Maritime Security Bill

It is a pleasure to rise to speak in the third reading of this bill. It is not usually my habit to acknowledge Labour Party Ministers of this Parliament, but I would like to acknowledge the Associate Minister of Transport, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, for the way he has progressed this bill through the House. He has answered our questions both formally and informally.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: He should be in Cabinet.

The ACT member is quite right—he should be the Minister of Transport. He should be in Cabinet. He has done a brilliant job, and I acknowledge him for that and, in this case, his ministry as well.

This bill, as we heard, is to ensure that New Zealand meets its international obligations under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, which members will recall was amended in December 2002. Members would have listened to their wirelesses and heard that, so they know it did happen. That convention is to enhance ship and port security. New Zealand’s obligations, in case members are unaware of them, involve assessing security risks for individual ships and port facilities and developing security plans based on those assessments. We also have to specify security levels at which ships and port facilities must operate; maintain communications; provide protocols for ships and port facilities; prevent unauthorised access to ships, port facilities, and restricted areas; and prevent the introduction of unauthorised weapons, incendiary devices or explosives to ships and port facilities.

Such requirements—and we in the National Party certainly acknowledge this—would place New Zealand in line with accepted maritime security regulations and contribute to our role in combating terrorism. That is something most of the House is pretty keen on doing. I cannot speak for the Greens, but certainly other parties in the House do want to work towards combating terrorism.

The United States and the European Union gave a deadline of 1 July 2004 for New Zealand’s port security plans to be approved. The Maritime Safety Authority advises that it acknowledges that. It is an international deadline, and applies to all signatories to the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. I was barely out of nappies on that date, but elderly members of the House, such as Jill Pettis and others, will recall it. I do not, but I acknowledge that it was that 1974 convention, when I was at kindergarten, that brought this about.

This is an international treaty obligation. The United States and the European Union, along with many other countries, including New Zealand, have clearly signalled that they will expect full compliance with the international ship and port security code. That is understandable. New Zealanders acknowledge that, and we are happy to support it. The Maritime Safety Authority advises that until this bill is passed it is not the authority designated to stamp plans that port authorities put forward, but it expects to be, and we expect to see it do that. In the interim the authority has asked ports to put forward their security plans. It will take an informal look at those and indicate whether they are appropriate and likely to be approved once it becomes the designated authority.

I am appreciative of the Minister and ministry for allowing that interim arrangement to develop and go forward. It simply means that timeliness has been met, and ports have had access to officials, the Government, and the Minister in terms of getting some sort of guidance as to what is expected. It means that from now on—after this bill is passed in the House tonight—they can move forward formally. So I acknowledge the Minister for putting that arrangement in place.

Clause 7 of the Maritime Security Bill provides that “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, appoint a Crown entity the Designated Authority.” We all knew that that was going to be the Maritime Safety Authority. We all acknowledge that that is the right authority to have this responsibility. Port authorities knew that, and that is why in the interim they have been given the informal nod and direction. No such designation, though, can be made until this bill is enacted, so the Maritime Safety Authority and the rest of us are certainly looking forward to that. The Minister always anticipated that that would happen, and he always gave that indication. I would like to again acknowledge the fact that that information has not been kept under a bushel. It has been fairly public. Port authorities have worked with the Minister on that, and that is useful.

I have had contact from all sorts of trading sectors in our economy, and most of all the fishing industry. It is concerned that its export products, which provide huge value to our country, might find themselves parked up in little alleys, aboard ships in ports all over the world and not able to reach their export markets, simply because countries signed up to this international treaty have seen that we have not met our obligations and therefore will not import our products, or certainly not with timeliness in mind. Those have been the industry’s concerns. With the passage of this bill, all those concerns fall away, and we know we can access markets overseas.

I was concerned that ships might be parked up in Rotterdam or other ports of the world, with perishables in particular aboard. One can appreciate that the fishing industry would be subject to that, but not only that industry. If perishable meat, sheep, and dairy products were sitting in ships for long periods of time, that could hurt our economy. So it is useful to know that with this legislation passed—everything going well—we will move forward and see that our obligations are met and that that situation does not happen. It is pretty critical that we do these things, and that we meet our international obligations. We must not just meet them, but do them in a timely way.

