Maritime Security Bill

I want to take a very brief call to alert the Committee that I have put up a Supplementary Order Paper, which contains mostly technical amendments, plus a further amendment as a result of a small glitch we found in the bill today with regard to clause 42. A small change to a term in that clause was needed but not picked up at the time the Supplementary Order Paper was drafted. I hope that clarifies the situation for members. Those amendments are on the Table.

After having been away for a little while and spending a few days in the UK, it is a pleasure on my return to the House to stand for the first time in support of something, instead of in opposition—the usual role of the Queen’s Opposition. Having just returned from visiting the Westminster system, I understand the role of the Queen’s Opposition even better than I did before. So it is good to stand in support.

The National Party will support the Maritime Security Bill, particularly Part 1, for a number of reasons. The bill, as outlined by the Minister in the second reading, is necessary. I ask the Government why it has taken so long, particularly with regard to the commencement, purpose, application, and interpretation, which are all in Part 1. The Minister may like to take a call during the Committee stage to say why it has taken so long. This bill, had it not been put through the House—it is now at the Committee stage—would have ended up costing this country millions of dollars through lost trade opportunity. It has come about, as a lot of these security bills have, as a result of the 9/11 events in the United States, which were a wake-up call for the rest of the Western World as to the kind of world we live in today with regard to terrorism.

A number of people made submissions to the Government Administration Committee during the select committee process. I think 13 submissions were received, and they raised a number of issues. By and large, the committee resolved them. The Government Administration Committee is a very, very good select committee. I have not been a member of it for long, but I can already see it is an excellent committee. The main concern of the submitters was whether this bill would create too much difficulty for the normal passage of goods, people, and services at our ports. Of course there will be restrictions with regard to some of those activities. The inter-island ferry is a good example to use today. It would have been forced into a range of security measures that potentially would be nonsensical, not adding at all to the general purpose of the bill and adding only costs and restrictions to people going about their normal business. Through the select committee process, we were able to eliminate some of those concerns and make amendments.

The Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, is nodding his head. I know he played a key role in that. It is good to note that my fellow “Taranaki-ite” had the common sense to accept that those submitters were right and to bring those amendments about.

The main changes to the bill were to application. The select committee recommended that mobile offshore drilling units, like rigs—which are a major concern for the member for New Plymouth, and for myself as the member for Taranaki - King Country where we have the energy capital of New Zealand—be included in clause 4. In a way, they are vessels or ships that come in and out of ports at the times they are in their mobile form, so they needed to be included.

The definition of “suspicious act” was another area that created quite a bit of debate in the select committee. I was not there for the whole time, but the committee was able to come up with what that might mean, which is most helpful to those who have to carry out the business of identifying what a suspicious act is. We see one or two of those kinds of acts in the Parliament from time to time—particularly from members on the other side—but this was something that was of concern to the 13 submitters to the committee, and it is a pleasure to be able to stand here today and say that that was clarified. Now those who have to carry out the work of security can do so with some clarity.

I want to make it clear from the start that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. But having said that, I say that the Government Administration Committee has not got it right. In fact, it has made some significant errors. Let me give members four words to show why this should be corrected. The four words are “Australia”, “USA”, “United Kingdom”, “Spain”. New Zealand imports and exports—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: That is five words.

I tell Mr Cosgrove that they are four words, and this is a serious matter, and he should listen. Forty percent of New Zealand’s imports and exports, by value, comes and goes from those countries, and I suggest that 99-plus percent comes and goes by ship. Why do I mention those four words? Because they are the countries that went to war with Iraq. Do not underestimate maritime security, folks; I was going to say “gentlemen”, but I know that the ladies are interested in this as well. I have to say, after listening to my colleague from Taranaki - King Country, Shane Ardern, that I accept that the select committee did its best. But there is not one of the committee members who would know the front end of a ship or the back end of a ship, from a motorbike. The best I can say is that David Cunliffe would know something, or I would expect him to know something, because he has a reputation for being “all at sea” most of the time.

There is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name that addresses five issues, basically, that are the shortcomings of this bill. One of them—and it is an important one, and is in Part 1—is the definition of a company security officer. This bill is based on the code I have here, the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. I note that the Minister is shaking his head. This book, which is the backbone of the bill, refers to three types of security officer: the port facility security officer, the ship security officer, and the company security officer. The legislation that is about to be passed today in this Parliament has no reference whatsoever to a company security officer. That is a major shortcoming. I can tell members that nowadays many of the foreign ships that come to this country—[Interruption] the owners are not easily identifiable. One cannot necessarily say that that is owned by such and such. One can, on many occasions, but not every ship. Quite often the crew are put on board the ship by a management contract. They have little or no commitment to the owner of the ship. They are there only to do a job—to take a ship from A to B, and to carry cargo from A to B. But they are not necessarily concerned, in depth, with the security arrangements in this country and how they are implemented. Whilst if there were a company security officer, that would be a different matter. He or she would be obliged to consider the security of that ship, in that port, in a total scene.

