Maritime Security Bill

I move, That the Maritime Security Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee, that the committee finally report on the bill by 11 December 2003, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and subsequent acts of terrorism, the international maritime community, through the International Maritime Organization, decided to develop new, comprehensive measures to enhance ship and port security in order to prevent acts of international terrorism. In December 2002 that work led to a multilateral agreement on two major documents. First, the International Maritime Organization adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, which is known as the “ISPS Code”, as part of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the “SOLAS” convention. That code specifically aims to prevent unauthorised weapons and other dangerous items from being introduced to ships and ports. Secondly, the International Maritime Organization agreed to major security-related amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.

The Maritime Security Bill gives effect to those two International Maritime Organization outcomes. It establishes a maritime security framework in New Zealand to reduce the risk of security incidents, such as a terrorist attack, affecting port facilities and ships, particularly those involved in international trade. The bill sets out the responsibilities of the Government and of port and shipping companies for maritime security. There are 146 contracting parties to the Safety of Life at Sea convention. New Zealand, as one of those, is required to enact legislation to put the International Maritime Organization’s new maritime security framework in place. That framework is to be implemented by 1 July 2004, the date by which New Zealand is required to meet those international treaty obligations.

New Zealand’s economy is very highly dependent on sea-borne trade carried by foreign shipping. In fact, 99 percent of New Zealand’s cargo exports and imports, by weight, were transported by sea in the year ended June 2002. That amounted to 85 percent of our cargo exports, valued at $28 billion, and 77 percent of our cargo imports, worth $24 billion. In addition, tourism from cruise ships and their passengers visiting New Zealand during the 2001-02 season generated $181 million in direct expenditure. Apart from the need for New Zealand to fulfil its international treaty obligations, if New Zealand does not improve its maritime security the risks to tourism and trade transported by sea will increase significantly. New Zealand ports, and the ships using them, would become more vulnerable to the risk of a terrorist attack as other ports around the world increase their security. Our international trading partners may also refuse to allow ships travelling from New Zealand ports to enter their ports. The likely result of all that would be the withdrawal of many international shipping services from New Zealand.

This Government is acutely aware of the need to strengthen New Zealand’s national security in the post - September 11 environment. Safeguarding New Zealand from terrorism and transnational crime and keeping our trade and tourism markets secure are absolutely fundamental. Two pieces of proposed legislation have been introduced in support of those objectives. The Border Security Bill focuses on improving the security of the global travel and trading environments, while enhancing closer security relationships within the import and export supply chains. The Counter-Terrorism Bill extends existing measures and allows the Customs Service to detain property, cash, or cash equivalents crossing our border if there is good reason to suspect that the owner is involved in terrorism. The Maritime Security Bill complements those two pieces of legislation, and is another vital component to ensure our border is well protected.

That brings me to the detail of this bill. The provisions of the bill will apply to all New Zealand’s ports that have international trading connections, and to those New Zealand ships that trade internationally. They will also apply to foreign-registered ships coming to New Zealand—specifically, to international passenger ships, international cargo ships over 500 gross tonnes, and international mobile offshore drilling units. The bill does not apply to naval vessels, pleasure craft, or non-commercial vessels. It does, however, include a provision to give the Government the flexibility to extend all or part of the international regime to domestic passenger ships, cargo and fishing ships, and other port facilities, should a risk be identified that warrants such precautionary measures being taken.

The bill provides for the appointment of a designated authority to oversee the implementation of the maritime security requirements, and to ensure that effective security is being maintained. The Government intends to appoint the Maritime Safety Authority as that designated authority. The main focus of the bill seeks to improve port and ship security. Putting in place preventive measures to ensure the security of ships and port facilities is essentially a risk management activity. In order to determine what security measures are appropriate, the bill requires all the affected New Zealand ships and port facilities to undertake security risk assessments. Shipping companies must ensure that a security assessment is carried out by a person with the appropriate skills to evaluate the security of a ship. The bill allows for that and other functions to be carried out by a recognised security organisation. Such organisations will be independent organisations with appropriate expertise in security matters, and with appropriate knowledge of ship and port operations. In the case of ports, the designated authority and/or the recognised security organisation must carry out a security assessment of each port facility. The purpose of the assessment is to identify what the security risks and vulnerabilities are for that particular port or ship, and to form the basis upon which to develop appropriate security plans to reduce those risks.

The bill proposes that New Zealand ships and port facilities prepare, have approved by the designated authority, and then implement security plans that are based on their own security assessment. That will enable them to operate at a specified security level set by the designated authority. The level will be set at one, two, or three—normal, a heightened threat, or an extreme threat—depending on the nature of the security risk assessed at the time when a particular international ship interfaces with a New Zealand port facility. Foreign ships coming to New Zealand will have to attest to the designated authority’s satisfaction that they have valid certification on board, and an appropriate ship security plan. Prior to arrival in port, a foreign ship is required to provide the designated authority with evidence of the security level at which the ship is currently operating.

