September 2001 that the aviation security environment has witnessed significant changes, and it has now called for measures that are able to meet the demand of sophisticated threats.

If we did not go down this path, if we did not have this bill before our Parliament, then it is possible that other countries, if they were unsure of our security measures, could cancel flights coming from New Zealand, and, of course, there would be an impact in terms of overseas visitors and how they felt about boarding flights to New Zealand. Different rules apply to inbound and outbound flights. We were told during the submission process that, currently, inbound flights would require bilateral agreement if they were to have inflight security officers on board. As we stand at present, we have no ability within the New Zealand regulatory or legislative framework to enter into those bilateral agreements. The passing of this bill will enable those bilateral agreements to take place. However, we were told in the submission process that the inflight security officers—I think some people have referred to them as air marshals, but under this legislation the technical term used for them is “inflight security officers”, or “IFSOs”, as we came to know them—on outbound flights would be under the New Zealand jurisdiction. The bill also deals with the screening of staff to ensure that our security stands up to international standards on the ground as well as in the air.

I want to talk a little on the issue that I think will most commonly affect New Zealanders who travel—or anyone travelling, in fact, including international travellers to this country—and it is something that I hope we will never have to deal with: the consequences of having an armed inflight security officer on board, because, as other speakers have mentioned, although this legislation enables the Government to make the decision to include inflight security officers should the situation arise, it does not automatically mandate for those officers being on our flights. I think it is important for people to really get to grips with that. It will not be a matter of course that these armed inflight security officers will be on our flights; the decision would have to be taken by Cabinet. There would have to be an Order in Council for that to occur and there would have to be specific international threats for that to become a consideration.

However, as I said, for the majority of New Zealanders and for people listening to this debate, that is not, I hope, the issue that will ever affect them. It is much more likely that the issue will be the one that we as a select committee have had to grapple with—that is, how to deal with the items that have been restricted since 31 March 2007. Since that date new restrictions have been placed on what may be taken aboard planes. As I said, those restrictions were tightened earlier this year when security measures affecting liquids, aerosols, and gels came into effect.

One of the major submitters on this bill was an organisation called the Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand, which represents the airlines operating in New Zealand. It told us that since those new restrictions had been in place, roughly 2,000 items per day were being confiscated. It said that this equated to 12.2 tonnes of restricted items being taken off passengers every day. It told us this because it was concerned that the bill in its original state required airports to have in place a process whereby people’s details were taken and the confiscated items noted and stored for a certain number of days so that those people could retrieve them on their return to the country, or at a time suitable to them. So 12.2 tonnes per day of confiscated items was a significant issue that was put before our select committee. It demonstrated quite clearly that we would be placing a significant storage issue on airports.

The issue was not only the storage capacity but also the labour content of that. It was estimated that to do what this bill originally asked should be done, 160 person hours per day would be required, at Auckland Airport alone, just to administer a system to cope with the restricted items confiscated from people who had inadvertently brought them along with them. Very large storage facilities would be needed, and, at Auckland alone, 160 person hours per day would be required to deal with the process.

It was interesting to know that no other country actually went to those sorts of lengths. Good old New Zealand—of course it wanted to consider people’s personal and human rights so that they could regain their personal property, being those restricted goods that they had inadvertently brought along with them. However, it did turn out to be impractical, and the select committee saw how impractical it would be. Several submissions were made around this point. We certainly took those submitters’ views on board and recommended that those items can in fact be dispensed with—that they can be destroyed. I guess the result is that although people’s personal freedoms may be limited in some way, overall we felt that that was necessary in order to make this legislation workable and practicable.

I think that was the balance that we sought to have all the way through the select committee hearing on the Aviation Security Legislation Bill. We constantly weighed up the balance between ensuring that good security systems were in place and making sure that people’s human rights were not being trampled over. I think we got that balance right. We worked hard to ensure the right balance between those two tensions, and we got it right in a New Zealand context.

