Maritime Security Bill

I move, That the Maritime Security Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to establish in New Zealand a maritime security framework to detect security threats and take preventive measures against security incidents affecting ships or port facilities that serve New Zealand’s international trade. Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, New Zealand and the rest of the world has faced an increased global risk. The Government recognises that New Zealand’s relative geographical isolation does not provide immunity from the threat of terrorism. Historically, the international maritime sector has not been as well advanced in respect of security systems as the aviation sector. To its credit, however, the International Maritime Organization responded quickly to September 11, and it took just over a year of intense work over 100 countries to develop and reach agreement on a detailed, comprehensive, and workable framework for international maritime security.

The International Maritime Organization adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, and the security-related amendments to the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, which is known as “SOLAS”. As a contracting party to the convention New Zealand is required to enact legislation to put the International Maritime Organization’s new maritime security framework in place. This new framework requires ships and port facilities to approach security with an increased level of seriousness, to develop expertise to assess the security status of their operations, and to come up with an auditable plan to manage security risks.

Ship and port facility operators will be required to undertake security risk assessments. 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 the risks.

The Government Administration Committee considered this bill and has submitted its commentary to the House. The committee recommended that the bill be passed with the amendments proposed. I would particularly like to thank the committee for the priority that it has given the bill, and for the improvements it has made to the bill since it was introduced.

The International Maritime Organization agreed that the new maritime security regime should come into force on 1 July 2004. This is a tight deadline, but the precedence given to the bill by the committee will ensure that we stay on target for meeting that 1 July deadline.

I would also like to thank everyone who made submissions on the bill. The committee received 13 of them. Submitters tended to support the overall intent of the bill. They recognised the importance of New Zealand being part of a multinational effort to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks on ships or port facilities. Many of the submitters were also aware of the consequences for New Zealand’s overseas trade of failing to comply with the international requirements. In general, the submissions did not seek any major changes, but sought to clarify further the approach taken in the bill.

I would like to address briefly some of the more important issues raised by submitters. Part 3 seeks to prevent the unauthorised introduction to ships in ports of weapons and other dangerous items. It contains the power to undertake in certain circumstances screening and searching of any person or anything in a designated port security area. The inclusion of the provisions relating to the screening and searching powers is essentially to future-proof the legislation so that it contains the ability to implement such measures, should the need for them ever be established.

The select committee has recommended that section 43 in part 3 be amended to remove port facility operators from the list of possible maritime security organisations. This is a sensible amendment. Several submitters were concerned that employees of, or contractors to, a port facility operator may be able to screen, search, and detain their fellow employees. The inclusion of port facility operators as maritime security organisations in the bill was to enable the system to respond quickly should a threat arise. However, given the considerable powers provided for in Part 3, and the need for those powers to be exercised appropriately, the committee has recommended that only Government employees should be able to exercise those powers.

Several submitters also expressed concerns that the bill could unduly restrict legitimate demonstrations, protests, or strikes. That is not the intention of the bill. However, a consequence of the ship and port facility security plans is that, at times, there may be areas, as there are now, where protest is not possible. Clarity was needed to allay the concerns of some of the submitters. Therefore, the committee has recommended that a definition of “suspicious act” be added to the bill to make it explicit that the definition of “security incident” does not include lawful demonstration, protest, and strike.

Several submitters raised the issue of costs resulting from the new international regime. The Government is acutely aware of industry concerns, and every effort has been made to reduce the cost of implementing the new regime. Close cooperation between industry and the Maritime Safety Authority in the development of the regime has gone a long way to ensuring that costs are kept down and are related directly to the findings of the separate ship and port facility assessments.

A number of submissions proposed that the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea position of “company security officer” should be defined in the bill, along with the associated duties and responsibilities that relate primarily to oversight administration and management. The select committee has not seen fit to accept that proposal. Most international voyages to New Zealand ports are from foreign-flag vessels. Thus, most companies’ security officers will be domiciled overseas. This being so, it was not deemed appropriate to have such officers as the first and primary points of contact for the New Zealand authorities and port facility officers. Clearly, communication with a vessel that is either at a New Zealand port facility, or has signalled its intention to soon enter a New Zealand port, is best made with someone on board the vessel. Further, it would be very difficult to enforce the bill against those people who are domiciled overseas. The bill makes the master, who is responsible, after all, for the safety and security of the ship and who will obviously be on board the ship, the primary contact point.