The bill contains the power to undertake, as and when required, the screening and searching of any person or thing in a port security area, the objective being to prevent the introduction of unauthorised weapons or explosive devices to ships or port facilities. The power to search and screen will be by consent of the person to be searched, unless there is a need to screen or search anything left unattended in a port security area. The screening and searching powers in this bill are similar to those in the Civil Aviation Act. The bill includes regulation-making powers to enable the very detailed, but mandatory, provisions in both the Ship and Port Facility Security Code and the amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea convention to be implemented.

To ensure compliance with this legislation, a number of offences and penalties are proposed in the bill. They relate to breaches of the duties and responsibilities that stem from the nature of the maritime security regime agreed upon by the International Maritime Organization.

This Government is committed to fulfilling its international security obligations, including those in the fraught area of international maritime security. The bill responds to the development of an international framework to enhance maritime security. I urge members to support the bill for reasons closer to home. It will enhance the personal security of New Zealanders, and will better protect New Zealand’s ports and ships from being potential terrorist targets.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

National will support this bill going to the select committee, because it is obvious that in a time of heightened risk and danger we have to be vigilant. But just this week, there was another maritime issue that the Government absented itself from. It actually betrayed 11 nations that are diligently trying to search for weapons of mass destruction on the high seas, and that have entered into an agreement to do so.

Members will be interested to know that those countries include the United States, Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland, and Spain. The Government may say that that is just the same group that is also supporting Iraq, but if we look at who else is in that list, we see France, Germany, and the Netherlands there. Are those not the countries that the Prime Minister was referring to—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: And Japan.

and Japan—as a new nexus, and as an interesting relationship with links to Russia and China? Yet New Zealand is not there.

It is extraordinary that when we have the serious issue of intercepting weapons of mass destruction, New Zealand is not there. It is missing in action. New Zealand cannot be bothered; it is not onside. It is all very well for the Minister to present this bill to the House, with all of its detailed provisions, but when countries are working together to detect weapons of mass destruction—

💬 John Key: Hand in hand.

—hand in hand, we are simply not there but are missing in action.

Just recently, last week, I went to Japan and South Korea. I talked to members of the Japanese Government and said to them that New Zealand had an interest in dealing with nuclear weapons. I said we wanted to see the end of nuclear weapons, and I asked them about linking together the three Southern Hemisphere nuclear weapons conventions: the Treaty of Rarotonga, the South American treaty, and the one for Africa. Do members know what their response was? Their response was that the trouble with that was that New Zealand does not get along with Japan’s friends and allies. So Japan has drawn its own conclusions about New Zealand, because of our relationship with the United States.

Just this July, Prime Minister Howard visited Japan, and during that trip the Japanese Government and the Australian Government entered into an agreement about trade liberalisation across all sectors. That agreement between Australia and Japan could lead to a free-trade agreement. But New Zealand has only a sector agreement with Japan—narrow and tight, and about tourism, education, timber, and things like that—which could not possibly lead to a free-trade agreement. So we are viewed by Japan through the prism of the Government’s bad relationship with the United States. The Government may get up and say it is helping in the war against terrorism, is entering into the conventions, and has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me tell the House that the reality is—

💬 John Key: Too late.

It is too late, as my colleague Mr Key says, and other countries know that. So our first trading partner, Australia, our second trading partner, the United States, and our third trading partner, Japan, are all saying: “Um, gosh. We can’t trust those funny little people in New Zealand. We can’t work with them. They are off side.” Once again, the Government proved that fact by not entering into an agreement in our own region—the Pacific—about North Korea, where we cannot get alongside Australia, the United States, Britain, and Japan, and, also, the Government’s own friends, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

So when I read a bill like this, with all its laudable aims, I have to look at the bigger picture here, which tells me that we are out of the loop, missing in action, and that the later decisions—the afterthought decisions—about Iraq and Afghanistan do not actually count. A few months ago Mr Mark, for instance, said that the Government was trying to buy favour with the United States, by using the bodies of our troops. But even that is not working; it does not cut the mustard. Even that craven attempt by the Government does not work. At once that tells us that the issue is fundamentally about beliefs. It is about fundamental values, and action. That is what countries are measuring—not the later actions when we look as though we are trying to curry favour, but where we stand in terms of our beliefs.

When it comes to the crunch, the Government is simply not willing to make the key decisions that would put us alongside not just a narrow group of countries but a much broader group.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Which one?

Let me go through the countries again. Our first trading partner is Australia, our second is the United States, and our third is Japan. Each and every one of those countries is saying to us that we are not onside with it and that we are not doing the actions that would matter. So we are not in free-trade agreements and discussions with the United States or Japan. We do not have a hope of being in those.