I know that he or she might well be based in Hong Kong and might be out of easy contact by whomever. But I can tell members that a ship security officer will no doubt have to contact the Hong Kong office anyway. If an alert or a concern were raised of any significance, it is likely that either the master of the ship or the ship security officer would have to contact Hong Kong. This bill is downgrading the company security officer. It is telling the world at large, and the shipping fraternity at large, that these three people, who are key people in this type of legislation, are not equal. I know that the company security officer will be referred to in the regulations. I am not privy to the regulations. I have not seen a copy of them. They stand in this code on an equal footing of importance, and they should be reflecting that importance in this bill. Imagine how a shipping company in this country would feel when a company security officer is not referred to in this legislation.

I am interested in this Maritime Security Bill, and members might be interested to know that, as fisheries spokesperson, I have had the industry contact me—its concern being that the 1 July 2004 deadline imposed by the United States and European Union would not be met in time in this country with the passing of the Maritime Security Bill. Their concern, of course, was that having had port plans put in place, the Maritime Safety Authority was in a position to take those port plans and give them to the authority to be approved and implemented. They are concerned, of course, that their export products, in reaching other nations, would end up being parked in some corner of Rotterdam, New York, or other ports of the world, and would have to go through long, lengthy, detailed, and unnecessary importing procedures before they could be put on the markets of those countries.

I thought that that concern was fair enough and that is why I put to the Minister a number of questions on the matter, which the Minister replied to. My first concern was whether it was true that New Zealand ports have to file security plans to the Maritime Safety Authority by 31 March 2004. Of course, that date is pretty soon, and no one is going to argue with that. Also, if they were to be lodged with the Maritime Safety Authority by 31 March 2004, what then—given that the authority was not in a position to acknowledge those plans, approve them, and have them implemented?

The Minister will recall that he got back to me to say that the deadline for implementation agreed by the International Maritime Organization was 1 July 2004 and, yes, there was a deadline to get the port security to the authority by 31 March 2004. But the Minister did acknowledge that this legislation really had to be passed to give them the authority to acknowledge those plans. You and I had a formal meeting in the corridor last week to discuss what was happening in the interim between those plans being received by the authority and its getting the delegated authority. You acknowledged that there was—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has now brought me into the debate twice. If the member is referring to the Minister he must refer to him as “the Minister”. He cannot bring the Chair into the debate.

I met with the Minister informally in the corridor and put this to him, and I thank him for this. I think the Minister, Harry Duynhoven, said that there was an interim authority for the Maritime Safety Authority to, in fact, accept those plans and give some sort of interim or informal nod to ports that the security plans that they had put in place were adequate, complied, and would in due course have the desired impact overseas when other ports—other countries—received goods exported from New Zealand and imported into their country.

I was able to contact the fishing industry to say: “Look, don’t be too concerned, we’ve got urgency next week. This bill is set down to be dealt with during urgency. Even if that were not the case, the Minister does assure me that the Maritime Safety Authority has interim delegated authority to approve and implement those plans.” I am not sure how formal that interim authority was and exactly what happens next after some sort of interim approval. However, I do appreciate that, and would like to thank the Minister publicly for his response to those questions.

The Green Party is, of course, supporting this bill. We are for appropriate maritime security, although it is important, as we consider the bill and some of its consequences, which are not necessarily in the bill but supplied through regulation or by the agencies that previous speakers have referred to, that we do not go overboard in adopting a higher level of security measures than is warranted in particular situations at particular ports and on particular boats. There is a bit of danger of that in the current climate where people are super-sensitive to the dangers of terrorism, and sometimes adopt measures that are excessive for the particular circumstance.

Part 1 refers to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and our relationship through the International Maritime Organization etc., in applying those measures and putting them in this bill. It is true that a lot of the practical detail and implementation that will follow is being dictated by the United States. It is the one country that plays hard ball and says that if we want our ships to go into its ports we have to abide by those particular provisions in terms of our wharf and boat security. So we can be stampeded into doing things a bit too much.