The duties and responsibilities associated with the position of company security officer will be set out in regulations, as will the other mandatory provisions of the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea that have not been included in the enabling bill.

The Maritime Security Bill is one of three pieces of legislation this Government has introduced to safeguard New Zealand from terrorism and transnational crime and to keep our trade and tourist markets secure. I am pleased that the Government Administration Committee considered the Maritime Security Bill alongside the Border Security Bill. Both those pieces of legislation affect ship and port facility operators. The committee has been mindful to avoid duplication between the two pieces of legislation, and a number of mostly minor technical amendments have arisen since the committee considered the bill. Therefore, I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper to incorporate those amendments to improve the workability of the bill.

Given the increased global terrorist risk, the bill is intended to address gaps in current maritime security, and is a vital step towards ensuring that our ports and the ships visiting them are well protected. I commend this bill, as reported back from the Government Administration Committee, to the House.

As the Minister said, this bill ensures that New Zealand meets its international obligations under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, which was amended, as members will recall, in December 2002, to enhance ship and port security. New Zealand’s obligations will involve assessing security risks for individual ships and port facilities, and developing security plans based on those assessments. It will specify security levels at which ships and port facilities must operate, maintain communication protocols for ships and port facilities, prevent unauthorised access for ships’ port facilities and to restricted areas, as one would expect, and prevent the introduction of unauthorised weapons, incendiary devices, or explosives to ships and port facilities.

The National Party agrees that such requirements would place New Zealand in line with accepted maritime security regulations and contribute to our role in combating terrorism. For that reason National is happy to support this bill. I understand that this bill was fairly low on the Order Paper, so I commend the Minister for putting on pressure to bring this forward on the Order Paper so we are able to speak on it today. I believe that it will be passed through under urgency next week. Certainly, that is my hope. Ports throughout the country are being required to file security plans with a designated authority. That will be the Maritime Safety Authority, and we understand that. However, as of today, the Maritime Safety Authority has no authority at all to approve and implement the plans. That needs to be done by 1 July 2004, which is a deadline imposed by the United States and the European Union. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today gives authority for the approval and implementation of the security plans, but of course, that has not passed. So we are in a sort of interim period where ports are quite concerned that they cannot actually move forward.

This has hugely significant implications for the New Zealand economy, and the seafood industry, for example, of which I am a spokesperson. Exporters are concerned that if this legislation is not fast-tracked in time for New Zealand obligations to be met, in place, and implemented by July this year, then we will have ships parked-up in ports all over the world, having to go through long procedures in order to export their food. The European Union, the United States, and interestingly, Australia, have already got this necessary legislation in place. The question has to be asked, “Why has New Zealand dragged the chain?”. In saying that, I am supporting this bill, and the National Party is supporting this bill, so we will contribute to the fact that we will be able to trade with these international markets, and that the seafood industry and other exporters will not be impeded by legislation moving slowly through the House. I commend this legislation to the House. It certainly has my blessing and the National Party’s blessing, which will come as a great relief to the Minister.

The Green Party will be supporting this bill, but with qualifications. Of course, we do not complain about a more systematic approach to wharf and ship security. That is very clearly useful. But I think that is not so much to catch terrorists. There are not a large number of terrorists zooming through New Zealand ports, in spite of the overblown news reports on the weekend that Mr al-Zawahiri had visited New Zealand. In that respect, it seemed to be a reporter interviewing his typewriter. The next day he said al-Qaeda had suitcase nuclear bombs, and he knew all about that too. We get more misinformation about terrorists coming through New Zealand than truth in these matters.

The main threat to us that comes through our ports is the biosecurity threat—all the bugs, beetles, and spiders that will affect our society and our economy. That is the real problem, and tightening up security in that respect is good. I do not think there will be a lot of terrorists and gunrunners, so, in general, we support that. It is part of a lot of legislation that to some degree goes a little bit further than it should because of pressure from the United States saying that we have to do this, that, and the other thing, otherwise it will not let ships from New Zealand into its ports. That is a bit of the background to it.

I am glad that the select committee submission process has succeeded in producing several amendments, and the Minister has indicated acceptance of those amendments in his speech. I know that the unions involved on the waterfront, the National Union of Railway Workers and the Maritime Union, put in a very good submission. They were worried about their people getting unnecessarily affected by this legislation, and I believe that the amendments go towards reassuring them. The one the Minister mentioned—that it should not be some employer’s representative searching workers as they go on to the wharf—could lead to a very difficult industrial situation on the wharf if it happened. Amending the bill to make sure that any searching has to be done by an official employee of the Government, or the police, is clearly a step forward.