What is more, we are leaving it to Australia to make all the running in the South Pacific, because even there we have abandoned any pretence of leadership. Mr Goff had a phone call just a few weeks ago from Mr Downer, who said he thought Mr Goff had said we would send 200 troops, not the 100 that we sent, to the Solomons. When Mr Downer asked where the other hundred troops were, Mr Goff said he was sorry, and that he would have to actually send them. That is not the way to make a decent relationship. Why are we always on the back foot? I ask the senior Government whip why we are always on the back foot. Why cannot the Government take some initiatives that deal with our relationships and get them driving forward, so that we can make some realistic moves.

I also want to refer to the issue of the costs of this bill. I note that the costs are quite substantial, and that the annual operating costs for port facility operators will be $75,000 for each and every port.

That cost will be loaded on to cargo owners, but the Minister did not say how clause 50 will operate. That clause deals with the inspection regime. The Minister said that the regime at our ports will be the same as that at our airports, and he is right. As every member knows, there is a very vigorous surveillance and monitoring situation for cargo at airports—and for people. This bill enables a similar situation to occur at our ports. The United States is already X-raying, at huge cost, virtually every container. This bill allows that also. I predict that there will be substantial extra costs, not borne by the general taxpayer but imposed by the Government for our overall benefit. We would think those costs would therefore be borne by the overall community, but they are, in fact, to be borne by the port operators, the shipping companies, and, obviously, indirectly by the importers.

I have to ask where the reasonable balance is. When what is essentially a cost for the benefit of the community as a whole is imposed, then at the very least we would expect some sort of reasonable sharing of that cost between the operators of the facility and the community. That has occurred with regard to airports, but it does not seem to have occurred in this bill. So I signal that during the select committee process National will be vigilant in looking at the total extent of the potential cost of this legislation.

I rise to speak on behalf of United Future on the Maritime Security Bill. The purpose of the bill is to establish in New Zealand a maritime security framework that will reduce the risk of terrorist attacks affecting ships or port facilities, particularly those involved in international trade. That will impose costs on all of us, as a society, and is the consequence of the September 11 terrorist activity and the increasing terrorist activity around the world. As we approach the second anniversary of the attack upon the US that involved the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon, and the flight that crashed into a Pennsylvania field, we count not only the awful loss of lives at that time, but also those lost in subsequent tragedies in Bali, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Moscow. We recognise the way the world had to change, and will continue to have to change, in order to address the threat posed by the terrorist organisations still operating around the world. The recent threats aired on radio that are attributed to Osama bin Laden are fresh reminders of the need for civilised nations to have to spend billions—perhaps trillions—of dollars in order to take all the measures necessary to protect the democratic and free way of life that we value highly.

I take this opportunity to pay my respects to all the brave men and women who have given their lives in recent times to fight this new threat. I pay tribute to our own armed forces, now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. I, for one, am grateful to our allies the US, the United Kingdom, and Australia, which have so far taken a lead in addressing the menace of terrorism, not only through the engagement of their armed forces and the costs that they are prepared to shoulder in that regard, but also through the huge costs involved in maintaining security surveillance 24/7 around the world’s trouble spots. No one who values his or her freedom can afford to avoid contributing to the cost now demanded of us by terrorist fanaticism.

The bill we debate today is part of our responsibilities in accordance with New Zealand’s obligations under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, which was amended in December 2002 in response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. The legislative timetable is now relatively urgent, as the new maritime security requirements must be implemented by 1 July 2004. The main benefit to New Zealand from implementing the new security measures will be continued confidence among New Zealand’s trading partners, particularly the United States, that New Zealand’s ports and international trading vessels have strong security procedures. The absence of such procedures could seriously hamper New Zealand’s maritime trade with security-sensitive trading partners like the US. As was pointed out by Harry Duynhoven earlier in his introductory speech on the bill, we simply cannot afford not to take these measures to ensure that our security is kept on a par with the rest of the world, not just because of how that would affect us as a trading nation, but also because if New Zealand’s security becomes second-rate we would begin to invite the attention of terrorist groups, which would see us as an easier target than others elsewhere. We simply cannot afford to let that happen. The well-known saying “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.” would certainly be applicable in that case.

The main feature of this bill is that it provides enabling legislation to implement the convention amendments through the development of regulations and maritime rules. The legislation will apply to all international passenger ships, large cargo ships, and mobile offshore drilling units. It will also cover domestic passenger, cargo, and fishing ships, as well as most New Zealand port facilities. It does not apply to naval or non-commercial vessels. The bill designates the Maritime Safety Authority as the regulatory authority for maritime security, responsible for implementing and monitoring the new requirements. The legislation will place obligations on New Zealand’s shipping companies and port facility operators that trade internationally, or that service international trading ships, to have an approved security plan based on a security risk analysis, and to implement that plan.

There are some associated compliance costs, both one-off costs and annual ongoing costs. While there is some concern about the accuracy of the estimates surrounding cost, it is suggested that for a shipping company with one ship, the one-off cost is estimated to be $13,000, with an ongoing annual cost of $18,700. For a port facility operator operating few facilities, the one-off cost is estimated to be $17,000, with an ongoing annual cost of $26,000. It is indeed regrettable that at a time when the Government is being implored to reduce compliance costs for business in order to assist our competitiveness as a nation, those costs must be introduced. However, there is perhaps some consolation in the knowledge that all trading nations are facing the same issues and, therefore, the playing field will remain relatively even.

