Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I move, That the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. The committee has recommended that the bill proceed with a number of amendments.

This is an overview of the bill: the purpose of the bill is to amend the Maritime Crimes Act 1999 to implement two maritime counter-terrorism conventions. The first is the Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the second is the Protocol of 2005 to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. The 2005 protocols were adopted to take account of the increasing risks to maritime navigation by acts of terrorism. The protocols amend the original 1988 Rome convention and Rome protocol to introduce new offences relating to the use of ships and fixed platforms. This bill is necessary to implement the 2005 protocols into New Zealand law and once enacted would enable New Zealand to ratify the protocols. These changes, which reflect international best practice, will provide law enforcement agencies with clear and effective tools to respond to contemporary threats to maritime security and will enable New Zealand to play its part in the international framework for countering maritime terrorism.

The bill adds new offences to the Act in line with the 2005 protocols. These are serious offences that relate to the commission of serious offences against ships or using ships; the illicit transportation of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear material, and equipment; the transportation of terrorist fugitives by ship; the commission of serious offences against fixed platforms or using fixed platforms; and death or injury that occurs when committing or attempting to commit an offence against the Act. The Attorney-General’s consent is required for any prosecution under the Act, providing a safeguard to ensure that only appropriate cases proceed to a prosecution. The bill also introduces a maritime boarding regime consistent with existing international law to facilitate enforcement in relation to offences under the Maritime Crimes Act.

The committee received 150 submissions on the bill, with the majority centred on the offences relating to ships and terrorism. Many submitters were concerned that peaceful protesters could be prosecuted as terrorists under the bill. Although that was not possible under the bill as introduced, the committee was of the view that aspects of the bill could be clarified. The committee has recommended a number of changes to the bill, which I believe appropriately respond to submitters’ concerns while ensuring that the bill effectively implements the 2005 protocols it is intended to.

I would like to highlight the main amendments proposed, most of which are minor changes aimed at providing greater clarity. First, the committee has proposed an avoidance-of-doubt clause to make absolutely clear that peaceful acts of protest or industrial action would not be by themselves a sufficient basis for criminal liability under the Act. A similar provision is found in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. The bill implements the 2005 protocols and establishes serious offences relating to the use of ships or fixed platforms either to commit terrorist acts or to enable terrorist acts. It was not intended in any way to criminalise peaceful protest activity and could not have done so in practice. This new clause further reinforces this policy intent not to criminalise peaceful protest under the legislation.

Secondly, the use of the word “terrorism” has been omitted from the headings to the offences involving ships and fixed platforms in response to submitters’ concerns about the use and scope of the term. Although the bill has a terrorism context, the offences do not need to be stated to be terrorism offences.

Thirdly, a minor change is recommended to further clarify in each relevant offence in the bill that the threshold for criminality is serious injury or serious damage. This makes even clearer that the threshold for damage is high and that minor damage could not be captured.

Fourthly, a minor change is recommended to clarify in the offences relating to the use of a ship that the person must intentionally cause death, serious injury, or serious damage through the use of the ship. This makes clearer that unintentional conduct would not be captured by this offence.

Lastly, I would like to note that a further consequential amendment has been added to the bill, adding an amendment to schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to list the new offences in the bill as category 4 offences, consistent with the existing Maritime Crimes Act offences. This will mean that the usual mode of trial for prosecutions under this legislation will be before a jury in the High Court.

In conclusion, this bill and ratification of the 2005 protocols will strengthen New Zealand’s support for global counter-terrorism and non-proliferation efforts, and will ensure that New Zealand’s domestic maritime security framework is consistent with international best practice. I commend the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill to the House.

Can I begin by congratulating the Hon David Bennett on his appointment as Minister. Well done, David; congratulations.

The Labour Party supports the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill. As the Minister has fairly noted, New Zealand’s creation of these offences, which create new crimes in New Zealand’s law book in respect of acts against boats or ships at sea, and acts against fixed platforms, is a necessary precursor to New Zealand being able to bring into effect our obligations under the conventions that the Minister has listed. These are, namely: the Convention for Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, which is a 1988 convention, the Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, and then similar protocols in respect of platforms that are in the continental shelf area.