The other amendment the Minister mentioned, about putting in a definition of suspicious act—that a suspicious act does not include the lawful exercise of any right to demonstrate, protest, or strike—only goes part-way to meeting the union’s concerns, and the Green Party will be moving an amendment at the Committee stage to take it further down the track. The question of whether a strike is lawful is really for determination in industrial law and in the courts, not in terms of this definition.

Often there is dispute between the waterfront workers and the employers as to what is lawful and what is not. Anyone who knows the history of industrial relations on the waterfront knows that, so it is not necessary to put the word “lawful” in to achieve the purpose of not including workers in the performance of their duties, or workers who are protesting at what is going on on the wharf, or involved in some sort of industrial dispute, to make it clear that we do not want them treated as terrorists, or whatever, under this legislation and subject to the provision of the law in this way. I think there is room. I have not seen the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper yet, but he might deal with this question anyhow. I am just taking from what he said in his introductory speech that we might be able to work this issue through to a full resolution at the Committee stage.

It is also good that there has been a little change in the bill to meet another of the union objections, which is that if there were a real security crisis, they would have to keep on working with the bullets flying around them. That is now amended. A proposed amendment is that if there were a high-level security incident—called a security level 3—then the workers would be able to absent themselves and not have to face flak from the bombs, or whatever. That is a step forward, as well.

The Minister also mentioned the problem of coordinating with foreign flagships, who to tell about what, and who is in charge, etc. I think one of the advantages of this bill may be that it helps deal with what are often rogue operators, operating under flags of convenience. We all know that the unions, particularly the seafarers here, have been very worried about these flags-of-convenience ships—very dodgy ships in terms of their safety and the rates they pay their workers. It is a cheap labour system, and they often take shortcuts with anything in sight.

Also, of course, they would take shortcuts with security measures. If there were people doing dodgy things with drugs, or guns, or anything else, it is probable that the ships involved in that would be these flags-of-convenience ships. Hopefully, some of the security measures in the certificates in this bill will help deal with those flags-of-convenience ships. These measures are being introduced in other countries as well, and hopefully they will move these ships out of the equation altogether, so that there are much more legitimate shipowner situations, rather than those dodgy flags-of-convenience carriers.

Related to the measures in this bill, and with the problems with flags of convenience in mind, we could try to use more local operators for domestic transport. The Green Party has been supporting the unions in terms of getting cabotage, where local freight is carried by local carriers. I think that would be a security advantage, as well as an advantage for the New Zealand economy—local people doing things locally would protect the viability of the shipping industry in New Zealand and the jobs of the workers concerned.

Another thing that has come up in public discussions on this bill is whether these measures will affect the ordinary rights of people to go down to their local wharves, chuck a line off the end, and catch a snapper or whatever. That is not something that perhaps applies so much to the big metropolitan ports, but I noticed in the Timaru Herald of 11 March the headline: “New port security not likely to affect public”. In Timaru, where people do fish off the wharf, people were worried that with the introduction of this legislation, somehow the wharf would all be closed off and its recreational element eliminated. But there was an assurance from Prime Port chief executive Jeremy Boyes that although its plan was not available to the public, current levels of access, including at the No. 1 extension wharf, remained the same. So as we go through this process, hopefully it will take into account the interests of the public in having the waterfront as something people can enjoy, with not too much of it closed off for security reasons.

It is the same in Wellington and other metropolitan areas, and one just needs to walk across the road from Parliament to the wharf. Wellington City is developing the wharf precinct in many ways to the good, and we do not want access to the wharf to be unnecessarily curtailed. I do not think it is being suggested in that case, but it is something to bear in mind as we go along with these security measures.

So with those few comments, the Green Party will be supporting this bill and trying to tidy up some of those details at the Committee stage.

I can advise the House that the ACT party will be supporting the Maritime Security Bill, and I would make the point that we are not represented on the Government Administration Committee. But aside from that, we have studied the bill, and we support and accept the necessity for the measures proposed under it, which is all about wharf and ship security. We are internationally obligated to have that security under the 1974 International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, which is the root of this legislation, and more specifically the port facility security code that was adopted internationally, I understand, in December 2002. That was obviously a response to the 9/11 tragedy the previous September, which occurred just before the adoption of this code.