In supporting the first reading of the bill and the sending of it to a select committee where it can be examined in conjunction with the Border Security Bill—which we consider to be a sensible suggestion by the Minister—United Future hopes the committee will listen to any submitters who may come forth with suggestions as to how compliance with the obligations of the bill can be met with the minimum of cost, and without sacrificing the assurance of adequate security. That will indeed be a tough challenge to the committee, but we commend the bill to the House. United Future will be supporting it.

I do compliment that member. At least he tried to stick, to a significant degree, to the bill. I do not think that the National Party member even touched on it until the end.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Yes, he did.

Oh, he did. He said that he did not know the costs—which are included in the explanatory note. Maritime port security is essential. We live in a volatile world, and we have to address that potential problem. It is, potentially, a huge problem, and it is a huge task we are asking of our people—our security people, our port companies, and our administrators. This is no easy task. I talk as a man who has some background in port operations where we had to have minor levels of security. This is a biggie, and it will cost some money. I am not prepared to stand here and give a blank cheque, but I ask the House: what price security? What price the ability to trade with other nations? We know the Americans will come down pretty damn hard on this, and we have to be up with the play.

National, when it was the Government, put in place systems and structures to dispense with our merchant fleet. Labour finished that off. Effectively, we have no merchant fleet running internationally. Labour finished it off. Despite the shipping industry review that the previous Minister commissioned, nothing has been done about looking at New Zealand’s shipping. So this bill will deal, very largely, with foreign shipping. It will deal with foreign owners, foreign masters, and foreign crews. Some will have a stronger commitment to New Zealand than others. Some will not give a damn. Why should they? They come here, bring their cargoes, and take our exports away. Why should they worry about security in this country? Our administrators will have to overcome that, for a start. They will have to deal with shipping agents in this country who will be under pressure to get the ships out, to make ships comply, and to make the structure comply. Those guys will not be too happy about having extra obligations put on them. However, I know many of them very well, and no doubt they will apply themselves diligently and address the issues that they have to.

The designated organisation in charge of security procedures will, I think, be the Maritime Safety Authority—although I cannot see it in the bill. The authority will have to deal with stevedoring companies to ensure that they comply, toe the line, and do everything properly. It will have to deal with the watersiders. All those people will probably have to carry some sort of identity disc so that they can go through the ports clearly recognised and accepted as people who are meant to be there and have business on the wharves of any particular port.

But who else will they have to deal with? They will have to deal with the sex workers. They will have to deal with the pimps and the prostitutes who earn their living—Tim Barnett is nodding in agreement. Those people will go down to the ships, on legitimate business now, and sell their wares. Some of those people are employed by gangs and by people of an unscrupulous background—I was going to use a stronger word. Port companies and the security staff will have to monitor that, and I have no doubt that, in time, they will have to issue them with identity cards. Sex workers will go down to certain ports with ID cards. [Interruption] They cannot be checked by the police, but, I say to Mr Shirley, they will be checked by the Maritime Safety Authority. How is that! The Maritime Safety Authority will no doubt keep a register of port sex workers, and if anybody thinks this is a light-hearted joke, let me tell them that it is not. If somebody wanted to do some real damage in this country, it would be very, very easy. It could be easily done by using the services of what we might call “non-essential shipping people who provide services to ships.” It would be very easily done. I do not envy the task of whoever will administer this.

There are concerns about costs in this bill. They are not identified, at all. I listened to Larry Baldock as he read from the bill, but all the figures are ballpark figures and could be quite inaccurate, and the explanatory note of the bill says as much on how the costing was reached. The costs could, in certain places and at certain times, be quite horrendous. The restrictions could be quite difficult and quite frustrating for people who want to go about their legitimate business. But we live in a volatile world. We live in a world where, I think, the time is coming when terrorists will target the easiest target. We do not want to be the easiest target down here. We are fairly slack now about who we let into this country, how they get here, what they are allowed to do when they get here, and the freedom they have. [Interruption] Oh, the member disagrees with me?

💬 David Benson-Pope: Perfect illustration of the problem.

I am a perfect illustration of the problem, am I? I have to say to that member that when I came here I was subject to some very stringent medical checks.

💬 David Benson-Pope: The way some of the back-benchers stand up and slag off immigrants is just appalling.

I am not necessarily slagging off immigrants. For that member’s information, I am talking about people who get into this country in a number of ways, and, certainly, people come into this country on ships—those people are unofficially here. It is very, very easily done. That member clearly knows nothing about this bill and nothing about the size of the problem. This is a serious problem. But there is one thing that the Government has got going for it. It has a good Minister in charge of this bill—Harry Duynhoven. He is very thorough and, unlike that member, he is very diligent, and I know he will lift every stone to see what worms come out from underneath.

