NZ domestic flight checks far too lax

A report in The Press in NZ says that visitors often remark with surprise on the relaxed Kiwi approach to security on domestic flights, but that quaint state of affairs needs to change.

Transport Minister Annette King, who also holds the police portfolio, ordered police and the Aviation Security Service to provide urgent reports on Friday’s mid-air stabbing of two pilots and bomb threat aboard a domestic flight.

The Government needs to go beyond that, ordering a full review of security procedures at airports around the country.

Parliament passed amendments to aviation security legislation last year. The changes included giving aviation security officers the power to seize prohibited or restricted items, and enabled the screening of airport workers.

It also provided for the use of armed air marshals in New Zealand’s skies, something the Government was careful to play down the need for, describing the enabling legislation as “future-proofing”.

Recent events might spark debate over whether that “future” is now upon us. Measures to improve security on domestic routes in recent years look good on paper, but have done little to change the reality on the ground and in the air.

In what must be the understatement of the year, the Airline Pilots Association said of security: there is “obviously a hole here somewhere”.

New Zealand is one of the few developed nations where luggage scanning is not routine on domestic flights. Neither is the use of metal detectors at boarding gates, or cockpit doors. On some routes, passengers even put their own luggage in the aircraft hold.

New Zealand has been diligent in complying with increased security standards on international flights, imposed globally as a consequence of the tragic September 11, 2001, hijackings in the United States.

Much of that diligence has been driven by the fact that non-compliance was not an option, as it would mean the loss of international services.

Unfortunately, security on domestic flights has not received the same attention, with the Government largely relying on the fact the hijack threat in New Zealand is judged by our security services to be low.

Yet it is unforgivably naive to believe that we can remain forever below the radar of those who would do us harm.

Ethical foreign policies do not protect us from domestic threats, or passengers who are simply unhinged.

The prohibitive cost of increased domestic security is often cited as a reason for not having it. Yet the cost in lives and reputation of a single successful terrorist hijacking would likely be far higher, with huge implications for tourism.

That said, by international standards, flights in New Zealand have been relatively free of violence and other security incidents.

One of the worst was an attempted hijack of an Air New Zealand Boeing 747 after the 1987 coup in Fiji, foiled by a flight attendant wielding a whisky bottle as a weapon.

In 2006, a passenger travelling on an Air New Zealand flight from New Plymouth to Auckland carried a rifle on board. He was only stopped as he got on an ongoing flight.

Last year, a man with mental health problems ran amok on a flight from Auckland to Wellington with what was variously reported to be a sharpened stick or a cricket wicket. Fellow passengers restrained him.

After that incident, the aviation security officials said flight crews were trained to deal with unruly passengers, but they would not give details on the training.

Passengers will now justifiably be demanding greater assurances that security is not being left in their hands.

They could also be forgiven for querying rising aviation security charges, levied on every domestic ticket sold.

Just what that money is being spent on is a valid question.

A Report by The Mole from The Press