I think it is fair to say that the international community moved to tighten up this area of law after the increase in terrorism and piracy off the coast of Africa, and also, to a lesser extent, in the Asian region, where previously rare events became more common. The international community has banded together in order to try to prevent these illegal and dangerous acts.

The Minister explained at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which I was not on—I was not at that time on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but I have read the report from the select committee, and it records that it was made clear that protest activity at sea was not going to be caught by the provisions in this legislation. The reason there was nervousness that that might be the case was that in an earlier piece of legislation that had already passed through select committee, the National Government, by Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage, criminalised acts at sea. That was, from the point of view of protestors—including the likes of Greenpeace—something that it should not do by way of Supplementary Order Paper. They thought that was potentially an infringement of their civil liberty to protest, for example, against increased fossil fuel exploration offshore.

I think the Government would say, in respect of that particular legislation, that that was not the effect of it and that it was going to trigger a response from the New Zealand authorities only if there was something that posed an actual threat within the territorial limits, but I think Greenpeace and other critics were right that you should not actually do that sort of thing by Supplementary Order Paper. You should do that through a select committee process that gives people the ability to express their concerns and to ensure that the civil liberties of New Zealanders to protest about things that they feel strongly about—to do so civilly—are retained. I think it is that background that caused some of the concerns from some submitters in respect of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, and I think it is wise of the select committee to clarify in clause 7—to make it absolutely clear—that protest activity is not covered by this legislation.

Other amendments that were made were to exclude the use of the word “terrorism”. What to some people is “terrorism” is to other people “legitimate protest activity”, in the minds of some submitters. Again, I think that is probably an arguable proposition. I think the courts would sort out the difference between legitimate protest activity and terrorism, but the argument is avoided by just specifying the types of conduct—serious damage to people or property—that are prohibited. You do not actually have to use the word “terrorism” in order to get there, so it is clearer to describe that sort of conduct—serious injury or serious damage—rather than use the word “terrorism”.

The other changes that are made are well defined. There is a better definition of “serious injury or serious damage”. The threshold has been deliberately set high, so only the most serious offending would be captured. That is fair enough, because there are some quite serious enforcement powers that are being accorded, and you do not want them to be triggered at too low a threshold. Having said that, as the commentary from the select committee says, to a certain extent the detail of this legislation was governed by the terms of the international agreements, because the international agreements require New Zealand to bring into account the criminal provisions that are contained in this legislation. Those later protocols to the international conventions set out what this law had to cover. So, although there was some latitude on drafting, the essence of the offences being created was set by those protocols. The consolidated text to the original convention, including the protocols, is set out in Schedule 1 to the bill, which inserts new Schedules 1 and 2. That is helpful to members of the public who are trying to get their head round what this law actually means.

Lastly, I would say in respect of where this applies that it is not just within New Zealand’s territorial sea. It is within the area that we have control of through the exclusive economic zone, and in some situations can apply even further afield. That is set out in the bill, and another speaker might want to detail that to the House.

Finally, before taking my seat, I would comment that in this ninth year of the National Government I am somewhat surprised that in the legislative programme we do not actually have legislation that is dealing with the perhaps more fundamental challenges to New Zealand, be it the housing crisis that we have or the terrible, related misallocation of capital that means the houses that we do have are increasingly owned by a smaller and smaller number of people, rather than being broadly owned within society. I would have preferred to have a debate here as to what it is we need to do to actually make New Zealand a better country by ensuring that we push in the direction of those sorts of egalitarian settings that we used to have. That said, I think this is good bill, and for that reason the Labour Party will be supporting it.

It is a pleasure to speak to the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, the purpose of which is to align our legislation with the 2005 Rome convention—the Protocol of 2005 to 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. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee had 150 submissions, and the main concerns were, I think, in three areas. First of all, legitimate protest had by far and away the most submissions; there were 83. Secondly, a clarification of the phrase “serious injury or damage” received 80 submissions. Thirdly, clarification around threatening versus actual offending received 50 submissions. I would like to talk to each of these, one at a time.