I am confident, as the Minister is confident, that all ports in New Zealand will get the nod to implement their security plans. It is my hope that where they have not met the appropriate approval process, where they have not provided plans that are acceptable or to the high standards the ministry will demand, they will receive guidance from the Maritime Safety Authority. I seek assurance from the Minister that the Maritime Safety Authority will not just act as an approval authority, but will give guidance and help port authorities make and put forward their plans. I know that has been the case to date, but I would like to know as well that the authority would not just flick comments off to the effect that port authorities did not get approval or have plans implemented, but rather that it would also give formal guidance as to how plans could be improved.

I am unaware, as I have not heard, of whether port authorities are sharing information. The Minister nods, so that is good to know. It would be good if they sat around the table and were able to develop those plans together so that there is some consistency across the country for security measures in our ports. We would like to see that. Lots of industries and sectors export from a number of ports throughout the country and consistency is quite important.

I commend this bill in its third reading to the House. National is most certainly supporting it—not just because we think it is a smart move and good for international treaty obligations, but because we believe it is good for exporters, and we certainly want to combat terrorism where we can. I thank the Minister again for his lead on this legislation, and acknowledge his work and that of the ministry.

The Green Party will support this bill, although it has serious concerns that the legislation might be applied in an exaggerated way in practice, compared with the needs of the actual security situation we face in New Zealand. We just need to look at the background of a little bit of hysteria and over-reaction at the time Tiger Woods came here for the golf open, when there was a huge security alert that did not seem to be based on much at all.

Just a week or two ago we had headlines in our newspapers about how Mr al-Zawahiri, the deputy of bin Laden, had been visiting New Zealand in the 1990s. They were just based on some report from a dodgy journalist, with probably no foundation whatsoever. The next day the journalist said he knew that al-Qaeda was running around the world with nuclear-suitcase bombs. That is just an indication of how people can take a little allegation of a security problem, a phone call, or a bit of powder in the mail—some hoaxers operating—and take security measures that actually cost us millions of dollars and inconvenience thousands of people. It becomes a hoaxer’s paradise, so that somebody can phone up and cause huge damage because there is over-security in terms of our procedures.

That is not to say that we should not have security plans in place, and that is why the Green Party is supporting this bill. I tried to introduce an amendment—unfortunately it failed—to take the word “legal” out of one of the provisions that would affect workers on strike, because we do not want this law to apply to any workers who might be on strike on the waterfront. That is not a security problem; it is something that has happened traditionally in New Zealand.

There has been a lot of industrial action—some of it legal and some illegal—but that is surely not what this bill is about. It is good that there have been changes in the bill as it has proceeded, so that workers on the waterfront will not be searched by their employers—the search has to be by authorised people such as police officers, independent of the employer—and so that workers do not need to stand around when there is a real high-security situation. They can leave their workplaces and do not need to put themselves in the firing line.

It has been indicated that an international security system is being put in place, and around the world at the moment—particularly in European countries like France, Italy, and Spain—workers are taking industrial action and getting upset at the more intrusive searching that is going on under such measures. On the other hand, a fleet of about 20 ships owned by the bin Laden family is apparently floating around the world with “flags of convenience” and not suffering too much at all. Of course, it is those flags-of-convenience boats from the bin Laden family and many other big business people who are trying to make maximum profit by having the worst conditions and cutting corners on everything, including biosecurity and security measures. So if there is to be any serious security problem or intrusion into New Zealand, be it through biosecurity, crime, drugs, terrorism, or whatever, then it is likely to come through those flags-of-convenience boats. It will be good if these measures actually restrict the number of such boats coming into New Zealand.

But we have to be careful that we do not go overboard on security plans. I have been talking to a shipowner today who is worried that it can get too expensive in terms of the relatively low risk. For one of the boats he owns overseas, he had to spend $20,000 on a video system and $128,000 for other security measures. Training cost several thousand dollars. For a New Zealand owner to send people to Australia to do a course with Lloyds can cost $6,000 a time. If, as a result of some of those measures, extra staffing has to be provided, then that is difficult for them too.

