Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill

I move, That the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. The Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting. Can I ask members to leave the House more quietly. We have a piece of legislation receiving a first reading. The Minister deserves some courtesy from us all.

The Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill strengthens New Zealand’s ability to deter and react decisively to terrorism. It contains the provisions that are needed in New Zealand law to implement the two 2005 maritime counterterrorism treaties: the protocol of 2005 to the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, and the protocol of 2005 to the Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. I am sure all members are familiar with the detail of these two important international instruments.

The international legal framework for terrorism now comprises 16 instruments, which cover terrorist activities involving aircraft, ships, specified classes of people, the use of particular materials, and also the financing of terrorism. The 2005 protocols to the Rome convention and the Rome protocol ensure that the maritime security framework they establish is capable of responding to contemporary threats. Although these treaties covered the ships and fixed platforms—the potential targets of terrorist activity—they did not adequately address the use of ships or fixed platforms either for terrorist acts or in enabling terrorist acts. The Rome convention and the Rome protocol are implemented in New Zealand through the Maritime Crimes Act 1999.

This bill introduces new offences to implement the offences created by the 2005 protocols. These relate to the use of ships or fixed platforms for terrorist acts. For example, to use or threaten to use against or on a ship, or discharge from a ship, any explosive radioactive material or biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon in a manner that is likely to cause death, or causes or is likely to cause serious injury for the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act; the illicit trafficking by ship of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related material—for example, intentionally transporting on board a ship any explosive or radioactive material, knowing that it is intended to be used to cause, or in a threat to cause, death or serious injury or damage for the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act; the transportation of fugitives by ship, where the person assisting knows that the person being transported has committed an offence in relation to terrorism and ships or in relation to transportation of weapons and nuclear material and equipment, or has committed an act against a specified terrorism convention; and intentionally causing death or injury in connection with the above offences.

The bill also introduces a maritime boarding regime consistent with existing international law, which clarifies enforcement officers’ powers when taking action in relation to offences under the Maritime Crimes Act 1999. The bill gives New Zealand courts extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offence if there is a New Zealand link—for example, if it takes place on board a New Zealand ship. The safeguard for prosecution of an offence under the Act is a requirement for the Attorney-General to consent to the proceedings. The bill also provides that the Act does not apply to situations of armed conflict.

The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Maritime Security Act 2004, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992, the Extradition Act 1999, the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, and the Terrorism Suppression Act 2012. These amendments are necessary to fully implement the required amendments to the Maritime Crimes Act. For example, the schedule to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act is amended by adding the new offences under the bill. This means New Zealand may cooperate with international partners in responding to requests or in requesting assistance from other countries in relation to investigating or prosecuting such offending. The schedule to the Search and Surveillance Act is amended by including the new search powers in the bill. This will ensure certain ancillary powers and requirements will apply when exercising powers under the bill.

New Zealand is currently a party to 14 of the 16 core international counter-terrorism instruments, and once this bill has been passed, it will be able to become party to these last two most recent protocols. The 2005 protocols are already in force, so will enter into force in New Zealand once this bill has been passed and New Zealand has ratified them. By advancing the bill, New Zealand will not only show its continued commitment to the fight against terrorism but also ensure that terrorists will not find a safe haven in this country. For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

The Labour Party will support this bill in the first reading, and we look forward to receiving the comments and submissions when we go into the select committee. It is worth remembering that this bill was first put on the Order Paper—the protocols were first signed, I think, in 2007 by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. They were put before the select committee as treaties in 2009, and it is now, what, 7 years later that the bill finds its way into Parliament. I do not know what has happened in the meantime, but the bill is welcome and we will certainly be supportive of it. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, the aim of the bill is to amend the Maritime Crimes Act of 1999 to implement the obligations under the protocol of 2005 to the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf.

It is worth remembering that the Rome convention and the protocol resulted from the Achille Lauro affair back in 1985, when members of the Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the Achille Lauro, a passenger ship. They shot a Jewish-American man who was in a wheelchair at pretty much point-blank range and tipped him over the side, into the Mediterranean. The ship then went on to Italy, where the Palestinian terrorists faced trial and were imprisoned. Since that time, there has been a recognition that, actually, there was a bit of a gap in the law, in that most of the time the taking of a ship was reliant upon the laws of sea that related to piracy. This was an act of terror; it did not have financial, private gain involved. It was actually a political statement—so, as a result of that, the first Rome convention came into being.

This is a further manifestation of that convention, which dated back to 1988, if I recall. This 2005 protocol amends that Rome convention and the Rome protocol to ensure that the maritime security framework established under those parent treaties can respond to contemporary transnational terrorist threats. It is worth thinking that back in those days, it was pre - al-Qaeda, pre-9/11, pre - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—a lot has gone on in the world of terrorism, unfortunately, since that time. So this bill enables New Zealand to ratify those 2005 protocols, which amended the Rome convention and relate to maritime terrorism; the illicit trafficking by ship of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, or any sort of related material around that; the transportation of fugitives by ship; the intentional causing of death or injury in connection with those offences; and maritime boarding. So, effectively, it broadens them in keeping with the changes that have happened in the world.