In terms of going overboard on the definitions in clause 5, I have an amendment on behalf of the Green Party to the definition of “suspicious act”. The term “suspicious act” was referred to by a previous speaker, and the present definition states “suspicious act does not include the lawful exercise of any right to demonstrate, protest, or strike.” My amendment is to omit the word “lawful” from the definition of “suspicious act”.

The reason for that, and it is something that is promoted by the two main unions concerned on this issue—the Maritime Union and the Rail and Maritime Transport Union—is that they are concerned that if they go on strike, and for one reason or another somebody considers it illegal, then they will be put in the category of “suspicious act” for going on strike, and treated as terrorists, or whatever it might be in the particular situation. I do not think the motivation behind the bill is to put the average group of wharfies or seafarers in that definition just for engaging in industrial action over a safety issue, or whatever it might be.

We know that often there has been a tumultuous series of relations between employer and worker on the waterfront. Sometimes one side is wrong and sometimes the other side is, but it is true that often there is a lot of dispute about what is a legal strike and what is not. I do not think the bill should get into that determination by just removing the word “lawful”, so in my view the particular clause would read “suspicious act does not include the exercise of any right to demonstrate, protest, or strike.” That would be more appropriate and I hope that members will support that amendment.

Employers and unionists are concerned how that will be applied in particular situations on ships and waterfronts. Part 1 has security levels 1, 2, and 3. Security level 3 is the highest one, and means the level for which further specific protective security measures must be maintained for a limited period of time when a security incident is probable or imminent. If we get too carried away and apply that security level 3, just because there is a bomb scare, or someone phones up, or whatever, then one of the problems could be that it becomes a hoaxer’s paradise. As it would seem to be applied—and some ship owners are worried about this—if a whole port is closed down for a prolonged period, then it could stop different ships sailing, and slow up unloading, etc. If we go overboard with security measures, that would encourage hoaxers.

First, I understand that the Minister has taken note of my amendments. He is looking at them very seriously and I am genuinely encouraged by that. I have worked closely with the Hon Harry Duynhoven on the select committee and I know that he notes points made by members that are genuine. I know that he would be aware that if Parliament ignores the relevant points in the Supplementary Order Paper put up by myself and something goes wrong with a foreign crew and its ship’s security officer, it will reflect very, very badly on the people who ignored that. I know that the Minister does not want to be in that category. I would suggest that this method, if nothing else, is playing extra safe.

I shall talk about the company representatives in this country. Obviously, New Zealanders will be on our ships and there will be a ship security officer who can speak the language, will cooperate, and what have you. But by not putting the company security officer in the legislation, we are telling the industry at large that he is not as important as the security officer on the ship. In many ways, right at the coalface that might well be true, but we have to aim at consistency of standard over the whole fleet, and the company guy is the one who will do that. Although he will be in the regulations, he has to be in the legislation.

My Supplementary Order Paper states that “contracting Government” means a Government that is a party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974. The reason that that is in there as a definition is that we are talking about Part 1. However, it refers to new clause 19A that I suggest should go in Part 2 that outlines the duties of companies in a fairly comprehensive way. “Contracting Government” is an accepted term in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and in the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea. Therefore, I felt that a definition should go in this bill, to be able to use the term later on.

This is a very important bill for this country; it is exceedingly important. New Zealand First is determined to support it. Equally, we are determined that it should be as near perfect as we can help make it. As I said earlier on, I am encouraged by the Minister’s response at least to Part 1 of my Supplementary Order Paper. He is asking officials to look seriously at incorporating it, maybe with some modifications, into the legislation. I hope that other members of the House will take it on board. This is not an attempt to play politics. This is a genuine attempt on behalf of New Zealand First to get this legislation correct.

💬 Phil Heatley: This is your first genuine attempt ever.

It is not my first genuine attempt, but I have to admit that from time to time we do have attempts to have a little bit of fun in this House, but this is not one of those times.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Winston does, and outside the House, too.

The Hon Winston Peters has been known to have a little bit of fun at someone’s expense. This is New Zealand First being absolutely straight.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: For the first time.

Not for the first time. Some say I have lived my whole life being straight. I will now come back to the bill.

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of this bill to this country. The ports are very important for our exports and imports, and for the economic well-being of all of us. I point out that 99.5 percent of exports and imports come in and go out by ships. We must have a secure infrastructure in place, I would suggest, reasonably—if not urgently—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Soon.

Soon; that is the term the Labour Government uses. I am a bit reluctant to use it, because when one asks the Minister of Transport about shipping, he says “soon” and it never happens.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Finish the speech, so we can get this passed quickly.