Just last Friday, I think it was, we experienced a security situation with the Santa Regina, one of the ferries going across the strait. A hoaxer phoned up and there was some inconvenience associated with that incident. There were complaints from workers that the police came on and wanted to fingerprint them, and all the rest of it. It was not too bad, and they did not really go overboard, but it just showed that we do not want to set things up as a hoaxer’s paradise.

Another question has concerned some people. For instance, down in Timaru there has been a discussion about closing off sections of the wharf that have traditionally been open to the public and used for fishing, and there could be a problem for Picton ferries like the Santa Regina. Picton is a very nice tourist spot, but under wharf security plans there is a danger that too much of that waterfront—from the ferry area right across—could be excluded from public access. That would reduce its tourist appeal if it happened.

Even across the street on the Wellington wharf, most of which we can walk around at the present time, there was concern the other day about somebody putting a sign on a visiting Australian warship—something about John Howard being a “US bootlicker”. I cannot remember the wording of the slogan exactly, but certainly no one was trying to put a bomb anywhere. There is not much danger of people running around like that putting bombs on visiting warships. The boat was actually moored, I think, at what is a public space. We would not want that public space closed off and officials going overboard on such minor things.

In Timaru it was reported that the Prime Port chief executive had said that current levels of access for the public would be maintained. But as this bill is applied, and mainly through regulation, we will have to monitor how it goes along, and how those regulations come out. If the pressure is put on people like that chief executive to overly restrict access to some of those regional wharfs, it would be of great disadvantage to the public, and again to tourism. In a lot of places, wandering around the wharf and having a cup of coffee, a beer, or whatever one has down at the wharf, is part of the tourist and local experience. We do not want those wharf plans to cut into that too much.

The Green Party supports this bill, but we do have those concerns. There are problems particularly on the west coast of the United States, where some workers are getting a bit upset at the way things are being applied in the wharf security area, such as having unnecessary ID. Even in New Zealand there is concern that there are too many restraints on trucks coming into the wharf areas. At the present time shipowners and wharf people pretty much know who is coming in and out. If we applied very rigid systems, we could slow down shipments into and out of the wharves and unnecessarily restrain people. So we just have to bear all of that in mind.

But we see a very positive side to this legislation if it restricts the number of flags-of-convenience boats coming in here; if it leads to a much higher standard generally on the boats, including, hopefully, the condition of sailors on them; and if it helps reduce the main security threat to New Zealand, which is biosecurity—some of those bugs, creepy-crawlies, and insects that are going to affect our forests or agriculture. We see the positive side to this legislation if we can stop those pests coming in through the range of security measures that are being brought in with the Border Security Bill affecting containers, and this set of procedures relating to wharf and ship security plans.

With those comments I would like to indicate the Green Party’s support for this bill.

I want to say two things. I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I want to acknowledge the contribution of the officials and advisers. I was always fully informed of the information that was made available, and I congratulate them on a very informative presentation of the facts and information that was asked for. National is happy to support this bill, as previous National speakers have said during this debate.

I am glad I follow Lindsay Tisch, because he sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and although I recognise that the select committee did a reasonable job it did not get it quite right. I am pleased to thank the honourable Associate Minister of Transport for taking seriously the New Zealand First amendment this evening. Although we did not get exactly what we wanted, we got quite a lot and we are very pleased. We thank the Minister for his cooperation.

Whilst I am thanking people, the Minister has asked me to thank on his behalf Glen-Marie Burns and Helen Hanify of the Ministry of Transport for their sterling efforts in the work behind this bill. In fact, the Hon Harry Duynhoven’s praise was so fulsome that when I see Glen-Marie Burns and Helen Hanify I will suggest that they ask for a pay rise immediately. I sincerely thank those two folk on behalf of the Minister.

This is a very important bill. It will go through this House relatively quickly, largely because the House is almost unanimous in its support of it. It is a very, very important bill and I cannot emphasise that enough. Shipping is exceedingly important to this country. I do not have to tell members that we are an island nation tucked down at the bottom of the world, miles from anywhere, and that 99.5 percent of our exports and imports come and go by ship. That is by tonnage; by value it is something in the vicinity of 82 or 83 percent, as I recall. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of shipping to this country, or the importance of ships that operate in this country operating in a secure environment.