Largely, the prevention of terrorism in New Zealand is broadly bipartisan—I do not think there is a member in this House who would not support this bill—but it is also worth remembering that in preventing terrorism, we rely heavily on a number of issues, the first of which, of course, is the people in New Zealand themselves. Particularly, I am referring here to our Muslim community, which, in many ways, is our front line, our bulwark, against terrorism taking root here, and ensuring that we have a good relationship with that community and ensuring that that community is well integrated into New Zealand is probably the best defence that we have against the sorts of events that we have seen in Paris and Belgium, and so on.

But so too do we rely on the professionalism of our diplomats and on ensuring that the diplomats that we have are of the highest quality, can put together the type of legislation that we have in front of us here, and make sure that we are fulfilling our obligations under the various treaties.

I want to mention two of those diplomats—they are former diplomats now—Derek Leask and Nigel Fyfe. They are two of our more distinguished diplomats, but, unfortunately, they were targeted in what can only really be called a witch-hunt, in an inquiry that unfairly accused them of leaking documents, which they did not do. The Ombudsman’s report, which came out very recently, exonerated those two diplomats, and it is now, as the Ombudsman recommended, that they are owed an apology and compensation. I know that, for example, it cost Derek Leask tens of thousands of dollars to take his grievance into court and get his name cleared. He needs to have recompense for that, and an apology. I think it behoves the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he too offers those two very distinguished diplomats—Derek Leask served for 5 years as our High Commissioner in London—an apology.

I want to mention something else that I think is very, very important when it comes to combatting terrorism. It is, of course, what is laid out in this bill in terms of ensuring that New Zealand fulfils its requirements under international law. We also have stepped up when it comes to sending our armed forces overseas to combat terrorism in various parts of the world. We did it in Afghanistan. We currently have troops in Iraq at the moment, training the Iraqi military forces. I am not going to go through the issue of whether they should be there or should not be there—that has divided the country in terms of who supports it and who is against it—but I want to speak on one thing, and that is the way that we send our troops overseas.

When I look at countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, their sending of troops overseas, potentially into harm’s way, is recognised as being one of the most important decisions that a Government and, ultimately, a Prime Minister can make. For that reason, they adopt a far more bipartisan approach to the way that they do that than we do here. Think back to when we sent our troops overseas. We decided to make that decision in the end of 2014—to send our troops into Iraq. They were, as the Government said, sent to fight terrorism in the form of the ISIS. For many months, the Government denied that we were going to send forces overseas, although everybody knew that there was training and planning going on for months amongst our armed forces. Finally—finally—the Government made the decision, and an unholy debate erupted in Parliament, where the Prime Minister accused Andrew Little and the Labour Party of not standing up for human rights and of being gutless.

I want to point out that I went back and actually asked the Parliamentary Library “When was the last time the Prime Minister, unsolicited, mentioned the words ‘human rights’?”, and that was back in 2007, with regard to Zimbabwe, when he was Leader of the Opposition. So it is a bit rich for him to stand up and talk about human rights when it suits him. But, more importantly, the point is that it actually would have been better to engage across the House in an important decision like sending our troops overseas. Sharing the information, being able to ensure that whatever happened and whatever decision was made—and it may have been that the Government would not have been able to convince the Opposition that it was a good decision to send those troops overseas, but nevertheless we would have been able to engage in that process and, whatever happened, as we did anyway, they would go with our goodwill and our best wishes.

We do this in terms of the intelligence review that is ongoing now—and I am a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is looking at that, and it is done on a bipartisan approach. What I would like to see is that we do exactly the same and take a much more bipartisan, a much more considered, and a much more open view when we send our forces overseas, because right now I believe it is unedifying, the way that we carry that out. Thank you.

First of all, could I acknowledge our Minister of Foreign Affairs for bringing this bill to the House. It is timely because the reality is that we are seeing an increase in maritime operations supporting terrorist operations around the world. I was recently up in Iraq and had the honour of visiting Camp Taji and seeing our troops in action in terms of the mission that they are on up there, which is, obviously, delivering training and junior leadership courses. I just want to acknowledge them and thank them, and their families also, because the work they are doing up there—we should all be very proud of them. The feedback that we got is that the training mission and junior leadership mission have made a real, tangible difference to the way that the Iraqi troops are able to go on to the front line. They are winning ground back and seriously degrading the capability of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

This bill strengthens New Zealand’s ability to deter and react decisively to terrorism. The changes are part of New Zealand’s wider commitment to the four pillars of our UN counter-terrorism strategy. It is in the interest of all countries to eliminate terrorism. Any form of terrorism has a corrosive, negative impact on us, the global community.

Regarding the main provisions of the bill, the bill introduces new offences that relate to, obviously, maritime terrorism, the illicit trafficking and shipment of weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems and all related material, the transportation of fugitives by sea, and intentionally causing death or injury in connection with any of these offences.

New Zealand has got a reputation as a good global citizen. We are a founding member of the United Nations and have recently served with distinction on the United Nations Security Council—and we continue to serve with distinction on the UN Security Council. We might be 4.5 million people at the bottom of the world, but we punch well above our weight on the international stage, in large part due to the work that our Prime Minister does and to the high esteem in which he is held.