💬 David Benson-Pope: They will mostly be members of New Zealand First.

We do not come out from the stones, my friend.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am surprised you let go that comment from the senior Labour whip, David Benson-Pope. That is totally unacceptable in this House.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to stand and withdraw the comment.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I withdraw and apologise.

For the record, I take no offence at that sort of garbage. I have been trained properly by watersiders and seafarers. I know the real problems in this world. I certainly know the problems when it comes to working on the wharves, and I know the difficulties that there will be in implementing this bill. There will be absolute support from us for this bill going through to the select committee, but, as the National member said, we will not allow blank cheques—that was one little piece of information that Wayne Mapp divulged about the National Party’s philosophy. We will look at this very thoroughly, but, at the end of the day, we want an Act that is very sound and does its job. There is no use in having a Maritime Security Act that is so fraught with holes and flaws that we can drive a bus through it. So the bill has to be scrutinised very carefully.

This bill will add a lot of pressure to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, because that select committee already has a huge number of bills to deal with, but, thankfully, it has some good members on it. John Key is nodding, and I am there, so between the two of us we will sort this out. I would like to see Harry Duynhoven back on that committee. He made a very, very worthwhile contribution as far as the Government members are concerned, and I know he has a very strong interest in this bill. I do not know whether it is allowed, but maybe I will recommend that the Government seek to put Harry Duynhoven on the select committee for the purposes of this bill.

I want to make it quite clear that New Zealand First supports this bill. We do not necessarily agree with everything in it. We have concerns about the cost. We know the difficulties that will be faced by the administrators when it comes to pass, but we know it is absolutely essential to have legislation like this. We support its referral to the select committee 100 percent, and we will give it our best shot there.

ACT New Zealand will certainly be supporting this bill going to the Government Administration Committee. I have to say at the outset that that is with some considerable regret, but this bill is inevitable. The regret is that this bill represents a regime of big government, State intrusion, compliance costs, and regulation. The sad thing is, given the global situation that we are in, particularly—

💬 David Benson-Pope: Moaning about it again.

Here is Mr Benson-Pope from Dunedin crowing along. He just cannot help himself; he really cannot.

💬 David Benson-Pope: The ACT party, the rort party—we have to do it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do take offence, as the previous speaker did, at the inane comments that emanate from the Government senior whip, David Benson-Pope. I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has taken offence. I ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I withdraw and apologise.

The ACT party does support this legislation. We will be supporting it going to a select committee. [Interruption] He is at it again. He cannot help himself. I do not know what sort of liquid dinner he had, but he is not in good shape.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is a totally unacceptable implication, and I ask you to ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has taken offence at that. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

I assumed he had either tomato or mushroom soup. I did not specify what liquid.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member has made a very clear implication, and the member has taken offence. The member will withdraw and apologise.

If he has taken offence, I withdraw and apologise.

💬 John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be helpful if there were fewer interjections, and then we might be able to get on to the business. I am sure that the senior Government whip wants to get the business through the House. It might be timely to remind him that a little less interjection from him might well help the progress of the House.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I also remind members that when points of order are being raised, there will be silence.

I hope we will make some progress, without the Government whip doing his little chirping act. The ACT party will be supporting this legislation going to the select committee. That is with regret, because it does represent big government, compliance costs, and regulatory State intrusion, but it is inevitable, given the global situation that we face. Indeed, as a trading nation we are more dependent on trade than most other nations. To meet international expectations, we have no choice but to implement the measures that are now part of international conventions with regard to trade and transport. We certainly have done that with airlines, and we know that the post - 11 September costs now associated with airport security are severe. This measure is, in essence, the maritime equivalent of what we see at our airports. Therefore I believe we have no choice other than to pass this type of legislation. I think there are a number of points that need to be fine-tuned and addressed at the select committee, which is where those measures should be addressed.

The issue of security cannot be separated from where we sit in respect of others in the world. Mr Mapp in his speech made a very good point—and I would like to reiterate some of the points he made, because they are very pertinent to this bill—[Interruption] I am not sure whether it is a member coughing, or a stranger in the gallery, but it is quite distracting. Mr Mapp pointed out that in the weeks ahead a major exercise involving Australia, the United States, the Netherlands, Japan, Germany, and France will be held off the Queensland coast on matters of maritime security that directly relate to the measures in this bill, and New Zealand is not participating. The Deputy Prime Minister is here in the House and I ask him why New Zealand is not participating in that exercise involving maritime security systems, which are so critical in the post - 11 September world. France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, the USA, and Australia are participating, but New Zealand was not invited to the party.

And why might that be? The reason is that we persist with our archaic, chest-thumping, bumper-sticker ban on nuclear ship visits. It is a nonsense. There is no strategic or environmental reason for it. It is purely one of the mantras of this Labour Party that should have been left in the 1980s. Unfortunately, this Government just does not see fit to address that issue so that we can re-establish our traditional links with like-minded allies who believe in an interdependent global economy between trading nations, based on market economies.