I want to comment on Maurice Williamson’s observation that there are different search requirements for domestic travel, depending on the size of the plane. That is certainly the case. When a person is flying on Boeing 737s and 747s, his or her property goes through an X-ray machine, and he or she walks through a detector so it can be checked whether anyone is carrying weapons. However, when flying from Hamilton to Wellington, which I regularly do, we are on smaller planes and do not have such stringent regulations or search requirements. In the select committee it was explained that the issue is not whether the airplane is capable of flying overseas but the amount of fuel on board. That is what causes the risk and that is why we have those different requirements. Thank you.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will be supporting the Aviation Security Legislation Bill, because a number of its clauses improve security at airports and on aeroplanes. We support the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Minister, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, to stop the portrayal of people in an unclothed state when they pass through the screening devices, or, in the words of the Supplementary Order Paper, an officer may not use “an aid or device that produces an unclothed image of the person.” We certainly support the restriction in terms of that intrusive technology.

In the first reading the Greens indicated our big concern about the presence of armed air marshals on airplanes, or inflight security officers. In the Committee stage we will put forward an amendment to remove any ability for officers on planes to be operationally armed. We want to remove the ability for them to use arms on planes, be it local inflight security officers as projected in the bill, or foreign inflight security officers—that is, those coming in and out of New Zealand airports, not necessarily on a flag carrier, an Air New Zealand plane.

In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the airline pilots expressed strong concern about provisions to have armed inflight security officers on board. The New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association submission talked about “substantial latent risks involved in the ability to deploy inflight security officers on New Zealand - registered aircraft”. It “believes that any time that an armed person or persons board an aircraft, the risk of an adverse event occurring is heightened”. It said due consideration must be given to the increased level of risk posed by armed inflight security officers. It says that rather than reducing the risk—and presuming these officers will be regularly on flights, as happens in the United States—they actually increase the risk. In oral submissions it was said that although bullets may not necessarily pass through the shell of a plane, they could affect the hydraulics and so on that line the plane. So those things could be affected by armaments being used on an aircraft. The association in its submission strongly objected to the deployment of foreign inflight security officers—armed or otherwise—on board any New Zealand - registered aircraft.

The New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association took a fairly strong stand in the select committee, and I think we should listen closely to its views. Air New Zealand itself took a strong position, too. It was of the view that if there was any security threat to a plane, then that plane should stay on the ground. Its written submission stated that Air New Zealand adheres to the principle that the most effective and efficient response to aviation security risks is the quality of protective security measures implemented on the ground, that is, pre-flight. It further stated that Air New Zealand’s current operational policy is that it would give serious consideration to cancelling any flight for which the security risk was so high that the airline would be required, by any Government direction, to place inflight security officers on board an aircraft. I think that is the right approach—if in doubt, keep the plane on the ground.

There was also the submission by the Human Rights Commission. It was worried about not only firearms but also Tasers being used on planes. It stated that the commission’s view tended towards the exclusion of Tasers from the weapons available to inflight security officers. So there were quite strong criticisms from a number of submissions about these armed air marshals.

The Government, of course, in justifying the provision is trying to have a bob each way. It says to people: “Well, we understand your concerns, so we won’t put the provision in to authorise an immediate lodging of air marshals on planes, but the bill is just future-proofing.” So at some future time if it wants approval to put these armed inflight security officers on a plane, be it foreign security officers or domestic officers, it can. When we look through the fine print, we see that in future the decision would be made by Cabinet. Well, we all know that Cabinet meets about once a week, so it would not take too much to implement this legislation very quickly, without much public discussion.

There is no requirement for public discussion, except for one provision that has been added to the bill. It talks about consultation taking place with people involved in the airline industry, about some of these matters. There was a concession that the select committee put in the bill—that there would be some consultation with the industry generally, but the specific decisions on particular cases would, in fact, be made by Cabinet. That is not a terribly good control in the whole situation.

The other question that the Human Rights Commission raised in its written submission was in relation to security checks. Obviously, nobody is objecting to security checks as such, and the bill contains some good provisions about people being told they are being subject to security checks and that there is an adverse security check against them. So those people could take the matter a bit further in an appeal process. That was a good provision, but, as is the case in a number of bits of legislation coming through this House, when it is the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service doing the security check and putting a red cross on the person, then there is not so much come-back.