New Zealand does not shirk its global responsibilities. We are an outward-looking country, whether it be serving on the Security Council, forging trade deals, or sending peacekeeping troops across the world. We know that the risks facing the world are many—economic conflict and terror-related—and they are too great for any one country to face alone. That is why this Government is keen to forge international trade links. That is why we stand up for our neighbours near and far who may face humanitarian crises. We are New Zealand, a country that pulls its weight. I am very happy to support this bill, and I look forward to receiving it in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Thank you.

Can I add to the thanks that the Opposition gives to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for bringing forward this piece of legislation, which, as other speakers have noted, gives effect to New Zealand’s obligations arising from the 2005 changes to the international protocol relating to laws of the sea and maritime terrorism. Ministers do good things as well as bad things. The last speaker, Mark Mitchell, said that we should be proud of the Government’s work in the Middle East through New Zealand’s armed forces doing work there. I am sure all people in New Zealand are supportive of the armed services when they are sent overseas and told to do what the Government says they should do.

It is a wee bit superficial to let that stand without recounting what has led to the terrible state of affairs that we now have in the Middle East. It is interesting that in the next few days we are going to see the Chilcot report come out in the United Kingdom, which considers whether the Parliament there was misled by its then politicians, who took them into the war in Iraq when the United Nations refused to endorse an invasion of Iraq because Hans Blix, on behalf of the United Nations, had spent some months ferreting around Iraq and had concluded that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which were used as the excuse to invade Iraq.

I was a junior backbencher in this Parliament, in the then Labour Government, when the New Zealand Labour Party kept New Zealand out of the war in Iraq. I would like to pay my tributes to the three people who led New Zealand in that regard at that time: Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, and Phil Goff. All of those people withstood enormous pressure from the National Party, then in Opposition, as well as pressure from our traditional allies, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. I can remember sitting on the backbenches over the 6-week period when this was unfolding, watching the leaders of my party go grey. The pressure was intense. I remember the stress that they were under as they took that decision for New Zealand and withstood enormous pressure from our traditional allies and from the intemperate comments that came from the National Party, which said we should be in that—[Interruption] Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, the other parties have said that this is another example of us doing our duty in respect of terrorism, and I am recounting how some of the things that have gone wrong in the world—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just apply it to the bill.

—backed by the National Party, have made terrorism worse—including maritime terrorism.

The leaders of that party, Phil Goff, Helen Clark, and Michael Cullen, bounced back from that stress—they did bounce back from that stress. But I challenge any one of the members of Parliament who were here then not to agree with me that the pressure was enormous, and that the leaders of the Labour Party showed true leadership at that time by refusing to make the world’s problems with terrorism worse with an illegal invasion of Iraq. Those things are still dogging us in the world—including in the field of marine terrorism—because the consequences of that terrible decision that was made by other countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, are still with us. Iraq, of course, has not seen a moment’s peace since those days. We have terrorist atrocities becoming worse in Iraq. Everyone knows that Saddam Hussein was a terrible leader, but what we have unleashed in the world since has flowed outside the Iraqi borders and afflicts other countries, not just Iraq. It is interesting that we see international reports that some of the leaders of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are actually former Iraqi military personnel and intelligence personnel who have just found another outlet for their evil ways.

Can I refer also to another aspect where the reputation of the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) has been undermined. That is the matter that was touched on by David Shearer, relating to the accusing of Mr Leask and Mr Fyfe of being sources of leaks from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Rebstock inquiry was—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member is now 5 minutes into his 10-minute speech and has not mentioned a single clause in the bill. He needs to do that. I accept that previous speakers, from both sides of the House, made asides in respect of other matters that were outside the bill and I let that go. I note that the National Party member spoke for only 3 minutes, and Mr Shearer’s points were sideways, but I think the member who now has the floor needs to start talking about what is in the bill. This is a first reading of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As other speakers have said, this legislation does introduce new offences that relate to maritime terrorism, including maritime terrorism itself and the illicit trafficking by ship of weapons of mass destruction—you have got to be a bit careful about that around here, because the National Party would be very willing, based on its history, to misrepresent what was proper evidence of weapons of mass destruction, so as to justify the invasion of countries like Iraq. The bill also introduces offences relating to the transportation of fugitives by ships.

We know that the incidence of maritime terrorism is relatively low in frequency. It constituted less than 1 percent of all terrorist incidents between 1968 and 2007, but, none the less, we should not be complacent. I agree that we should put in place this legislation pursuant to the convention that we have signed up to, or to the protocol that changes the underlying international convention. But I do make the point that if you are interested in curbing terrorism and doing your bit internationally, you need to maintain the reputation of your country, including the reputation of your Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and you do not do that any good at all when you undermine that ministry by wrongly criticising senior officials within it, which is what this Government did, through the Rebstock inquiry. It does not reflect well upon Minister Bennett last week, in the face of the Ombudsman’s report saying that Messrs Leask and Fyfe had been dealt with unfairly, to say that there were some procedural problems but not to acknowledge that the Ombudsman found not just that the processes were wrong but also that the substantive conclusion she made was without justification. She besmirched the reputation of those New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials and undermined the reputation of MFAT—internationally as well as in New Zealand.