Unfortunately, we are not a member of that club. As hard as we might try to be a member of that club, we are not. It is interesting to note that Japan, Germany, France, the Netherlands, the USA, and Australia are members, but New Zealand is not. Those countries will be exercising in our backyard in the weeks ahead on matters of maritime safety—which is the very subject of this bill—and we are precluded from participating in that exercise. That is incredibly regrettable, and I put it to this House that we are the poorer for it. We can pass all the legislation and rules that we like, but unless we are in the security loop and have the information, we are at risk. Because of this Government’s “no nuclear ship visits” mantra, we have been precluded from participating in that exercise. We no longer have a place among our traditional security allies. We are not part of the coalition of the willing, and that is very regrettable indeed.

Many members would have noticed the articles written by Michael Bassett, a former Labour Minister, who has been very eloquent on the subject. He recognises the nonsense of this Labour Government’s policy, but still it persists. As we know, there was a major review in 1993 with the Somers report, which made it very clear that there is no security or environmental reason for our not accepting nuclear ship visits. We know that there are no nuclear weapons on those ships. The “neither confirm nor deny” policy was dropped in 1991, but still we persist with the old-fashioned Labour Party mantra, and we are out of the loop. We are not invited to the party. We are persona non grata. We have gone AWOL. That is the reality, and that is very, very regrettable.

Clause 50 of this bill sets out the inspection regimes. They are very draconian and impose massive costs. The one good feature of the legislation is that it is going to be based on management systems. One can have an audited and approved management system to minimise risk, and that is a preferable alternative to having prescriptive inspections by bureaucrats. In other words, provided that one has an adequate management system for these types of securities, such as inspections of containers prior to sealing them, etc., one can get the tick and one can participate. It would have been frightful if it were just a massive, bureaucratic, case by case inspection system.

That aside, it will mean massive costs. We all know the costs associated with our airports now; there are massive numbers of security staff, and there is screening of all passengers, with people losing their penknives, manicure scissors, and all those sorts of things. This will be the equivalent, and it will be applied not just to merchant ships bringing cargo to our country, and taking our export products away, but also to all cruise ships, which are a very significant part of our tourism industry. But it is tied into international agreements, conventions, and understandings. We have no option but to impose those costs, which is regrettable, but, hopefully, at some time in the future we will have solved the security risks that are so very real at this time. Hopefully, we will be able to move forward and unwind at some future date some of these very intrusive measures that are being imposed.

I am very pleased to contribute to this debate, and to say, in response to some of the comments made by the previous speaker, that New Zealand does punch above its weight internationally, and most countries know that. We are very proud of our antinuclear position, and most New Zealanders continue to support it.

I would like to speak about the relevance of the bill, and I will keep it short. The reason for this bill is really to acknowledge what happened on 11 September 2001. Tomorrow is significant because it is the 2-year anniversary of that terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York. It will be a day for mourning those who lost their lives in that disaster in the United States.

The world has changed since then, and the world has to be conscious of the need for security. I believe that this bill indicates the need to comply with the convention that has been amended, which is the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974. I commend this Government for its management of legislation, because we, as a party, are 10 months ahead of the date by which New Zealand has to comply with that convention, which is 1 July 2004. That is an indication of an efficient Government, which is well ahead of its obligation. I commend this bill to the House and commend its referral to the select committee.

This day, 10 September 2003, will indeed be remembered in this Parliament, but not, I suspect, for the young ladies who were representatives of Mothers Against Genetic Engineering coming to this House and taking their tops off to protest against genetic engineering, and not because today we have the first reading of this bill. Those will not be the things that mark this day. No, this day will be marked for one other reason. It is a very sad day in New Zealand’s history, because Shane Ardern MP has been charged by police officers—the very people who will be looking after this bill. What a sad day it is for the New Zealand Parliament! That event will overshadow the first reading of this bill. I only hope that justice is done and the police come to their senses and drop that charge against my respected colleague the honourable Shane Ardern, the MP for Taranaki - King Country.

It is befitting, I think, that this bill is having its first reading in the House on this day—nearly 2 years to the day since September 11, 2001, a day the world changed, a day when more than 3,000 people worldwide were killed in terrorist activities in New York City and in Washington, a day when two New Zealanders lost their lives. This piece of legislation is part of a trifecta of legislation that has been introduced by the Government. The first measure was the Counter-Terrorism Bill, which was introduced some months ago, and it was followed rather quickly by the Border Security Bill, and now, tonight, we are having the first reading debate of the Maritime Security Bill. Those three pieces of legislation are looking to add significant security framework and structure to New Zealand.