If I thought that by finishing now we would get this passed, I would cut my speech right to the core. I am encouraged by the Minister’s response on Part 1. I look to the same sort of response when we get to Part 2.

The ACT party indicated in the second reading that we certainly support this bill, because we recognise it is appropriate. New Zealand is a trading nation and is more dependent on trade than most nations, as a proportion of gross domestic product. This bill is all about the harmonisation of global security practices and anti-terrorism measures. To that extent this country has no option, other than to ensure that our practices are in line or consistent with world best practice. Obviously, if we were at variance with it our trade would suffer, because we would have problems at the wharf with our exports and imported goods. So this bill is an important measure. But in saying that, I make the point that we are at war. It is not a war of nation State against nation State, but the war on terrorism does come with costs. Part of those costs, unfortunately, impinges on what would normally be ideal in terms of civil liberties and individual rights. That always happens at times of war, and we cannot deny that we need to take what, hopefully, are extraordinary measures that can be wound back at some point in the future in a more peaceful time.

I draw the attention of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, to the amendment proposed by Keith Locke from the Greens in respect of the interpretation of the term “suspicious act”. The Government Administration Committee inserted a new definition in clause 5, “Interpretation”: “suspicious act does not include the lawful exercise of any right to demonstrate, protest, or strike.” I can accept that recommendation by the select committee, but Mr Locke’s proposed amendment actually troubles me deeply, because he wants to delete the word “lawful”. Therefore the definition would read: “suspicious act does not include the exercise of any right to demonstrate, protest, or strike.” In other words, one could have a whole range of illegal strikes, illegal protests, and illegal demonstrations. We can imagine what could go on under the guise of an illegal demonstration and would not be regarded, in terms of the legislation, as a suspicious act. If that is the Greens’ thinking, then the whole country should be disturbed.

I want an absolute assurance from the Minister in the chair that he will not be leveraged, shall I say, by the Greens in a trade-off situation to adopt that definition in the amendment they propose. I want to gain the attention of the Minister, who seems to be distracted for the moment. I would like him to take a call and assure all of us about that, because it is a matter of public safety and of the security of the realm. Our trade is dependent on that, and I certainly find that suggestion from the Greens to be a very foolish and a very dangerous suggestion. I do seek an assurance from the Minister that he is not entertaining doing a trade-off with the Greens, as he has done on other occasions, to accommodate them by insering that proposal into this legislation.

In response to Mr Shirley’s comments, the advice I have from the Ministry of Transport’s legal advisers is that the proposed amendment to take out the word “lawful”, as proposed by Mr Locke, neither adds nor detracts from the interpretation of the term “suspicious act”. It is neutral, so therefore I do not see any reason to support the amendment.

I turn now to Mr Brown’s amendment, which makes some useful suggestions. I received his amendment earlier this afternoon, and it went off to the officials with my view that we should look at the suggestions, as Mr Brown obviously has a huge experience in the maritime world. There is some merit, particularly, in the first amendment to clause 5, “Interpretation”, by adding “company security officer”. Unfortunately, the wording of the amendment is not the same as that in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, so I have asked the officials to redraft Mr Brown’s amendment. Mr Brown has agreed to withdraw his amendment at this stage. A new amendment will be here in moments, I suspect, if it is not here already, and it will have the correct wording. I propose that in the meantime we support Mr Brown’s first version of the definition of “company security officer”—not that it will add greatly to the bill, because those matters are dealt with in the regulations, but it will add a little clarity. I can add that Mr Brown has agreed to that course of action.

I also add that the draft regulations have been out in the public domain. The shipping companies and port authorities have all received them, and have worked through them with the Maritime Safety Authority. That was something that I asked for earlier on, even though the draft regulations did not have the authority of legislation. I was very mindful of the fact that the people who are involved in this industry had a very limited time, so we put out a draft regulation on the basis of our draft legislation in order to bring through the industry’s very good support for this legislation, which was begun back in about May of last year. Mr Heatley and Mr Ardern both talked about how quick the process has been on this legislation. I say to them that we used every bit of time we could on it. I commend the Maritime Safety Authority and the Ministry of Transport officials for the way they have handled the whole issue in a very tight time line. As Mr Brown said, the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, developed under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea by the International Maritime Organisation, gave us specific requirements to meet by 1 July this year. There has been some controversy in the media with regard to that, but it is very interesting to see that one of the key people who has been in the media, and concerned about it, actually sent me a congratulatory message the other day on the fact that I had moved this legislation along as speedily as could be done.