The Human Rights Commission was right to be concerned about that. At least under the bill the person who gets an adverse check will be told whether it was a Security Intelligence Service red cross or whether the red cross came from somewhere else. But that is not the full story. As the Human Rights Commission says, there should be the provision of a summary of the information on which the recommendation is based—that is, the recommendation from the Security Intelligence Service. The Human Rights Commission was not demanding that the whole of the information be provided by the intelligence agency, but the idea of a summary is to give the person so affected some idea of the nature of the accusations, so that he or she can say: “Well, it is all very well to say that I committed a crime in America some years ago, but in fact I have never lived there or been there.” If people have some idea of the nature of the charge, they have some ability to rebut it if it is an unjust charge, and that is very good.

I am disappointed that the Human Rights Commission submissions were not fully taken account of by the select committee. The discussion in the select committee was a very serious one. I think that the way in which the Supplementary Order Paper preventing unclothed imaging came out of it was positive, but we have some way to go. As I indicated, I will be putting forward amendments at the Committee stage to remove the ability to have armed air marshals on our planes, or on planes coming in and out of New Zealand. I think that that is what the public wants, too. It is dangerous, and the dangers outweigh the benefits. I think the airline pilots are right there. There can be all sorts of situations where, because these armed security officers will probably be incognito, people who might have some dangerous intent will be pretending to be armed inflight security officers. And how would we necessarily tell the difference, particularly if flight attendants were in a different part of the aircraft at that particular time? So there are more problems than solutions, I think. In the period in which air marshals have been operating in the United States, I do not think they have had any great success. Thank you.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Pika, tēnā tātou katoa. When this bill last came before the House on 20 March, a torrent of abuse from the member for Wairarapa followed the speech by my esteemed colleague Te Ururoa Flavell. The member deemed that Mr Flavell’s kōrero was “fatuous twaddle” and went further to say: “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.” That was a very interesting observation by the National member. Quite how he could then make an association that using the Treaty of Waitangi as a context for assessing any policy measure was “fatuous twaddle” was beyond me. Indeed, many claims and cases presented to the Waitangi Tribunal over the years bring into account the airwaves, the use of Māori land for airfields, the impact of the aviation industry on Māori land, and so on.

The point is that the contemporary issues of the day are based on a context that this Parliament must respect. The Treaty provides us all with a foundation for considering how any political matter is debated, and that includes the relevance of measures to improve our aviation security. The Treaty is a historic covenant reached between two sovereign peoples, based on broad principles of partnership, protection, and participation, and that covenant gives shape to the nation. It is the key source of the Government’s moral and political claim to legitimacy, and is therefore relevant to every bill in the House.

The Aviation Security Legislation Bill aims to strengthen the legislative framework and meet international obligations in relation to aviation security. The issue of compliance with domestic and international standards is of course of great interest to the Māori Party. The bill makes the case that as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization, New Zealand is obliged to comply with security standards. We are told that the policy objectives are to respond to aviation security threats, to comply with requests from other countries, and to search and seize certain items in order to ensure that New Zealand is able to participate in an international response to aviation security. In fact, the challenge is put that failing to meet those goals could damage New Zealand’s reputation, which could have significant economic and social impacts. A worst-case scenario might lead to a reduction in international flights in and out of the country.

The provision of enhanced security measures is obviously a key issue of interest to both Treaty partners, but there are three particular issues that I bring to this debate. They are what I would call the three C’s: cultural compliance, consistency, and the costs of the legislation. One of the underlying themes running through this parliamentary debate has been the assumed security threat arising from the events of 9/11, and demonstrated in other legislation such as the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill and the Immigration Bill, and in the Law Commission’s Search and Surveillance Powers report. And this bill adds a whole new inventory to that list: the Arms Act, the Aviation Crimes Act, the Civil Aviation Act, and the Civil Aviation Rules are all amended by the bill.

An associated theme, however, has been that while legislation is being amended we must be careful to ensure that the implementation of changes still functions within what the Sikh Centre submission described as: “the bounds of governmental responsibility to safeguard the freedom of its citizens and the paramountcy of their human rights.” The Sikh Centre brought to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the need to be sensitive to the diverse cultures and beliefs of individuals who pass through airport control, to ensure that they are not unfairly targeted during security checks. For its part, the Sikh community has made a conscious decision to recommend that Sikhs’ kirpans, their ceremonial knives, are removed from under their robes and included in their check-in luggage. Contrary to perhaps the preconceived view, the kirpan would be appreciated as a symbol of the Sikh religion, not as a weapon. But Sikhs remain concerned that employees might be asked to remove their kirpans, or that turban wearers will be improperly targeted for profiling and additional searches.