I end by supporting this legislation, but say that if you want to, as the last speaker said, have a reputation as a good global citizen, you should act responsibly as a global citizen. In the Middle East, the current Government has not got a good record. Whether it is in respect of the Iraq decision or in respect of what it has been doing with Saudi sheep in the desert—where it spent $11.5 million, including over a million dollars on flying sheep to this farm in the desert, and a $4 million cash payment—

So back to the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill—Shane Reti.

It is a pleasure to come back and speak to this bill in front of us, which is the work of the House at this point in time. It is a pleasure to speak to the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill of 2016.

I would like to briefly traverse the legislation that brings us here today—the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988, the Maritime Crimes Act 1999, the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, of 2005, and of course what we are looking at, the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill 2016.

In 1985, as was commented on, the Achille Lauro was hijacked off Egypt and wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer was thrown overboard. In response to that, the Rome convention formed the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. This was ratified by New Zealand, through the Maritime Crimes Act 1999.

The Maritime and Aviation Crimes Bill went straight to its second reading, which is kind of interesting, because it turns out that the day it came to the House, the House was sitting under urgency. The then Standing Order 273 said there would be no first reading, and so it went straight to its second reading. At that second reading, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the time, Don McKinnon, made these points on the Maritime and Aviation Crimes Bill 1999. He said, first of all, that this bill was very important because it talked about including the unlawful use of force or the threat of force to seize control of a ship. He talked about extending New Zealand’s jurisdiction over these new offences beyond the traditional limit of our territorial lands. He also talked about the possible extradition of terrorists to those countries that are a party to the convention. That was in 1999.

In 2009 the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee undertook a treaty examination for the two protocols—the 2005 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms, and the 2005 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation. These were collectively known as the 2005 SUA protocols.

The select committee had one submission. An important change here was that the Rome convention talked about shipping as being a target. The 2005 suppression of unlawful acts (SUA) protocols talked about maritime vehicles and ships, etc., as actually being vehicles for causing terrorism. That was quite a change. That it is why it is important for us to ratify and amend our Maritime Act to take this into account.

Particularly, three new offences were created under the 2005 SUA protocols. These were (1) maritime terrorism, (2) illicit trafficking by ships of weapons of mass destruction, and (3) transportation of fugitives by ships. The 2009 select committee examination was very thorough, and the national interest analysis that accompanied that said that there were only benefits to New Zealand in being a part of this treaty. With that, I think that the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill wisely enables the 2005 SUA protocols and is a very important tool in our fight against terrorism. I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koutou e Te Whare; ka tū mō Ngā Kākāriki ki te kōrero ki te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei Te Pire Maritime Crimes Amendment.

[Acknowledgments to you the House; I stand on behalf of the Greens to speak in the first reading of this Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill.]

This bill before us, essentially, goes back 30 years and a bit more, as has been noted before. Essentially, it can be traced back to the terrorist event with the Achille Lauro in 1985, but also to a similar event—if we recall it—with regard to the Rainbow Warrior in Waitematā Harbour in Aotearoa New Zealand. Those events, obviously—particularly the Achille Lauro—brought us to 1988 with the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, and its immediate protocol, the Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. It is worth remembering that in those days this House did not even have the nuanced constitutional maturity of a treaty examination—we just lumbered along.

It took us 11 years, from 1988 to 1999, to bring in the Maritime Crimes Act, but we did, in 1999. Within 2 years we experienced the twin towers terrorist event in New York, which ushered in the age of global terrorism, which in turn ushered in—for better or worse, and it was for worse—the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. I support the comments by the Hon David Parker and others about the inanity and the lack of application of international law at the global level that allowed that kind of thing to go with impunity. That, in a turn, brought us to 2005, with these current protocols—the 2005 maritime navigation and fixed platform protocols to the Rome convention. New Zealand signed those 2 years later, in 2007, but it took us an exactly equal amount of time—11 years—to get from those protocols to this day, with this enabling legislation.

The 2005 protocols that are, essentially, before us in the context of this legislation amend both the Rome convention and the Rome protocol to ensure that the maritime security framework established under the parent treaties can respond to contemporary transnational threats. The bill enables New Zealand to ratify those 2005 protocols to introduce new offences related to maritime terrorism, illicit trafficking by ship of weapons of mass destruction, transportation by ship of fugitives, intentionally causing death in connection with those offences, and maritime boarding.

Such was the state of alarm in New Zealand that it took us 11 years to get to this stage. It took 2 years to get to the stage of New Zealand signing, and another 2 years—so a total of 4 years—before our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee undertook the treaty examination. The select committee reported back in July 2009, which included the Green Party’s agreement, unanimously supporting continuing movement towards ratification of the 2005 protocols. That continuing movement has since experienced a pause of 7 years before resuming at any discernible pace.

But if we look at the select committee’s 2009 report, we acknowledge, as it says—and I think we would all agree—that “The overriding objective of the proposed treaty action would be to update and strengthen New Zealand’s ability to deal with maritime security challenges, by ensuring that an appropriate legislative framework was in place. There is no satisfactory non-legislative implementation option that has been identified.” Essentially, the committee concluded that “Implementation of the 2005 SUA Protocols would strengthen New Zealand’s support for global counter-terrorism and non-proliferation efforts, and help ensure that New Zealand’s domestic maritime security framework is consistent with international best practice. The 2005 SUA Protocols have particular relevance”—of course—“to New Zealand as a coastal nation dependent on the security of its shipping routes.”