At least half of the submitters were concerned that legitimate protest activity could be caught up in the clause that describes “compelling a government … to abstain from doing any act” as an offence. The committee clarified and resolved four responses to address this very legitimate concern. The first response to that is that the legislation has been vetted by the Attorney-General as being consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The second response to this concern is that one of the clauses retained was, indeed, “compelling a government … to abstain from doing any act”, and that needs to be consistent with the 2005 protocol, but there are other safety measures put in place to protect legitimate protest—specifically, the requirement for a serious offence to also be committed.

The bill describes three serious offences. The first is when a person discharges from a ship explosive, radioactive, biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons that cause the death of any person or serious injury. The second is when a person discharges from a ship oil, liquefied natural gas, or other hazardous or noxious substances that cause the death of a person or serious injury. The third type of harm is when a person uses a ship in a manner that causes death or serious injury or damage. I think that we can see the requirement for a concomitant serious offence—one that causes death or serious injury—significantly raises the bar above what we would consider a legitimate protest. Even so, there are two further protection measures.

The third measure I would describe is that clause 21 in the bill requires the Attorney-General’s consent to any prosecution under this bill. The final protection—and we had 79 submitters who recommended this—is, as the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs has mentioned, the avoidance-of-doubt clause. This is a clause similar to that in the Terrorism Suppression Act. Officials actually advised us that there were clear differences between the two—a very specific description of offences in this bill, compared with the Terrorism Suppression Act. However, it was considered possible to include an avoidance-of-doubt clause. This would not confuse the bill or compromise consistency with our international protocols. So the addition now reads to the effect that “the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring” that the person is carrying out an act or an offence. So I think the committee landed on a very good set of safety measures to reassure the public that legitimate protest is still preserved under this bill.

The second point that received a large number of submissions was around clarification of “serious injury or damage”. Eighty submitters had concerns around the openness of the wording “serious injury or damage” and were looking to use definitions in the Terrorism Suppression Act (TSA). The committee decided against this for several reasons. A prime reason was that the existing descriptions in article 2 of the 2005 Rome convention were already quite a high bar to reach as they describe serious injury. They include: serious bodily injury to people; extensive destruction resulting in major economic loss of a place of public use, a State or Government facility, an infrastructure facility, or public transportation system; or substantial damage to the environment—that is, air, soil, water, animals, or plants. Furthermore, trying to utilise the TSA definition would conflict with and compromise the articles that we are signing up to in the Rome convention.

The final point I will mention had the attention of 50 submitters and it was around the difference between threatening to undertake an act and actually committing an offence. A number of submitters were concerned that the penalty was the same for threatening to undertake an act as actually committing it. The committee, however, thought this was the correct positioning as it currently reads in the bill, and, furthermore, this position is required by international protocols and is consistent with the Terrorism Suppression Act.

So, in summary, on the issue of greatest concern—legitimate protest—the bar was already very high for this to be an offence, but the committee did add an avoidance-of-doubt clause to further clarify the intent. I think this is another good example of committee processes responding to good submissions and making changes for the better. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to take a call on this piece of legislation. It is an important piece of legislation because it is part of a suite of anti-terrorism legislation that joins other statutes on our book, and I think that we in this House always have to exercise caution when we are putting in place legislation that targets crimes of a political nature. As such, the terms have to be carefully defined and carefully drafted to avoid potentially criminalising forms of political activism, especially those that involve protest or non-violent direct action.

I think that this piece of legislation we have sitting in front of us in the House today has benefited very much from the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I would like to acknowledge that the speaker before me, Shane Reti, did make that point. We received over 150 submissions on this piece of legislation, many of them incredibly detailed. The submitters had worked through this bill with a great deal of care and diligence as to the seriousness of the legislation that we were putting in place. One hundred and forty-five of the submissions that we heard at the select committee did not support the legislation in the form it was in at the committee. The concerns were remarkably similar amongst the submitters, from grassroots activists through to the Law Society. Their concerns were around the issue of whether or not we would capture legitimate political protest or industrial action under a piece of legislation that was never intended to capture those activities, and I think that the work we have been able to do through the committee has improved that for the better.

