Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 62 to 78, “Consequential amendments”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I understand that, in Part 2, we’re looking at some of the consequential amendments, and I think the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries covered some parts of that in terms of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, in terms of the “Schedule amended”.

Now, I know that there are certain parts of Part 1 that talk about the operational elements of this, but I guess I’m curious to hear from the Minister—and, again, this is coming from a position, broadly, of ignorance in terms of this area—when we are looking at inspections etc., what sort of ability is there for a vessel to appeal when they feel like they are being searched inappropriately. For example, I know that, in certain parts of Part 1, it talks about certain areas that shouldn’t be searched. We are seeing under the “Schedule amended”—this is clause 63—that there are certain sections that are exempted in terms of searching. But, yeah, I want to know: is there a possibility for an appeal process? Is there a possibility for a review process as a part of that general search? Thank you.

A very quick response. Members of the committee, I want you to contemplate how rugged the conditions are on a number of these vessels that may or may not attract the attention of our officials. You are literally thousands of kilometres, in some cases, away from the nearest port. One of our new aircraft may have found something, as a consequence of electronic monitoring, that requires further investigation. They fly over. They then report this. It may come to pass that there’s a naval vessel not too far away, or a Kiwi-authorised person on another vessel operating out in the Pacific Islands.

This particular legislation gives clear authority to these benighted souls who have taken on this role, to go on these largely Asian-owned vessels and check that their conduct is consistent with the rules and obligations of operating on the high seas. It is a perilous and dangerous job, both for the people condemned to work months on end on these small vessels or, indeed, for our officers. This bill clearly identifies what they are able to do and how intrusive the search can be. But most of the time, these vessels are not Kiwi vessels; they derive their authority through a foreign flag. It may not come as a surprise to you that a lot of the foreign nations may very well resent this intrusiveness, so judgment will be required, but there will be clear authority for our people to undertake these roles.

Thank you very much, Minister. Further to that question on the right of officers to inspect, enter living quarters, and conduct remote search—particularly, entering living quarters—there were questions on the committee around New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues, in terms of earlier parts of the bill as well, but also around this. What is your confidence and what gives you certainty that there are no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues with, for example, entering the private quarters of somebody living in—and I concur—at times pretty miserable conditions on some of these vessels at sea? It has been well documented, the slave-like conditions that some fishers are suffering on vessels in the Pacific and other parts of the world, but I wonder what consideration was given by you to the rights impact of fisheries officers being able to enter and board vessels in this manner. Thank you.

So, folks, for the legions of Kiwis following this fascinating debate, we’re on Part 2, “Consequential amendments”; we’re on clause 63, “Schedule amended”; and we’re referring to items 113UB and 113UC. I direct the member Steve Abel’s attention to the fact that these powers are conferred under the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act has a range of provisions already within that statute, originally passed—if I’m not mistaken—in the mid-1990s. I’m confident that there will be no rogue operators exercising these powers, because these powers are now being embedded in a parent statute that already places limits on the capacity of the State to career around and make people’s lives misery. The exercise of these powers is likely to happen when a vessel comes into a port. It can possibly happen on the high seas, but it is likely to be the case when they’re in a port like Majuro, when they’re at port in the Kiribati islands, or possibly when they’re in Honiara itself—this is where we imagine a lot of these checks, after surveillance detects untoward behaviour takes place.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, I really appreciate the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries’ responses, and I also appreciate the Minister sharing his expertise on this particular topic.

I want to check, again, on this particular part—and feel free to give me very short answers—does the primary Act in terms of that, when it comes to search and surveillance, also cover, for example, if the official, let’s say in high seas or even potentially in a port, rather than seeing evidence of illegal fishing, sees elements of other potential crimes such as slavery or, even, human trafficking as a part of that search and seizure? How do they then manage this uncovering of some of those kinds of elements? Because, again, we’ve heard instances, and this is particularly rife from South-east Asia when it comes to evidence of modern slavery. Would the Minister be able to elucidate on whether the primary Act also clearly defines that when that search and seizure power does take place, they have to be on very specific areas and other areas that a person does notice will just have to be ignored or they are inadmissible as evidence because they’re not covered under the primary legislation.

I think, further to that, the other question I have is particularly—like the Minister said, I can only imagine the tough and rough situations that people do have when it comes to the high seas. So when something like this does happen in search and surveillance—and tempers do run high—is there any legal protection for any criminal offence that does take place in that regard as part of either this bill or the primary bill?

Yeah, so, obviously, New Zealand is a member to a variety of agreements, because we do stand against examples of international slavery in workplaces. Members may recall, 10 to 15 years ago, there were an egregious set of cases associated with Korean-flag vessels in New Zealand, so I don’t need to recite that history, but it should remind people in this committee that we have had a bit of experience in this regard.

I think it’s important to bear in mind that there is an international tribunal under the law of the sea, and if a foreign nation—or indeed our own nation—found that someone was creating problems, trying to obstruct and being unreasonable to our own flag vessels down there in the Ross Sea, we have the ability, as a nation owning the flag, to protest and to challenge such inspections. It’s inevitable, from time to time—whether it’s New Zealand working with the Pacific, which is obviously very topical—that could be the case. But there is a dispute resolution process, and that’s at the tribunal under the law of the sea.

I move, That debate on this question now close.