Of the five principal benefits of the protocols given in the select committee’s report, two are worth explicitly identifying here, I think. They are that it “would help strengthen New Zealand’s legal framework that underpin necessary maritime security, counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation action.”, and it “would also be valuable in the context of New Zealand’s support for the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and in bolstering New Zealand’s ability to respond to some of the threats … ”. That is the assembled wisdom of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in 2009, and the Green Party continues, as it did back then, to associate itself with it.

We will support the bill, but we will support it into select committee and continue to monitor the progress of the bill. We do have our concerns around the designation of particular groups as terrorists. We do recognise that the 2005 protocols concern actual or attempted behaviour and do not address the classification of groups themselves, but if you look at some of the provisions of the bill, they could potentially cover the actions of direct action environmental groups and see such groups potentially regarded as, or alleged to be regarded as, terrorists. It could be regarded that some of those groups use or attempt to use ships to intentionally cause damage to other ships with a purpose of “compelling a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act ...”, to quote the legislation. But such actions are inherently violent and, arguably, not in line with the Green Party’s principle of non-violence. Discretion does need to be exercised by Governments about whether to charge such groups with terrorist offences or not.

Overall, the bill enables New Zealand to meet its obligations as an international citizen and is in line with our principle of non-violence—hence our support for the bill to go to select committee—but we will be monitoring that particular aspect of the legislation closely as it goes to the select committee.

Let me just conclude by associating the Green Party with the comments of the Hon David Parker in relation to the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq and the inspired and positive leadership of the Hon Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, and Phil Goff in that respect. We pay tribute to all three of them, and to Mr Goff, who is sitting in the Chamber today—a very fine and upstanding parliamentarian. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in support of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill. But before I do, I seek the indulgence of the House to take a couple of moments to reflect on a very auspicious week—as this might be—and a very memorable week for some. This week we see the opportunity, I guess, for members of Parliament of this House to farewell our Chamber staff, who have worked in this House—for some of them—for up to 20 years. I think this is a great opportunity, and it is one of the only opportunities that I will have to thank these people, who work tirelessly behind the scenes to make sure that everything goes to order—the people who are not seen on the TV screens back home, but they are here every day, bright and early, making sure that the microphones work and making sure that everything is ready to go. Sadly—and then, for some, it is not so sad; I am sure there are a number of Chamber staff who are happy to take the redundancy, but it is sad for others.

If I could just take a moment to acknowledge these people here: we have got Bob Wards, who has been working for 20 years here in the House. Bob Mann, who has been here for 19 years, Deborah for 14 years, and Euan for 3 years. Maureen has been here for 9 years. We have got Pat, who has been here for 15 years, Sue for 7 years, Thomas for 6 years, and Philip for 9 years. Pauline has been here for 15 years, and Trevor for 19 years. So too has Charles been here for 19 years. Maria has been here for 3 years—I was going to say 30 years then—Judy for 17 years, and Ken for 6 years. That is a total combined time given to this House of 181 years of experience, which we are going to be losing at the end of this week. If we could just take a moment to reflect on that and perhaps give applause, certainly, to say thank you very much on behalf of all members of Parliament in the House to a great job well done. We hope that there is a celebration, or certainly an opportunity, at the end of the week where we get to come around and see you one by one. So thank you all very much.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that indulgence. I know there have been—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Do not milk it.

CLAYTON MITCHELL:—some people spoken to about getting off-subject today, and I would like to go back to the bill. I am very pleased I had that opportunity to speak to—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, what do you mean “back”? You have not been there yet. Come on.

No, I mentioned the bill right at the start. I did actually say that I am speaking in support of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, and I thought I would start with that and that that would give me a little bit of leeway. Clearly, my leeway has run out.

This is a bill that has been around for some time. In 2005 the Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf was discussed and also the protocol to the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation that we have talked about. These protocols were signed in 2007 and, of course, they were implemented in 2010. Through all my research I cannot find anywhere that says why the hold-up has taken so long. There is nothing that suggests it should take till 2016 to ratify this bill, and I too am in support of making sure that this goes through. I have to smile when I hear things and phrases such as “weapons of mass destruction”, because, of course, we all remember George W Bush famously saying “We’re gonna get those WMDs—those weapons of mass destruction.” and waging war on the Middle East—a war in the Middle East that is still raging, and probably getting worse, not better, as they had hoped it would.

In saying that, we can also acknowledge the fact that global terrorism is on the rise, and if geopolitical parties and Governments successively around the world do not join forces and get together to work harmoniously to eradicate this sort of global terror, then we have got some big problems in the future. It is not just Governments’ responsibility; it also is the responsibility of the people. Back to the bill.

