Maritime Security Bill

There is at least one clause left on my Supplementary Order Paper that I would like to re-promote. It is new clause 17A, “Communicating with ship operators”, which deals with ships’ agents. I should confess from the word go that I have had more arguments with ships’ agents than I have had hot dinners, but nevertheless, they play a very important role in the successful operation of ships coming and going from port, and throughout port operations. They are a very competent group of people who communicate with ships, and that is not as easy as it might sound, particularly with foreign ships. The crew of many ships cannot understand our language, either genuinely or deliberately. Agents take it upon themselves to assist port operators, stevedores, and everybody involved in the successful operation of ships coming to, sailing from, or berthed at New Zealand ports. To exclude ships’ agents from this bill, when I think that most of us in the shipping industry know full well that they will have some involvement, is to undervalue their involvement.

I would like to promote new clause 17A, “Communicating with ship operators”, which states: “For the purposes of this Act, a person may give a notice or direction to, or otherwise communicate with, a ship operator for a ship by giving the notice or direction to, or communicating with, the shipping agent for the ship.” This clause is directly extracted from the Australian legislation that deals with maritime security there. It recognises the importance that agents play in the whole scheme of things. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they will play an important role in maritime security here.

This clause does not impose security people to go through an agent; it states that they “may” give notice. I think it is quite a reasonable clause to put in, if for no other reason than to let agents know that they are valued in the industry, and to let people know that agents’ importance will not be overlooked. The principal reason I put in the clause is to bind agents, in a manner of speaking, to maritime, ship, and port security. I cannot emphasise enough that if something goes wrong on a ship at one of our ports, we will all pay for it. A little while ago we learnt—from the access gained by the people who graffitied the Royal Australian Navy tanker—that damage can be done to a ship relatively easily, and that our maritime security people will have to be on their mettle; sometimes more so than others. I believe that security people will rely heavily on ships’ agents.

I ask the Minister to look seriously at inserting a clause that recognises the importance that agents may have to play. I think that to ignore them would be wrong, and would send the wrong signals to the whole industry. The Minister looked positively on the clause that I asked him to insert regarding the company security officer, and I thank him for that. I ask him now to talk to his officials, and ask that they consider a clause that recognises the importance of ships’ agents. I understand from talking to the officials that there is no definition of a shipping agent—everybody in the world knows what a shipping agent is—

💬 Shane Ardern: The member from Taranaki.

The member from Taranaki? I am encouraged. I understand that there is no definition of a ship operator, but I would think that everybody knows what a ship operator is.

I urge the Minister to look seriously upon this. Ships’ agents play a very responsible role in ship operations now, and if we were to have a maritime incident they would be in the midst of it.

I thank Mr Brown for his helpful suggestions. In his handwritten amendment he has proposed a new clause 18A, which we need to complement the change that we made earlier, so I recommend we support that. I do not support his proposal to insert new clause 17A, providing for communicating with shipping agents, because they are not defined in the code. There is nothing to stop the designated authority from communicating anyway with the shipping agent locally—that is not a problem. For a variety of reasons, I am sorry that the Government does not go with the rest of Mr Brown’s amendments.

However, I want to talk specifically to the proposal to delete subclause (2) of clause 36. I am afraid that the Government cannot agree to that, because it is specifically required in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. It would be most unwise to take that out, in line with the consistency of the remarks that Mr Brown made previously. I draw members’ attention to the minor technical change to clause 42, which is outlined in my amendment on the Table.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to insert new clause 17A be agreed to:

17A Communicating with ship operators

For the purposes of this Act, a person may give a notice or direction to, or otherwise communicate with, a ship operator for a ship by giving the notice or direction to, or communicating with, the shipping agent for the ship.