Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill, Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2)

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

I move, That the Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. These two bills were previously parts of the Aviation Security Legislation Bill. That was an omnibus bill, which was introduced to Parliament on 13 March, and had its first reading on 20 March. The bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration. Following the committee’s report back to the House and the second reading, the Committee of the whole House debate took place on Tuesday, 11 September. This date happened to be the sixth anniversary of the attacks on America, which, of course, had resounding effects on the international aviation security environment.

The main elements and objectives of the original bill remain unchanged. They 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 to enable New Zealand to deploy inflight security officers, should the Government ever decide to do so in the future; to formalise the process for checking the backgrounds 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 security matters in a timely fashion.

As reported back from the select committee on 2 July, the legislation retained the key provisions, with some positive suggestions for amendments to the provisions regarding the seizure of prohibited items, inflight security officers and consultation with the industry, and a general regulation-making power to ensure that the law is able to respond quickly to new aviation security measures.

I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee again for its consideration and recommendations regarding the seizure provisions. The amendments contained in the legislation were drafted prior to the implementation of the new liquids, aerosols, and gels restrictions that came into effect on 31 March this year. These restrictions have meant that a large quantity of low-value items, such as water bottles, have been seized—many more than had been expected. Consequently, officials have worked with the industry on options to address its concerns. A solution was proposed to the select committee by officials, and this is reflected in the select committee’s amendment to these provisions. I think it was a very sensible amendment to make in the circumstances.

I emphasise that the legislation is clear that the provisions dealing with inflight security officers are future-proofing provisions, and will not come into force until the Government considers that they are necessary. It is likely that any situation that required inflight security officers to be deployed on foreign or New Zealand aircraft would arise at very short notice. It would be imprudent of the Government not to have legislation in place to deal swiftly with a situation where it was necessary to continue flights to and from New Zealand in such an enhanced security environment.

The select committee process has resulted in improvements to the provisions in the legislation regarding inflight security officers. Submissions to the select committee raised the useful point that, if inflight security officers were ever deemed necessary, it would, of course, be desirable to consider industry views. The legislation has been amended so that there is a mechanism for the Director of Civil Aviation to do that. It is my view that airlines would probably refuse to fly in such a stretched security environment, but it may be necessary for the Government to make a decision on that issue.

In my first reading speech I indicated that the Government would welcome a discussion at the select committee of the advantages and disadvantages of the legislation’s general regulation-making power. The current rule-making powers can be very time consuming and limit the Government’s ability to make rapid changes to aviation security legislation in response to international security events or short-notice changes in international practice. As we are all aware, the international aviation security environment can change dramatically overnight. The select committee’s amendments to the regulation-making power are welcomed. The scope of the power is now more specific, and the relationship between the various forms of delegated legislation relating to aviation is clarified. These amendments ensure that we are able to respond to threats requiring immediate attention.

As I had indicated in my second reading speech, I introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to clarify that body-scanning technology that presents an unclothed image of specific passengers cannot be used. It is important to note that technology in this area is developing quickly. Early versions of body-scanning technology showed detailed unclothed images of the passengers being screened. However, as the technology has developed, such detailed images are much less likely to be produced. Manufacturers of screening technology are aware of the privacy and dignity concerns relating to such images, and solutions are being developed that achieve the necessary security outcomes while still maintaining the privacy of passengers. It is important to ensure that the legislation preserves the privacy and dignity of passengers by not allowing technology that presents a detailed unclothed image of an individual specific passenger. That is why I introduced the Supplementary Order Paper, which all parties in the House supported, and I thank them for that.

There are currently no inflight security officer programmes in other countries where the officers do not have a firearm capability. If New Zealand used unarmed inflight security officers, I would expect that other countries would not see these measures as adequate. Further, if New Zealand was to require that inflight security officers must be unarmed, this would raise problems for our air services agreements that enable us to fly to other countries, and for our obligations to consider security requests from those countries. These could result in the cancellation of flights to those countries, and would call into question the integrity of New Zealand’s aviation security.