The bill is about bringing in some new enforcement regimes. It is about empowerment. I think that last year on the 15 January—it might have been 14 January—we remember the headlines when our naval ships went down to try to board a fishing vessel that was illegally harvesting fish from the Southern Ocean. It was very perplexing to New Zealanders, including New Zealand First, why, when a naval ship approached a vessel and asked it to stop, it simply did not do so—it continued on its merry way. We did not fire a warning shot. We did not try to board the ship, and, of course, we did not have the power to do so. We do not want that same thing happening when we talk about weapons of mass destruction, when we talk about terrorist activities, large bombs, and other things that are going to cause death and mayhem to platforms, which are largely considered to be oil rigs. The lives that that could certainly put at risk and also the large impact that that will have on our environment need to be factored in to this. We do support this bill’s referral to the select committee. We are hoping to get this moved through rather rapidly to see it actually being fully implemented into the House and actually ratified into law. We certainly do not see the reason for it to dilly-dally and to be held back.

The boarding regime is a very important aspect. If there is thought to be somebody who is harbouring illicit materials that may result in bombs or the like, then the person in charge, the enforcement officer, should have the power to actually board that vessel. Of course, the new powers also involve asking for those ships or vessels to stop, and if they do not do so, warning shots can actually be fired to say to them that we mean business. We do have an obligation to our country, to our people, and to the rest of the united nations of all countries to make sure that New Zealand plays its part in eradicating terror.

There is one concerning point in this legislation. It is around the Order in Council. We have spoken about the Order in Council on a number of occasions, and I fail to see what significance this Order in Council application has in this bill, because, of course, “by Order in Council” means that the Minister can implement or do what they like without bringing things back to the House. I am sure that once this has been agreed on and gone through the third reading we could implement it as soon as it gets the stamp of approval. There are currently 798 “by Order in Councils” in legislation that is active in this country right now. When we give the power to a Minister to arbitrarily make a decision on behalf of other members of the House without bringing it back to a democratic process of discussion, debate, and a vote, we take some sort of umbrage with that process. I would question why it needs to be in the bill, and we would certainly like to thrash that out at select committee to see whether we cannot get a better understanding of why it actually needs to be there. We do support this as we go into select committee and look forward to seeing how it comes out at the other end. Thank you.

It is unusual to follow on from a New Zealand First speaker who is actually supporting something. There was quite a bit of waffle in that speech, but I do want to acknowledge Clayton Mitchell’s contribution to those people who have worked for many years in this part of the precinct of Parliament.

Going back to this legislation that we are looking at, the bill contains provisions that are needed in our domestic legislation to meet our obligations under two counter-terrorism treaties. They are the protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the protocol of 2005 to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. We do see support from this House at this first reading, and that is good to see from all parties that want to see New Zealand take its place in reacting to and deterring terrorism as much as we can. This is part of our wider commitment as a country to doing so, and it is good to see all parties are supporting that process.

It is in the interests of New Zealand, as a free and democratic country, to prevent terrorism. It is also part of being a global citizen to make sure that we do not encourage or allow terrorism to flourish in any way in New Zealand, and to play our part in the global community to make sure that everybody is safe and fairly treated and that terrorism does not take effect in any part of our world, especially in our country.

This bill will go through to the select committee stage. No doubt the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will take a great interest in some of the finer details of the provisions of the legislation, but the general essence of what you are seeing here today is that all parties are standing to stop terrorism and to make sure that New Zealand is as safe for our citizens as possible. We look forward to that progressing through this House. Thank you.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Marama Davidson.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare Tuarua, tēnā koe, ā, ka huri au ki tēnei Whare, tēnā tātou katoa! Ka tū au mō Ngā Kākāriki ki te kōrero i te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei Te Pire Maritime Crimes Amendment, ā, nō reira, hei māngai mō ngā take tika tangata.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and now I turn to this House, acknowledgments to us all! I stand on behalf of the Greens to speak in the first reading of this Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill and, therefore, as spokesperson on matters pertaining to human rights.]

I stand as the spokesperson for human rights for the Green Party to support this bill to the select committee stage. I wanted to talk particularly about the human rights balance, in light of all counter-terrorism laws and particularly in light of our international human rights reputation thus far. As my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham has pointed out, we have noted some concerns in the impediment of dissent, but I will actually go through—I understand that at this stage the bill is actually focused on actions of groups rather than on designations, so I wanted to make that point.

This bill is, potentially, to put in place New Zealand’s obligations under the protocols of 2005, which are, essentially, maritime counter-terrorism treaties—essentially, our international obligations. So, as mentioned, I can see, through the first reading of this bill, that they are focused on several important human rights freedoms, particularly the rights to life and safety. I do agree that at this point the bill is primarily to protect people’s lives and their feelings of safety.

It appears, under section 4A(1)—as my colleague has pointed out, but I want to repeat—that it could potentially impact on actions of direct action, such as environmental groups, but I am satisfied that both the actions would have to have been seen to cause harm and have been put in a particular category that, I believe, at this stage, would not impact on just ordinary dissent. So I too am pleased to support the bill going to the select committee, for that reason.

What Te Rōpū Kākāriki will be keeping an ear out for in submissions is to make sure that the balancing act of upholding the various human rights—such as freedom of thought and conscience, and freedom of association and expression—is, indeed, strong. We want to make sure that we have strong counter-terrorism legislation, but we also want to make sure that we are mindful of groups not being tagged too easily with this legislation for simply upholding other human rights freedoms. We also want to uphold freedom of privacy, freedom against torture, and freedom against being arbitrarily detained and/or arrested.