So New Zealand First welcomes this bill. We support the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, which this bill is based on, and we think this bill is a move in the right direction. Having said that, I suspect that in the not too distant future there will need to be some amendments. It is the sort of legislation that we have to keep under regular review. I am sure the Minister will agree with that. There will be instances, or episodes, or something will turn up that we have not thought of, and there will undoubtedly be some modification.

One part of the bill that I am interested in, and I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, is clause 45. It is headed: “Restrictions with respect to port security areas”. Subclause (1) states: “No person other than a person on official duties acting in accordance with subsection (7) may enter or remain in a port security area unless authorised by the chief executive or the port facility operator.” As a ship’s officer I used to work long hours, but now people work 24/7. I was always grateful to see the guy who came to collect the drycleaning. That might be a small point to members here, but when I saw the drycleaner come on board he was very welcome, because I could give him my suits and my uniform. I assume that this will not place any restriction on the drycleaner coming to get—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Or on any other service people required.

I think the Minister is anticipating where I am leading. There might be a small-business man legally going about his duties to collect and deliver drycleaning, and I assume he will be authorised by the chief executive or the port facility operator. Some of my colleagues on that ship—and I emphasise that it was some of my colleagues and not me—were interested in a little bit of service from other service workers.

💬 Judith Collins: Well, it’s legal now.

It was illegal at the time, but it is legal now. I want to know—and maybe the Minister could take a second call if he is allowed to; I would certainly support leave for him to do so—whether prostitutes or ship girls will be authorised by the chief executive or the port facility operator to go on board the ships and offer their services to those who need to partake of them. The little bit that makes me laugh is that I think in the fullness of time there will be a database—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Security level one, I think. It shouldn’t be a problem.

But will they have passes and be allowed free access?

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Depending on the security level.

So could we end up with a database of ship girls that is under the control of the Maritime Safety Authority? I assume the Maritime Safety Authority is the designating authority, if that is the term in the bill.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Is the member suggesting a modification?

I think it is somewhat ironic that prostitution has been quite a talking point over the last few years in this House. We used to have ladies of the night—and men, I guess—listed on a database controlled by the police. I assume they have been removed from the police database, but they are now likely to be controlled by the Maritime Safety Authority. I find that somewhat amusing.

To get back to the seriousness of this bill, it is an important bill. I compliment the Minister on his attitude and the way in which he has approached it. He has involved everybody—not just MPs. Because of my shipping background I know a lot of people in the maritime industry, and all, without exception, have told me that they are pleased with the way they have been consulted and allowed to have their say on this bill. Unfortunately, the select committee did not listen as keenly as it should have to some shipping people. Some of those shipping people made their views known to me, and that was the reason I produced my amendment.

In conclusion, I think that tonight we have done a good job in Parliament, in terms of this bill. I am pleased that New Zealand First has played a positive role. I thank the Minister and his officials for giving us a fair hearing. I thought the officials listened to me privately very, very well. I thought they did a very professional job. I will not name them because I have forgotten their names already—I am sorry about that.

This country will be all the more safe once this bill is passed. I think it will need to be amended in time to include shipping agents—and in other areas too. I will not let that matter go, because I have many friends who are shipping agents and I feel that after tonight they will all vote for New Zealand First. We will see whether that occurs. New Zealand First will support this bill, and I think New Zealand will be a safer place once it becomes part of our law.

It is always a delight to listen to our parliamentary colleague merchant seaman Brown reminiscing about his life at sea, often with fond memories of the antics that he and his former colleagues used to get up to—

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not just a merchant seaman; I am a qualified ship’s captain and I think I am entitled to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that is not a point of order.