I say to Mr Heatley that he took me a slight step further than I had intended to go, in that we did not have an interim authority but we had an understanding with the maritime industry, the shipping companies, and the ports authorities. They all knew, of course, that it was my intention as Minister responsible for this bill, and the Government’s intention, that the Maritime Safety Authority would become the designated authority, and that therefore the whole issue of how this matter would be managed would be in the Maritime Safety Authority’s court. There was an understanding within the industry that everyone would work together cooperatively to ensure we could get the best possible outcome. I think that has certainly occurred. We are very encouraged by the way that right from the beginning the entire industry has worked together, to see that we had as robust a debate as possible over how the practicalities of this legislation may work. I think it was Mr Shirley who said earlier in this debate that without this legislation we cannot export products to the countries that we need to be exporting them to, which would be a huge, huge hit for exporters in this country.

This bill is about ensuring that we actually do have the possibility, without security implications, of exporting, and that we do have the possibility of getting in place all the security measures demanded by the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code for the purpose of ensuring that our exporters get maximum access to their markets. I think this bill has very rapidly come to a point where we can progress it. I am very pleased that all parties in the Committee are supportive of it, and that we have a very good understanding of the issues involved. The Government Administration Committee members themselves have really progressed and debated the issues, and the unions and everybody else involved have done a terrific job.

I do think that the Committee needs to take careful note of the various changes to the bill. There are a couple of amendments that do need to be highlighted as we get to them, and I think that when Mr Brown’s amendment is here we can move along. It could be that we can approach the matter in another way, and maybe seek leave for Mr Brown’s amendment to clause 5, which there seems to be genuine agreement about in the Committee, to be put. If this is an acceptable process and is OK with the Chair, I will cease this speech and perhaps I or Mr Brown could seek leave—or maybe I could seek leave now—that when Mr Brown’s amendment is here, his paper is withdrawn with his approval. He has given that approval now, so if his amendment is withdrawn now, may I seek leave that his replacement amendment can be tabled and dealt with at that stage?

I will just respond to the Minister by saying that Mr Brown himself is able to seek leave for that, and I understand he will do so. The question now is that Part 1 stand part, but before I put that question there are a number of amendments to be voted on. The first one is to clause 5, and it is to do with the definition of “security officer”. I think that is Mr Brown’s amendment that we have to leave at the moment, but we can move on to the next one to clause 5. It is the honourable Peter Brown’s amendment to insert a definition of “contracting Government”.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 5 be agreed to:

to insert, in its appropriate place, the following definition:

Contracting Government means a Government that is a party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.

The next amendment to clause 5, also in the name of the honourable member Peter Brown, is an amendment to insert the words “and company security officer” in the definition of “port facility security officer”. All those in favour will say “Aye”—[Interruption] I have just been advised that before we do this, we need to do something. I ask members to bear with me for just a minute, please. The honourable member Peter Brown’s amendment has arrived. He needs to seek leave that we can do this now. Will the member please seek leave?

I seek leave to do exactly as you have suggested.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not quite sure of the process here, so can you assist us?. Are you advising the Committee that the amendment was filed late and the member needs leave for it to be considered?

I advise the member that the honourable Minister advised the Committee that he was waiting for an amendment that had been agreed to between himself and the member Peter Brown regarding the definition of “company security officer”. Because the first vote has already been taken, the honourable member now has to seek leave for it to be voted on, and he has just done that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 5 be agreed to:

to insert, after the definition of company, the following definition:

Company security officer means the person designated by the company to—

(a) ensure that—

(i) a ship security assessment is carried out; and

(ii) a ship security plan is developed, submitted for approval, implemented, and maintained; and

(b) liaise with port facility security officers and the ship security officer.

Amendment agreed to.

The next vote to be taken also relates to clause 5. It is Peter Brown’s amendment to insert the words “and company security officer” in the definition of “port facility security officer”. Is that one withdrawn?

The earlier amendment has a definition that is withdrawn.

I just clarify, for the benefit of the Committee, that Mr Brown’s amendments to clause 5 included the one we have just passed, which was originally not in line with the wording of the International Ship and Port Security Facility Code. We have dealt with that one now. We lined the wording of that amendment up with the code and passed that particular part of the amendment, and Mr Brown has withdrawn the others. The other part was about contracting out the port facility security officer, by inserting in clause 5, “Interpretation”, the definition of “company security officer”. We have already dealt with the amendment concerning “contracting Government”, and it was lost. I hope that clarifies the situation for the Committee.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of Hon Harry Duynhoven to clause 5 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 5 be agreed to:

to amend the definition of suspicious act by omitting the word “lawful”.