We have previously raised in this House our concerns about profiling practices at airports that could be discriminatory, and we believe that the same concerns for natural justice apply here. We note the advice of the select committee that the Human Rights Act and the Employment Relations Act provide adequate protection against discrimination, and that the Aviation Security Service has protocols and training in place to treat all people with respect. But we would emphasise that in light of the very real concern and experience set out in the Sikh submission regarding the sacred respect Sikhs place on their heads and hair, the relevant aviation authorities should be encouraged to give priority to ongoing consultation with the ethnic communities of our nation. To a person of the Sikh religion, removing the turban in full view of other passengers would be the equivalent of being strip-searched in public. As Māori, we absolutely understand that concept, because we also recognize the head as being a highly tapu part of the body, and the hair taken from the head as being similarly tapu. It is also in respect of cultural sensitivity that we will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister to clarify the legislation in order to ensure that an unclothed image of a passenger cannot be used.

The proposals in this bill include providing aviation security officers with search and seizure procedures, to enable the screening and searching of airport staff and to strengthen the provisions for checking the background of people working in aviation security. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, bans on sharp-pointed objects were put in place, and in the initial months security staff confiscated bin-loads of pocket knives, scissors, and nail files from loads of hostile passengers. Stewart Milne, the executive director of the Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand, believes that it took nearly 2 years for passengers to really get used to that set of restrictions. It was not just a matter of time; it was a matter of skilled negotiation and explanation, and of providing storage facilities. We in the Māori Party therefore support the select committee recommendation to remove the requirement to record and store the seized items, as a way of easing those compliance costs.

Finally, we cannot leave this bill without pointing out the obvious hypocrisy that although this bill is another chapter in an ongoing series of efforts to comply with international standards, in other areas of international concern to do with meeting basic human rights standards this Parliament is showing wilful disregard of the same principles of cooperation. I think particularly of the recent criticism of our human rights failings from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and the opposition of our Government to the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples currently before the United Nations.

I want to share a commentary with the House from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of 27 August 2007 from Professor Alan Parker, co-chair of the special committee on indigenous nation relationships for the National Congress of American Indians. In describing the actions of the current Bush, Harper, Clark, and Howard administrations, he said: “It is evident that these national governments share a common commitment to restrict the rights of ‘their indigenous people’ strictly to the domestic law of each nation and oppose any U.N. policy that would recognise indigenous nation rights as a matter of international law and policy.” Obviously it is one thing to recognise international law and policy when one is considering aviation security, but, when it comes to honouring the sovereign rights of the Treaty partner to partnership, protection, and participation, this Government clearly prefers to exert power and control at the expense of indigenous peoples.

The Māori Party will support the revised bill that has returned from the select committee, but we will never support the antagonist hostility that this Government continues to demonstrate towards Māori people. Kia ora.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this

This is very simple legislation for us in this Parliament, as there was pretty much unity amongst all the parties on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The only real debate, I think, has come from the Green Party outside of the select committee through its desire to see the inflight security officers unarmed in that it believes armed inflight security officers would provide a greater risk to flights and travellers.

I think we need to take a step back and look at the reason we have this legislation. International pressure has been on New Zealand, like all other countries, to commit to a regime that is unified around the world. We all enjoy the beauty of travelling on planes, and we all take advantage of the quick and easy way we can travel domestically and around the world. But in taking advantage of that asset of travel we also have to look at our commitments as international travellers, and as a country that provides a destination for a lot of travellers and also has an international airline. Those three factors really led us to the result that we have in this legislation.

It is not really debatable, when the rest of the world is in a situation of such conflict and there is such danger out there, as shown by the September 11 attacks, that there would be a reaction amongst major airlines, Governments, and travellers. New Zealand is probably one of the last countries to take the formal steps in this process. Many of the major travelling partners of our airline for our tourist sources took these steps a number of years ago. It was something that we had to take on board; there was not much choice about it. So it really then was a matter for the select committee to determine how far, and how we actually do it. I think the select committee came to a pretty reasonable approach in this case. We all understand the certain cultural concerns that ethnic minority groups may have, and they were taken into account by the select committee. That will be an ongoing process of education for those involved in the process of policing this legislation.