Sitting alongside this need for us as legislators to exercise absolute care in drafting, so that we did not delegitimise legitimate activity, were our international obligations under the Rome protocols, which previous speakers have outlined. The issue that we had to look at was how the bill aligned with other pieces of legislation that have been, reasonably recently, enacted in this House and are around the suppression and control of terrorism in this country. The suggestion that many submitters made—that we align the definition of “terrorism” with that in some of those other pieces of legislation—was not going to fit in this case. Although it seemed on face value like a very good suggestion from many of the submitters, when we looked at the detail of what we needed to do around this under the Rome protocol, it was not something that was going to be able to fit. What we were able to do—and I am sure this will be debated more fully when we come to the Committee stage of this bill—was actually remove some of the words that were problematic, and, instead of using just the word “terrorism”, be a bit more detailed around what is actually meant by it.

But, fundamentally, the biggest change that we were able to make as a committee—and what for submitters was absolutely a bottom line that had to happen in this legislation, and what for us in the Labour Party too was a bottom line that needed to be cleared up—was around the avoidance of doubt. We needed to make sure that we were not going to capture legitimate activity. There was a very clear line that needed to be drawn: we needed to make sure that legitimate protest action was still allowed. We needed to ensure that we could still have the flotillas of the 1980s, which many in this country are rightly proud of in terms of what our national identity is about—that that kind of activity was not going to be supressed by this legislation. That was something that many of the submitters who came to the select committee shared their experiences about: being part of the flotillas of the 1980s that protested and made sure we could become a nuclear-free New Zealand. I think that for me, as someone sitting there listening to people who had been involved in that, it was something we had to listen to very carefully.

Personally for me, having that avoidance of doubt was incredibly important, as was setting the threshold for what constituted an offence under this Act. That is because, as well as defining that threshold, powers are given under this piece of legislation in terms of seizure and the right to board a ship. Many powers are triggered, and we needed to decide exactly what the threshold was over which these powers should be triggered. When should we treat something as an act of terrorism? Is it when any damage is caused, or is there a different threshold? When is it that what is normally used in the statute book around damage, or the civil kind of law that we would normally apply—when would that stop and the provisions of a much more pronounced regime come into effect?

These were really interesting questions for the select committee to consider. I would actually like to thank the members of the select committee from right across the House, who did take the time to think through what were quite difficult concepts so that we could come through with some solutions to those questions, so that we could ensure that we put in place a piece of legislation that did not capture things that were never intended to be captured under this legislation.

I think that when we come to the Committee stage, we need to look at some of the consequential amendments that come through too. It is a very technical piece of legislation around definitions, but embedded in it is a fundamental piece of our national identity that is something we and legislators in this House always have to hold true to: our citizens in our country have the right to protest. Citizens in our country have rights to protest in industrial action disputes, and we should not be legislating away those rights when we put in place anti-terrorism legislation.

I am happy to take a call to say that Labour is satisfied that we have managed to make enough changes at the select committee so that we are not going to do those very fundamental things that we would never want our anti-terrorism legislation to do, and at the same time we have managed to put in place protections against legitimate terrorist threats. That is something that everyone in this House also wants to do, and we need to ensure that that is there and that we are fulfilling our obligations under international treaties. I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

I thank the previous speaker, Megan Woods, for the details she was able to give on this Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, upon reflection on its time in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I do not have the privilege of having spent time in the select committee on this, so I am going to, of necessity, keep at the higher level of what this select committee process has managed to achieve.

This bill is about strengthening New Zealand’s ability to deter and react decisively to terrorism. What I have noted from reading about what occurred at the select committee is that because this is, regrettably—well, not regrettably. It is good that it is pretty new territory for New Zealand to have to come to terms with this. We are meeting our obligations under a number of international treaties in bringing this legislation before the House, but I have noted that the select committee and other members present in the House tonight, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, have talked about the changes that the select committee made, and that, to me, had a real feel of New Zealand evolving. So a bill is presented to the select committee and the select committee does exactly what its purpose is, which is to evolve that bill into something that meets the needs of New Zealand right now.