So I just simply wanted to stand and put to the House that Te Rōpū Kākāriki will be listening out for our balancing act of upholding the particular freedoms that are involved in this legislation. Again, New Zealand’s international human rights reputation is one to be protected and admired at this point. I, particularly as the human rights spokesperson, will be keeping a keen eye and ear on how this bill develops in light of a common-sense balance in upholding all of the different human rights aspects. Thank you very much.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Rino Tirikatene.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker; e tū tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire, Te Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill.

[Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker; I rise in support of this bill, the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill.]

It is a pleasure to speak in the first reading of this bill. We in the Labour Party are speaking in support of this bill. This is one of those bills that, I guess, is on subject matter that the House hoped would never eventuate or come into reality. This is about anti-terrorism or combating terrorism, particularly on the sea and on platforms—which I would assume would be things like oil rigs and the like. We are doing our bit as good global citizens to support this legislation, which is all about New Zealand ratifying its obligations as a signatory to the conventions and then the protocols to the conventions that form the basis of this bill—it has been well traversed by previous speakers.

I do endorse this bill, but I do hope that certain definitions contained within this bill do not really seep out into the lexicon of the general public. There are some really quite scary terms within this bill if we look at these new definitions that I understand are contained within the protocols—terms like a “BCN weapon”, which means a biological weapon, a chemical weapon, or a nuclear weapon. We do not really want to be hearing those sorts of terms freely spoken out there, but that is the reality of what this bill seeks to address. Goodness knows, in this day and age, we are seeing daily, almost, acts of terrorism happening around the globe, so we do need to be vigilant as a country, and the enactment of this legislation does just that.

I would like to just highlight one specific clause, and that is new section 3A, which will be inserted into the Maritime Crimes Act, which says that “This Act does not apply to any act that occurs in a situation of armed conflict …”. So if armed conflict were to break out, basically, we can just park this up and none of it will apply. I think that is the danger that we are facing daily as we look around the world and see what is happening out there. In the South China Sea we are seeing the deployment of naval fleets that are being moved all around the world. If we look over to the Mediterranean Sea: massive aircraft carriers from the US, from European countries, from Russia—and from all over the world. There is a lot of tension, I guess, out there in the maritime space. There are a lot of naval exercises taking place. So thank goodness that everything is calm and people are acting with restraint out there at the moment, but, certainly, we do not want any conflict to arise. If it did, this piece of legislation would not really apply at all. Goodness knows how those pieces of hardware will deal with terrorists on the high seas. But this does implement our international obligations.

I actually think that the bill does not really go far enough, because we are dealing with—in this legislation—a very high bar of terrorist activity. We are talking about biological weapons, nuclear weapons, and all of the related components that might make up those weapons of mass destruction. I actually think that the legislation should be applied to all forms of weapons that are involved in terrorism around the world. If we do look at what is going in the Middle East, in Syria, and in the conflict zones around the world—to be honest, I do get confused with all of the different parties and moderates and terrorists, and goodness knows all the other parties involved—at the end of the day, they require supply lines. They require supply lines to meet demand to actually get involved in their war-terrorist activities. So I believe this bill could go further and actually focus not just on those extreme weapons but also on all forms of weapons that are used in terrorist activities. But apart from those few remarks, I do support this bill, and I commend it at this first reading.

I rise just to say a few words in support of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill. As we have all heard this afternoon, this bill amends the Maritime Crimes Act to implement the obligations under two maritime counter-terrorism treaties.

It has been very good, certainly from my perspective, to hear expressed by speakers thus far the unanimous support for the need for this—the importance of ensuring that our defence framework and capability is aligned and that we have the capacity under law to do what New Zealanders would expect us to be able to do, which is that when we see that our interests are being challenged, particularly by those who have terrorist intent, we have the capacity and the ability to stop it from happening. That, for me, is a key part of what this legislation enables.

In light of the various comments that we have had, it will be very interesting to see whether we get a similar degree of unanimity from those who appear in front of us at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in the next few weeks and months. I am looking forward to that. We will be particularly interested in whether we can hold that unanimity all the way through to the third reading, because I think it serves this Parliament well when we can do so on issues of national security. I look forward to participating in that debate, and I commend this bill to the House.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Can I just take one minute, too, to join with others who have formally acknowledged the role of the messengers who will be leaving us this week in Parliament. I have been here a long time; so have many of them. I want to pay tribute to all of them, in fact, for the loyal and professional service they have given to this House over a very long period of time. Not only have they served us but also they have been our friends, and I want to acknowledge them and wish them the best for the future.

Labour is, of course, supporting this bill, as we have all legislation that has been designed to suppress terrorist action both at home and internationally. Just in this last week we think of the more than 200 people killed by the bombing in Baghdad—200 people. I read the story this morning of a little girl who was an innocent victim of that bombing, only identifiable by a small patch of green cloth, which her mother recognised from the dress that she had been wearing. And, of course, we will do anything in our power to stop that sort of disgraceful and appalling behaviour that is supposedly motivated by a cause, religious or political, but most likely motivated by the worst side of human nature: the lust for power and control, and an utter disrespect for other human beings.