Also taken into account was the reality that New Zealand has not really faced any threats in this regard, so it was left to the Cabinet really to have that option of regulation-making power should—or, more likely, if—it is ever required. That probably is the right approach. It is not much use us going overboard in trying to make too many rules and regulations. We have to give the Government of the day some discretion in this matter, because it is an international security issue and we all need to have a fully functional, flexible, and very proactive response if it is ever required.

I think the question is mainly one of “if” it is ever required, because if one looks at the nature of the issue we are trying to solve, one sees that it is terrorism on a world scale. The terrorists have tried this avenue in the past and they were successful. But they do not seem to have the networks to try it again, or they may be working on other means of engaging in the activity that they want. This legislation may not cover any other activities that terrorists decide would be appropriate for them to fly their flag on the world stage.

We must be vigilant, I think, domestically as well, and look at the ways in which terrorism could change from the models that we have seen used overseas to models that may be more effective for terrorists in the future. These people do not have a lot of resources. They are really trying to make the best of the limited ability they have to get their issue across, so they will look at all other avenues other than the ones that they have tried in the past. So we need a bit of flexibility in our regime of security, because the terrorists will look at other avenues in the future. The ways that they have applied their terrorist activities in the past may not be the ways of the future. So although this legislation is a step in the right direction in the sense that it is following international practice, we do not know quite what the challenges will be in the future. There may be further steps that we have to undertake in our biosecurity and airline industries to meet those challenges, because it is an unknown how terrorism will continue, and it is unknown how we will have to retaliate or basically protect our own interests.

Looking at the legislation, I say that there were a number of things we saw that had to be changed as we went through the select committee process. I think the officials did a good job in bringing those issues to our attention. The parties were very general and considerate of those issues, and they tried to find solutions that met everyone’s needs and also gave us pretty robust legislation that will take us forward as a country, give us some security in travel, and also give our airline—Air New Zealand—some security.

This is not just an issue about travel or New Zealand; there is an economic issue to be considered as well. If Air New Zealand does not have a level playing field and cannot provide the security that other major airlines can provide, then that puts it in a very precarious position. It was something that we were very conscious of in the select committee. We needed to give Air New Zealand the full ambit of being able to compete as an international airline. In order to compete, Air New Zealand needs to be able to say that it has a safe and secure home base so travellers know they can come to New Zealand with that sense of security. It also means, when dealing with other countries that have certain requirements in regard to security, that we can match those security requirements so those countries feel we are pulling our weight in the sense that there is security on the airlines and in the airline industry.

In essence this legislation was something that I think we often see in this Parliament. The circumstances demanded certain action and it was not really a political decision as such. This was something that was based on the fact that we had to deal with this issue. There was international pressure on us to do so, and I think it was a wake-up call for New Zealand to have this legislation go through. It brought our attention to the fact that we had some major issues on the world stage that we had to deal with as well.

One of the issues that the Labour Government was pretty staunch on and that we had to fight very hard to get changed was the Government’s tendency to build up compliance costs through this legislation. National actually managed to get the change so that all restricted items did not have to be written down and held in vaults for the next 30 years. It was only because the National Party stood up for some sensible common sense that the Labour Party woke up and worked out that it had legislation that was too restrictive and that created excessive compliance costs for the industry and also for the punters who would be using the aviation industry.

As many people travel these days I guess everyone is going to get used to the concept of seeing little plastic bags in which people have to put their products, and also that there are certain limitations on the size of what they can take—as some people might be aware of. The world is changing and part of that change is in the way we travel. It is something that, as a travelling country, we have to become aware of and very much conscious of. I believe that in time we will see those kinds of restrictions extended to the domestic fleet. Although it is a question of how much fuel planes can carry as to their effectiveness as a sort of mobile bomb, there is also the issue that people may want to use an attack on domestic air travel or planes as a symbol of their ability to attack inside another country. That symbolism is something that we may have to look at in the future as terrorists look at other ways of getting their message across. It is something we need to be very vigilant about as a country.

This legislation is something where New Zealand had to meet its commitments with the international community—we have done that. We have put out legislation that should achieve the goals that we wanted and that we have set for ourselves. In the end it is legislation that, I believe, will achieve those goals in the meantime. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.