This, I am told, is about the four pillars of the UN counter-terrorism strategy, and it is in the interests of all countries to play their part. New Zealand cannot think that we are a world apart from the rest of the world and that we do not have to deal with this, because, most definitely, we are subject to the need to play our role in strengthening the fight against terrorism and making sure that we make the same observances of potential terrorism and put in place the sorts of measures that will actually address it and play a global role. You know, we are pretty good as a global citizen, New Zealand. We were an inaugural member of the UN Security Council, and, as everyone in this House will know, we have recently served a term on the Security Council—I believe with distinction, as well.

We are 4.5 million people separated by a lot of salt water from other parts of the world, but, in fact, we only have to look not too far from us to see terrorism in action and know that there is potential for it to affect us or for us to become a pawn in the game of terrorism, which means that this particular legislation is so important. That is what we call our global responsibilities, and New Zealand does not shirk those.

The world is facing all sorts of threats. One of the biggest challenges is that a lot of them are not visible. We have to protect ourselves before we see them coming, and some of them are not even in the imagination of the likes of our agencies. So this bill is putting in place our obligations to international treaties and, at the same time, trying to play our role in the world. It is a very important bill that I have enjoyed getting to know a little better both here in the House tonight and by reading more about the deliberations of the select committee. I commend the bill to the House.

The Green Party’s concerns about the original draft of this bill have been addressed in the course of the submissions and its redrafting. We had supported the 2005 protocols that underpin the bill, as they are consistent with the Greens’ principle of non-violence. But we were concerned about the potential for the new law to designate legitimate protest groups, perhaps, as terrorists. Our concern was that legitimate maritime protest activity with a motive of trying to influence the Government might be unintentionally caught under this bill. But the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, therefore, has recommended, in response to submissions and our own concerns, to make it clear that the bill does not intend this and that an avoidance-of-doubt clause will be inserted, specifying that a peaceful act of protest or industrial action would not by itself be a sufficient basis for criminal liability under the Maritime Crimes Act.

Some submitters were concerned, also, that the scope of terrorism offences in the bill, as introduced, could be seen as too broad. So the committee considered developing a narrow definition of the term “terrorism”. In fact, it became clear that the bill does not define the term, and nor is the term used in any of the offences identified in the bill. The term “terrorism” is used elsewhere in the bill, so in order to address the concerns of the submitters, the committee recommends deleting the term “terrorism” from the bill completely. The bill would, therefore, simply identify the offences as defined, but not relate them explicitly, or in this legislation, to the concept of terrorism.

We were, therefore, satisfied with what turned out to be, in our view, a very constructive process of submissions and consideration and deliberation of this bill. On the basis of the recommendations of the committee, the Green Party can support the bill, provided the House agrees with the committee’s views.

As we all know, New Zealand is surrounded by vast oceans, which—to quote Shakespeare—“serves it in the office of a wall”, and yet even those vast oceans would not be enough in this day and age to prevent acts of marine terrorism. So we in New Zealand First are glad to see this bill finally coming back to the House for consideration, because this is a very important matter that does need quite urgent attention. New Zealand needs robust laws to deal with it, while at the same time making sure that we do not compromise the valuable right to protest that people may wish to exercise in the marine environment for one reason or another. We think that the bill actually succeeds in that balance, both providing a robust legal system to prevent or reduce acts of marine terrorism and promoting, and in fact preserving, the right to protest that I spoke of.

I see that the bill actually implements the two 2005 marine counter-terrorism treaties, the Protocol of 2005 to the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the similar Protocol of 2005 to the Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. Having read through the bill in some detail, we in New Zealand First approve of the new offences to implement the offences created by those protocols. They have been a long time coming, but I suppose it is better late than never.