New Zealand, as a trading nation, is far more dependent than most on trade as a proportion of our GDP. Even if we did not like the measures in this bill, we have no option but to move within international conventions; otherwise our ships and wharves would not meet the various codes of compliance and our exported and imported goods would suffer greatly. So as a trading nation, we are bound to adopt the measures contained in this bill.

Unlike my Green colleague, who has just resumed his seat, I believe there is a real threat of terrorism. In the current climate, it is naive to think that there is no serious threat—there clearly is. If 9/11 were not enough, one has only to look at Bali and Madrid, and the follow-up, and just read the rhetoric that is coming from some of the international terrorist groups. No country is immune from attack. While we enjoy our lifestyle in New Zealand, which is a more casual lifestyle than many countries can enjoy, we have to accept that interdependency between nations is now at such a level, with international travel and movement of cargoes the way it is, that anywhere is a potential target.

Certainly, Australia, our key trading partner, would be very concerned if we did not adopt these measures, because they have a genuine fear that New Zealand is the soft point of entry—the soft underbelly for access to Australia. Australians, for obvious reasons, face a much greater risk of terrorist attack than New Zealand, but it would indeed be a tragedy if terrorist groups used New Zealand to do mischief and cause damage in Australia.

ACT will be supporting the bill. We have studied it in depth. There are some quite draconian measures that, philosophically, we have some difficulty with, and in an ideal world, it would be nice if we did not have to have those sorts of powers and controls. But we accept the harsh reality that in the world we are living in, with a real threat of terrorism, these measures are necessary and, in the circumstances, appropriate.

United Future will support the second reading of the Maritime Security Bill. Coincidentally, about this time last Thursday I spoke on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, and made the comment that very few of the bills that come before us are such that we must take account of international considerations and that it is important that we, as a Parliament, are in step with what is happening worldwide. That was one such bill, and this is a second one. The Maritime Security Bill is one bill where we have to look continually at our obligations internationally and take account of what is happening there. I agreed with Ken Shirley when he said that we cannot take for granted the fact that we, as a small country in the South Pacific, sometimes feel a little protected by our isolation from world events. The fact of the matter is that we are not protected by isolation, and there is always a risk—and obviously an increasing risk, in terms of what has been happening in world events over the past few years—that New Zealand will become a target of terrorism. So our international obligations are very important. In particular, New Zealand’s adoption of the requirements under the amendments to the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, and under the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, adopted by the International Maritime Organization in December 2002, is reflected in this bill, and that is important.

There is always a balance to be struck when it comes to what can be construed as fairly heavy-handed, draconian measures. There is always a balance between freedom of expression for people and the commercial costs that will inevitably fall on businesses, as against the need to protect our country from threats from without. I was very pleased to see in the commentary on the bill that the Government Administration Committee took full account of the need not to impose unduly onerous requirements, and to preserve the liberties essential to New Zealand as a free and democratic society. I would like to express United Future’s thanks to the select committee—which I was not part of—in terms of the way it approached this bill. The committee sought to achieve a balance, and United Future certainly feels that it succeeded in doing so. We are therefore very happy to support the provisions of the bill.

I note that the Regulations Review Committee had concerns about the broad-ranging effect of clause 74, which gives the Minister the power to extend the scope of the bill simply by Order in Council, and by ministerial gazettal of such decisions. I am aware that the Regulations Review Committee is concerned about the extent to which ministerial powers seem to effectively proscribe the rights of Parliament to make law, and this is an example of that happening. It is important that it does not happen, except in situations when it is truly justified. Therefore, the select committee needed to closely look at that matter, and it did so. There is certainly some justification for allowing the Minister considerable discretion, because of the urgent and emergency situations that may arise and need to be addressed very promptly.