What a mockery that makes of that fabulous statement by our Prime Minister that New Zealand is a benign strategic environment—what a complete mockery! Every thinking New Zealander knows that ours is not a benign strategic environment; if it were, we would not have the Maritime Security Bill. No, we would not have this bill if ours was a benign strategic environment. That is what she parroted out on television. That is what she told the country: “Don’t worry about the ports, don’t worry about the airports, and don’t worry about New Zealand; we can hide away in the corner and no one will remember us.” She said that we will not be with our traditional allies, the Americans, the Australians, and the British, those whom we have fought shoulder to shoulder with in every war from here to Timbuctoo. She said that we will not worry about that, because we are in a benign strategic environment. Well, lo and behold, we are not, and tonight we are debating the Maritime Security Bill.

One of the reasons it is very important that this bill is passed, and one of the reasons that National will be supporting the referral of this important legislation to a select committee, is that other countries in the world are taking up their responsibilities and are spending more. We are talking very significant amounts of money. Tom Ridge, America’s Secretary for Homeland Security, went to the Senate and asked for $29 billion for homeland security. He asked for US$29.8 billion. That is what it is costing to protect America. It is not in a benign strategic environment. Even our Prime Minister has had to admit that we are not in a benign strategic environment, either, and she has had to introduce this legislation, at some cost, I might add. The first-year cost of the Maritime Security Bill will be $950,000 plus GST—that will be the cost to the Government—and $750,000 is the yearly run rate for this legislation.

But the bill will cost not just the Government money; there are many—13 in fact—port owners in New Zealand that will have to go through a risk assessment. Many shipping companies and offshore rig owners will have to comply with the Maritime Security Bill. There will be costs, and they will be spread across New Zealand. We may ask ourselves why they are being forced to comply with the Maritime Security Bill. The reason relates back to the International Maritime Organization and our commitment, through that organisation, to fulfil our international treaty obligations under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, or “SOLAS”, which is the acronym by which it is known in the shipping world. For those who come off the “love boat” and the other cruise ships that come to New Zealand, I point out that “SOLAS” is the international convention that is being complied with.

What does this Maritime Security Bill require? What will be forced upon the shipping companies and the port owners? The 13 ports in New Zealand will have to undergo an individual risk assessment. So it is not a universal blanket—every port having to follow the same thing. In Westport, where a bit of coal is exported occasionally on the odd ship—

💬 Simon Power: They used to export timber.

Yes, that area used to export timber, but then along came Labour, and now it does not do that. Now it has Jim Anderton’s “jobs machine” dishing out money—but we will not go there; we do not have time to talk about that on this very sad day when Shane Ardern has been charged by the police.

Every port will have a different individual risk assessment. Auckland’s port, where a great many container ships come and go—a port that I see regularly as I drive around dealing with my constituency activities—is far more likely to have a rigorous risk assessment. It will attempt, as Mr Brown mentioned in his remarks, to prevent unauthorised access to ships, port facilities, and registered restricted-access areas. This is nothing new, in the sense that it has been a requirement of our airports, for very good reason, for many, many years; it is now moving to the maritime area.

If I may digress for a moment, I would like to point out that it is great that the Government is taking up its responsibilities under the Maritime Security Bill. I just wish it would take up its responsibilities a little bit more vigorously when it comes to stopping things from getting off the boats. I am thinking, in particular, of biosecurity. It would be nice if the Government focused a bit more of its activities on biosecurity, and a little less on some of its pet projects. That would be helpful to our country.

Certainly, shipping plays a major role in New Zealand. Members may be interested to know, if they have not done their research on this topic—and if I may take a moment to educate them about some of the interesting issues in this area—that 99 percent of all New Zealand’s cargo goes by ship. There are a great many ships coming into our ports. By value, 85 percent of New Zealand’s exports leave by ship, and 77 percent of all imports come here by ship. By value, $28 billion worth of New Zealand’s exports float away on those ships, and $24 billion of imports come into the country on them. From those numbers, members can get some idea of the magnitude of the problem we are dealing with, and the need to address this issue.

There is also the matter of cruise ships. I talked earlier about the “love boat” and the sorts of ships coming into New Zealand.

💬 Darren Hughes: That’s enough about your honeymoon.

💬 Simon Power: How come this member gets 40 minutes?

Well, I am going to ask for an extension of time because I am noticing how much members, even those on the Government benches, are enjoying my address on this particular topic. I am certainly enjoying being part of this debate and having the opportunity to liven up what have been rather dull contributions from many members in this House. But I do not want to waste my time; time is short.

💬 Darren Hughes: It’s precious.

Time is precious; that is exactly the word I was looking for. Time is precious on this particular occasion. Because I am running out of time, I now want to address those areas where the bill falls short, and I note the comments made by Dr Wayne Mapp. The Maritime Security Bill would have been a wonderful opportunity for New Zealand to be part of an international agreement wherein 11 countries have said they will introduce provisions to allow ships to be accessed when people are looking for weapons of mass destruction, whether they be chemical, nuclear, or biological. What sorts of countries are in that agreement? I look down the list and I see Australia; yes, the roos are there. So is Britain. So is the United States. Our traditional allies are in this agreement. Where is our name? Missing! It is “MIA” just like it was during the war in Iraq—missing.