They relate to the use of ships or fixed platforms for terrorist acts and include—and I will list the ones that I think are the most important—the carriage of any radioactive material or biological or chemical material that could be used or could enable threats of use. Those are covered in some detail, which we are pleased about. The carriage of nuclear waste in circumstances in which there is a danger or threat might be, in fact, quite relevant to New Zealand, and that is covered.

Likewise, the carriage of a nuclear weapon in a manner that is likely to cause death or cause serious injury, or for the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act—that would also be covered. That is actually quite consistent with New Zealand’s anti-nuclear stance, and, apart from that, it is a very sensible piece of legislation, and it is a wonder that we did not already have provisions for prosecutions of that in New Zealand.

I am also pleased to see the one that deals with the illicit trafficking by ship of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related material—a bit unlikely in and around New Zealand, I guess, but still a good provision to have. Another important one for New Zealand is the transportation of fugitives by ship, where the person assisting knows that the person being transported has committed an offence in relation to terrorism. That is one that could actually be quite relevant for us, and it is good to see that covered, as well.

Another important provision in the bill is the one that clarifies the law as far as the maritime boarding regime is concerned so that maritime officers will know what they are entitled to do and what they are not. We have seen some examples of that doubt when one of our ships—some time ago now—was involved in a chase in the oceans around Antarctica of a foreign vessel that had been, I think, acting illegally, and a chase ensued. I think there was some discussion in the news media and amongst others about what the rights of our officers on board our ship might be if a boarding was to be undertaken, so it is good to see that covered as well. In the same way, the extraterritorial jurisdiction is clarified as well, to make sure that New Zealand does claim and has jurisdiction over New Zealand ships in the maritime environment, where that is relevant under the Act.

I am also glad to see, however, that the Attorney-General is required to consent if there is going to be a prosecution. I think that that is very important. On the one hand, New Zealand First does not see how the bill could potentially cover the actions of protesters, such as an environmental group, unless they were to go so far as to create a threat of the kind covered in the bill. That seems, to me, highly unlikely, so if they stick to protests they should not have a problem, because they would not seek to be “compelling a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act”. However, it is important that the Attorney-General be required to consent to a prosecution in those circumstances, because there may need to be a judgment made about how far a protest can go before it would infringe the bill.

I am also very pleased to see the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee’s addition of new section 3B in clause 7, which I think I have time to quote. It says this: “To avoid doubt, the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that the person—(a) is carrying out an act for a purpose, or with an intention, specified in any offence in this Act; or (b) intends to cause an outcome specified in any offence in this Act.” I think that does clarify the matter quite well.

I am a little bit amused by the committee’s avoidance of the word “terrorism”. I think that that is a little bit strange, since it did not change anything at all. However, it is a minor matter, and it would not stop New Zealand First from approving of the bill. I also have no issues with the committee’s changes concerning the term “serious injury or serious damage”, and the term “intentionally”. I think that it has done a pretty good job.

This is a necessary bill, even though it has been brought forward far too late, but it is a good bill, and New Zealand First will be very pleased to vote in favour.

It is a pleasure to speak on this particular bill. The way in which the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee went about its duties in considering this bill has already been canvassed many times in the speeches. I have to say that in the 6 years that I have been here, I have found the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to be the committee that seems to work the best—both sides of the committee. It is the most collegial of the committees that I have been on to date, and I think this bill demonstrates how well the committee has been working.

We received about 150 submissions on the bill. It is fair to say, also, that the vast bulk of what we received submissions on, and what we worked on, and the product of that work, can be found on pages 6 and 7 of the bill. Many of those who submitted were concerned about the use of the word “terrorism” in the bill, and they were concerned about the possibility, in their view, of potentially being found guilty of an offence against the Maritime Crimes Act if they were protesting legitimately. I did chuckle a little bit about the fact that many of the submitters that we had before us on this bill who were concerned about protest action had also submitted only a few months previously on the Trans-Pacific Partnership legislation—also in opposition—but they legitimately had some points to raise.

As other members have pointed out, we did make some changes to the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, particularly the avoidance-of-doubt clause, which goes in there in clause 3B, so that when an individual is protesting for legitimate reasons, is not causing any damage, and is not leading to any situations where they are causing an offence under this bill—we wanted to specifically outline that that protest action is something that would not be an offence under this bill.