I am pleased that the select committee has, to some extent, made some amendments to curb the powers contained in the bill as initially proposed. In particular, the Minister’s notice in the Gazette expires after 90 days and may be replaced by an Order in Council, the bill is subject to the Regulations (Disallowance) Act, any Order in Council made before 30 June in any year expires on 31 December of that year unless confirmed by an Act passed during that year, an Order in Council made on or after 1 July expires on 31 December in the following year and is subject to the same provisions in terms of scrutiny by Parliament, and also there is a requirement in terms of Orders in Council that the affected ships and port facilities must be consulted. Certainly, those measures seek to ensure that the Minister’s power is limited to what is necessary in situations of urgency or emergency, and do not extend beyond what is absolutely necessary to meet those criteria. I think that that is a very good example of the balance the select committee has brought to the bill, and of the fettering of broad executive power by ensuring it is properly reviewed by Parliament. The executive is able to move speedily and without unnecessary barriers, which is important, but there is also the balance of legislative oversight of the executive power, in order to ensure that it is not misused.

The question of cost also arose in the select committee. Inevitably, where there is regulatory authority there is a cost imposed, and in this case commercial enterprises will have to bear that cost. This is not an example of a situation where it was possible to leave the security issues to each shipping company or port facility—as is probably the first desirable action—simply because the consequences of terrorist actions flow far beyond shipping companies and port facilities, to affect the whole country. Therefore, it is appropriate for there to be some national oversight of those security issues, and that means there will inevitably be a cost. But it is a cost that we, as a nation, cannot avoid paying in the world scene we now see.

Finally there is the question of the time pressure, and it is of concern that because this legislation has to be in place by 1 July of this year there is a need for speed. Perhaps I was a little disappointed to see how long the bill remained in the select committee, given that only a handful of submissions were made on it. Maybe the bill could have come back to the House a little sooner than it did. Nevertheless, we are faced with that situation now. We are also faced with the situation whereby the companies have to lodge their draft port facility security plans in time to enable the designated authority to approve them by 31 March, which is of course very, very close. We have been assured, and this is reflected in the commentary on the bill, that the appropriate measures needed to enable that to happen will be put in place so that the 1 July 2004 deadline for implementation can be met. Of course, we still have the third reading of this bill to get through, so all we can do is to hope that that deadline can be met without undue pressure, or without greater pressure, being put on the commercial operators who will have to come up with those plans.

United Future is pleased to see this bill getting through the House. We are pleased that we are fulfilling our international obligations on this issue and keeping in step with other countries, in terms of the world environment. We will be supporting the bill.

Can I begin by commending the Minister who introduced this bill. I thought his speech was a sterling effort. I thought he canvassed all the important parts of the bill. I know that my good friend and colleague Mr Worth raced down to the House so he could be a part of this debate, and I saw the disappointment etched on his face when he walked in and realised that the Minister’s speech had concluded. Can I also say that I looked across at the senior Government whip just before the Minister took his call, and she was starting to flag. It is late in the day, but since that call she has been invigorated, and she has really got back on her game, so the Minister deserves our congratulations. [Interruption] Oh, now the member tells me.

This is a good bill, and we will support it through to the select committee. It is a bill of very serious note. Protecting our trade interests by ensuring security of shipping coming into this country is absolutely critical. There is no doubt that since 9/11 our lives have been changed forever, and we need to be cognisant of these issues. The bill calls for a number of things in terms of obligations for New Zealand, and I want to touch on a couple of those very briefly—in particular, assessing security risks for individual ships and port facilities, and developing security plans based on those assessments.

These protocols are important, but I do warn against unnecessary bureaucracy and delay. We need to ensure that the appropriate security measures are in place, but I do not want to do it in such a way that the natural flow of shipping, and shipping business, coming into this country will be unnecessarily delayed.

The other point I would like to make in taking a very brief call, is to congratulate the people who will be on the select committee. The job they have in coming to terms with this on behalf of New Zealand trade and traders is absolutely fundamental. I am looking for Mr Tisch and Mr Ardern in particular to take a lead on this issue, given that they have primary production portfolios.

I would like to take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill. Peter Brown has taken a lot of time to work through the bill, and has spent a considerable amount of time in discussion with the Minister, Harry Duynhoven, who has been very helpful. The bill establishes a maritime security framework that is vital to the security of our ports and maritime shipping. We acknowledge that a huge volume of trade comes in and out of New Zealand, and it is vital that that is secure. But we also note that tourism is a very large portion, particularly the huge cruise ships that come into ports in New Zealand. One cruise ship in Wellington, not very long ago, even towered over the WestpacTrust Stadium. A ship of that size is a floating city, and any attempt to target one of those in port would be a tragedy we would certainly not like to see happen. So New Zealand First supports this bill, and looks forward to it passing through its Committee stage and third reading.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.