This country will pay for that—members need not worry about that. There will be no US free-trade arrangement with New Zealand. One thing we do not have to worry about is container ships going to America, because none will be leaving this country for America; there will be no free-trade arrangement because of the absolute shambles that the Government has made of that position. It does not matter that the Government is offering up bodies and all the rest of it now; that is not helping. The Government has missed the boat with this bill.

I thank Madam Speaker for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this wonderful bill, which we will be supporting.

At the end of those 10 minutes it is hard to know whether the associate Opposition spokesperson on transport is for or against the bill. Certainly, we in the Labour Party are supporting the bill. The bill will be sent to the select committee after its first reading, because it builds on the annex to the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea 1974. The convention covers 55 countries worldwide and 15,000 ports. It is an appropriate response from the international community to the issues raised by this bill.

I am glad that my party lets me speak for a lot longer than that party allowed that member to speak. On behalf of my New Zealand First colleagues, I want to support this bill to the select committee.

💬 Jill Pettis: That’s all we want to know. The member can sit down.

Labour members make speeches like that, but I am allowed to speak a little bit longer, so I say to the junior Government whip that that is what I will do.

It is sad that we are addressing a bill called the Maritime Security Bill. It reflects the kind of environment and world we live in these days. Even 10 or 20 years ago, we would not have had to address the security breaches, the terror attacks, and everything that has gone on in the last few years. Things like that have happened in the past, and there have been hijackings, and so on. In 1982, when I was just a kid at school, I remember very clearly the hijacking of the TWA Boeing 727 in the Middle East. I was in standard 2—under the old grading system—and remember looking at the television and seeing dead bodies being dropped out of the plane. It horrified me, and it horrified the rest of the Western World, but that is absolutely nothing compared with what we saw on 9/11 in 2001. The Hon Taito Phillip Field mentioned that we are approaching the very sad anniversary of the terrorist attacks on those beautiful World Trade Center buildings in New York. I am sure that will be a moment in history that will strike every age group from 5-year-olds upwards.

It is a sad state of affairs that we as a country, and as a Parliament, have to introduce a bill like this, but it is reality, and it is facing up to what our obligations are, as mentioned earlier, under the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the International Code for the Security of Ships and of Port Facilities.

I want to read the purpose of the bill, and then go on and build from there. As stated in the explanatory notes, the purpose of this bill is to establish in New Zealand a maritime security framework that will reduce the risk of security incidents affecting merchant ships or port facilities, particularly those used in international trade. In doing so, the bill enables New Zealand to fulfil its obligations under a new international agreement for maritime security. It is a shame that we as a country do not live in a benign strategic environment. It is a shame that this country needs to get itself in line with this international agreement.

Obviously, this bill is one of three pieces of legislation being brought to the House to address security problems, and the problems we have had over the last few years as a global community. The reason that New Zealand First supports this bill to the select committee is that we pride ourselves as a strong law and order party. We also pride ourselves as a strong security party, and that is one reason that my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and many other members of my caucus, often speak out about the immigration problems we have in this country, and some of the problems they lead to as far as crime and security breaches are concerned.

New Zealand First will always support good legislation and oppose bad legislation. In saying that, we do not agree with everything in this legislation. We are open to sending it to the select committee, but we want to look at the different costs involved. I note that the United States—and I looked at it before John Key talked about it—is spending $29.8 billion on homeland security. That is a massive amount of money to spend, but once again it shows how important homeland security is. Beyond a shadow of doubt, the United States is in an environment that causes it to be on edge, and to make sure that it does everything possible in terms of its security—especially after the 11 September terror attacks by the al-Qaeda network, initiated by people like Osama bin Laden. The United States has every right to be on edge, and to put as many resources as absolutely possible into making sure that not only are its airports secure and safe, but also its ports.

A few years ago, I worked for the airlines in the United States—

💬 Darren Hughes: Which one?

I worked for Continental Airlines. I remember walking through airports with the pilots on some days and saying: “What an absolute joke the security screening is.” People were being paid something like $5.20 an hour—

💬 Simon Power: US dollars though!

Yes, but they had to pay for health benefits and everything else, in case they had a crash, or something like that. At that time, security screening was an absolute joke. I remember saying to pilots and other crew members how ridiculous it was to see how little money, resources, and time were being spent on security. As we all know, that obviously led to the shameful and disgraceful attacks on the twin towers. Security was so lenient, and that is what we have to address in this bill. In the same way that members of the al-Qaeda network got on to American Airlines and United Airlines 767 and 757 planes, we have to ask how this bill will address the problems of people like that planting bombs on ships, and other security breaches in respect of ships and the maritime industry. A lot of issues need to be raised here.

Bill read a first time.

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Transport: I move, That the Maritime Security Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee, that the committee finally report the bill by 11 December 2003, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—except during questions for oral answer—and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).