I think this is one of those rare occasions where there is unanimity across the House. All parties have indicated their support for this legislation, because we all appreciate the imperative need for it. It is a matter of security and of harmonisation with our international trading partners, to ensure that our ships and ports meet required standards of security in this dangerous world that we live in. I listened with interest to the Green spokesperson, Mr Locke, in the debate. Indeed, I concurred with many of the sentiments he made; I also cherish individual rights, and civil liberties and freedoms. But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance; we do know that. There is a need for this legislation, as part of the vigilance required in the modern world and for the maintenance of security. It is an incredible irony that without freedom there can be no security, but without security there is no freedom. I think this bill epitomises that situation, as other speakers have commented during its passage. We would prefer that we did not have to have these measures—these constraints and restrictions—but I think we all accept that they are an imperative in the situation we face. With those few comments I again indicate that ACT New Zealand will certainly be supporting this bill.

United Future also supports the third reading of the Maritime Security Bill. In my second reading speech I talked about the importance of New Zealand remaining in step with other nations, and the importance of paying due regard to our international obligations when we are dealing with other nations, to provide the consistency that is altogether necessary, and that has developed over the last few years, in respect of security in particular. I also talked in the second reading about the need for us to be a responsible participant in the international community. That, certainly, is part of the motivation for the bill, although obviously there is a degree of self-interest. Without the bill, no doubt we would find difficulties as a nation in terms of international trade, which could be economically detrimental to us, if we were out of step with other nations that felt that our security measures were not up to the standard that international requirements dictated.

United Future is very pleased to see the balance that has developed in the bill—particularly the balance that was brought to the bill by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. There is a balance between freedom of expression and commercial cost on the one hand, and security of the nation on the other, and also a balance between executive power and parliamentary oversight. The amendments made by the select committee are welcome in that they, effectively, tip the balance a little further towards the parliamentary oversight aspect rather than simply pure executive power.

I do not want to dwell on the specifics of the bill as they have been repeated by the other parties in the House, but if there is one concern that I have with regard to the bill, it is the fact that it has had to be pushed through under urgency. I know that the regulations, which I assume are still to follow, will provide that security plans have to be lodged by 31 March 2004—today, in fact—and that the bill has to be in force by July. It seems to me that this rush is not desirable in terms of promoting legislation. Rushed legislation is poor legislation.

When I talked in the second reading debate I suggested that the select committee could have worked more speedily, but I see that it worked very well, and I apologise to the select committee for suggesting that it could have worked faster. I note the bill was referred to the select committee on 10 September last year, having been introduced into the House 8 days previously. Submissions closed on 17 October, 5 weeks later, and that gave a reasonable amount of time for people who were affected to get their submissions together and put them in—and I would have been reluctant to see that curtailed. The bill was reported back from the select committee on 8 December, some 7 weeks later. Given the numerous amendments made by the select committee, it seems to me that 7 weeks was not an inordinate time, and that the select committee did very well as far as that was concerned.

We waited from 8 December through until last week for the second reading debate, and that is something that could have been speeded up. I suggest to the Government that the bill could have been brought back to the House a month ago, to give a bit more time for it to be considered and, hopefully, put into its final form. That would have given time for those affected to arrange their affairs exactly and precisely as the bill provides. I understand that they have been working on this matter since April or May of last year in expectation of the bill, and it is only because of that that we have been able to get anywhere near meeting the time lines. I understand that although the date of 31 March is provided for, as there are no penalties if people do not adhere to it people will be able, effectively, to lodge plans late and still have them accepted and processed. That is a very undesirable way of operating.

It seems to me, too, that the rushed processing of this bill is evidenced in the fact that we now have a first Supplementary Order Paper that makes 49 amendments—albeit small—to the bill. That gives rise to the feeling that the officials were rushed, did not get the bill right even in the select committee, and, subsequent to the select committee process, have come up with another 49 changes that they want in order to correct deficiencies in the bill. Tonight yet another amendment has been tabled, which has had to be dealt with at the last minute. I do not think that is desirable. I think the Government ought to look at and review the time factors involved. I do not know how much time the Government had before September to bring the bill into Parliament, but, clearly, the time between September, when the bill was introduced, and tonight has proved to be inadequate in order to have the legislation passed in a timely fashion and in such a way that everybody knows exactly what the legislation does, that regulations can be promulgated based on the legislation in its final form, and that everything can be put in place in order to meet the July deadline.

That was the only concern I had about it. Certainly, the contents of the bill are something that United Future thinks is important. We are very happy to support the bill, and therefore we will be voting for the third reading.

Bill read a third time.