We also modified some of the wording around offences relating to ships. There was a concern that if somebody were to get themselves into a situation where they caused damage to a ship, that damage, without the word “serious” before it, could lead them to a situation where they would be found guilty of an offence that carries a maximum imprisonment term of 14 years. That 14-year imprisonment term certainly indicates that we should be ensuring that it is serious damage and serious injury, which are the crimes that we want to have prosecuted, if people are to engage in them. So we inserted the word “serious” before the word “damage” to clarify that it is serious damage that is being targeted here.

That is, essentially, what the committee did most of its work on. The bill implements some changes to the Maritime Crimes Act to bring us in line with conventions and protocols that we signed up to approximately a decade ago. Possibly, we have could have done this earlier, but we are doing it now. The bill makes some sensible changes. The select committee considered it well. I think we reached a point with those concerned that we may be unfairly targeting them through some wording in a bill that may not have been completely right. We have found a halfway house that satisfies them, and also ensures that we comply with the protocols and the conventions. I think we have reached a good point.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Greens are supporting the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill. My colleague Dr Kennedy Graham has outlined that our initial concerns have been subdued. From what I hear, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has worked very hard to ensure that we have balanced the freedoms involved in passing such legislation. I probably want to focus on the submissions. I think it has been stated that there were over 150 submissions, I think 140—the majority—of which were concerned about getting the balance of these freedoms right.

This Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill is to enable us to be on course with international counter-terrorism treaties. We wanted to ensure, I am proud to say, that as New Zealanders we balance the freedoms of safety and security—and the freedom of life, of course—with the freedom of association, the freedom of movement, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of dissent, conscience, and thought. Balancing these freedoms is important, particularly in light of a populist global narrative that seeks to shut down legitimate global movement. As we see the rise of that shutdown of legitimate global movement, I am quite proud of what I am hearing from the select committee in ensuring that we are not knee-jerking to that populist response. So, go us!

I want to thank the New Zealand community for the submissions and for making sure that it is keeping this House on its toes to balance those freedoms. As has been said earlier, one person’s terrorism or even protest can be a whole iwi’s act of kaitiakitanga. If we are recalling the whānau members of the East Coast, who were peacefully protesting in an action of upholding their sovereign guardian responsibilities to protect their food cupboard and their taonga tupuna tuku iho moana [treasure in regards to the sea that was handed down] from the risks of deep-sea oil drilling, and to protect our climate, we need to make sure that we understand who gets the power to define what terrorism is, who gets the power to define what legal is, who gets the power to define even what protest is, and who gets to uphold what actions of kaitiaki are. I want to thank the submitters for understanding that and for making sure that we uphold that.

This is a bill that we support, because at the core of Green Party kaupapa is our commitment to peace, particularly our commitment to peace through justice. In closing, what I want to focus on is: yes, this seems like a sensible bill that the select committee has worked on to ensure that we have got the balance of freedoms right. But the Green Party is very clear that the real counter-terrorism strategies are not so much in punitive legislation; they are actually through the narrative and the ongoing discussion to reach peace through justice, through the fair distribution of power, through the devolution of unelected corporate powers holding influence over governments, through the fair distribution of resources, through the just management of our living systems, and through the validation of sovereign independence for those nations and communities that have been oppressed and in the return of their control of their assets, their water, and their lands. That is the real counter-terrorism strategy.

I am here tonight on the second reading to acknowledge the many submitters who understand that and who are keeping us to account. We will support this in the meantime, but what will really keep us safe is the ongoing discussion of justice. Kia ora.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House is only a minute away from coming to its normal conclusion. I move that the House be suspended—I think that is the right word—for the evening.

The member will resume her seat. She is not a Minister and she cannot move that motion.

I want to respond to the question, perhaps rhetorical, posed by the member who has resumed her seat, Marama Davidson. This House has the kāwanatanga to define what is terrorism and what is legal. We are doing so in this bill, and it is a good bill.

Is the member finished? Right. The debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. It is time for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.