By passing this bill, we will be able to ratify two further conventions that enable us to support, through our laws, 14 of the 16 conventions that are opposed to terrorism. But I want to say that if we look at this in context, the sheer delay in passing this bill, which puts into effect two conventions that were passed in 2005—which is 11 years ago—shows, I think, that the Government believes that, at best, this sort of legislation has only a partial impact on suppressing terrorism. I think we should have done this long ago, but I also think that we must go far beyond this sort of legislation if we are to defeat terrorism. In particular, I think that we need to address the causes of terrorism: the international injustices that give rise to acts of terrorism.

It is interesting that the Act that promoted the two conventions passed in 1998, which is the forerunner for this legislation today, was in relation to a Palestine Liberation Organization attack on an Italian cruise liner called the Achille Lauro, and there was one person killed in that attack, a gentleman by the name of Leon Klinghoffer, who was an American Jewish businessman who was shot in cold blood, and his body and his wheelchair were dumped over the stern of the ship. What was recognised after that act was that there was a gap in the law. An act of piracy is an act apparently done to further your private ends, and this was not done for that purpose, so the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation was passed to ensure that action could indeed be taken against those who committed unlawful acts against ships, and to require the signatories to the treaty that we will be able to ratify by this legislation to extradite or to prosecute the people concerned.

So this needs to happen, but, actually, when you look at that instance involving the Achille Lauro, you see that it was just one further act of terrorism that evolved out of the international failure to resolve the conflict in the Middle East—the fact that two peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, have claim over the same piece of land and that we, internationally, have never been able to deal with the cause of that conflict and to find a solution that was mutually acceptable and just to both sides. And, clearly, if we are to make a difference in the world, we need to do more than simply apply the patch over the offending that is occurring, which is what this legislation does, and we need to tackle the causes.

We also need to be very careful that we, as a country, do not exacerbate rather than improve the situations that give rise to terrorism. I want to give two examples of where countries have exacerbated the cause of terrorism. The first goes back to the 1980s, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and that country has lived under conflict in the 30 years ever since. And we deplored the self-interested action of the Soviet Union at that time.

But it has also been raised in this House that most acts of terrorism that are occurring now, including the one that I made reference to, arose out of the decision of the coalition of the willing to invade Iraq in 2003. And I, for one, am proud that this country did not participate in that invasion. We said at the time that the grounds did not exist for that action. I was involved with Hans Blix, who was running the organisation to check out whether there were weapons of mass destruction. He told me personally that they could find no evidence. The New Zealand Kiwi soldiers on the ground told me they could find no evidence. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service reported there was no evidence of those weapons. And we said “This action will be counter-productive”, and it was.

We stood away from our erstwhile friends in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We withstood the pressure that they put on us to be part of that invasion, and I am proud that we stood away from that invasion and worked only to provide humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of it. If it were not for that action, we would not have the level of terrorism that has taken hundreds of thousands—probably millions—of lives and that leaves the world today with 70 million displaced people around the world, deprived of the things that we would take for granted in terms of stability: a roof over their heads, a job, and peace for themselves and their families. So we need to be careful in the actions that we take internationally.

Thirdly, we need to be sure that we, here at home, address and do not aggravate the conditions that might potentially give rise to terrorism taking root in our country. Tomorrow—I think it will be tomorrow, depending on the sighting of the new moon—our Muslim community will be celebrating Eid ul-Fitr. I have many friends in that community, and I know that—they tell me—people born in New Zealand, who are loyal New Zealanders and who are decent New Zealanders, have to put up daily with prejudice and people sneering at their culture, their religion, their dress, and how they observe their religious practices.

The most important thing that we can do as a country is not simply to pass legislation like this but to make sure that our country is an inclusive one where people respect each other, where people are treated equally, where people have opportunity, and where, regardless of race, colour, or creed, they are treated as New Zealanders with that respect. I know, too, that when there are problems in that community, the people whom we rely on most to put an end to any potential development of illegal or criminal activity are the Muslim community themselves, who come to the police, who come to the Government and say: “We’re worried about this individual. They are a disturbed individual, and we think they’re being affected by the propaganda they’re seeing online.”

We support this legislation. It is legislation that should pass this House unanimously, but we need to think that there are those other things that are far more important for our country to do if we are to defeat the scourge of terrorism and prevent it from ever taking root in this country, and suppress it where it is happening internationally.

Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koutou e Te Whare; ko tēnei Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori me whakanui e tātou.

[Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker, and greetings to you the House; this is Māori Language Week, we must celebrate it.]

May I very briefly, as others who have spoken before me have done, pay sincere compliments and thanks to the departing Chamber and gallery team. They are a fine group of people who have served us all well. They are delightful company no matter what side of the House you are on and no matter what time of night it is. Ewan is in the House with us at the moment. I would be grateful if he could convey our considerable thanks to them all and also the fact that we will miss them dearly. We wish them all the very best for the future and thank them for their very loyal service over many, many years.

It is has been wonderful to hear the very constructive and intelligent debate on this important measure. I am delighted to know that such a significant measure has the unanimous support of the House. I support this bill.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.