Mapp Wayne: Maritime Security Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Maritime Security Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8571] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 National will support this bill going to the select committee because it is obvious that in a time of heightened risk and danger we have to be vigilant. But just this week there was another maritime issue that the Government absented itself from. It actually betrayed 11 nations that are diligently trying to search for weapons of mass destruction on the high seas and that have entered into an agreement to do so. 
Members will be interested to know that those countries include the United States Australia Britain Italy Japan Poland and Spain. The Government may say that that is just the same group that is also supporting Iraq but if we look at who else is in that list we see France Germany and the Netherlands there. Are those not the countries that the Prime Minister was referring to— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And Japan. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: and Japan—as a new nexus and as an interesting relationship with links to Russia and China? Yet New Zealand is not there. 
It is extraordinary that when we have the serious issue of intercepting weapons of mass destruction New Zealand is not there. It is missing in action. New Zealand cannot be bothered; it is not onside. It is all very well for the Minister to present this bill to the House with all of its detailed provisions but when countries are working together to detect weapons of mass destruction— 
John Key 
: Hand in hand. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —hand in hand we are simply not there but are missing in action. 
Just recently last week I went to Japan and South Korea. I talked to members of the Japanese Government and said to them that New Zealand had an interest in dealing with nuclear weapons. I said we wanted to see the end of nuclear weapons and I asked them about linking together the three Southern Hemisphere nuclear weapons conventions: the Treaty of Rarotonga the South American treaty and the one for Africa. Do members know what their response was? Their response was that the trouble with that was that New Zealand does not get along with Japan’s friends and allies. So Japan has drawn its own conclusions about New Zealand because of our relationship with the United States. 
Just this July Prime Minister Howard visited Japan and during that trip the Japanese Government and the Australian Government entered into an agreement about trade liberalisation across all sectors. That agreement between Australia and Japan could lead to a free-trade agreement. But New Zealand has only a sector agreement with Japan—narrow and tight and about tourism education timber and things like that—which could not possibly lead to a free-trade agreement. So we are viewed by Japan through the prism of the Government’s bad relationship with the United States. The Government may get up and say it is helping in the war against terrorism is entering into the conventions and has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me tell the House that the reality is— 
John Key 
: Too late. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It is too late as my colleague Mr Key says and other countries know that. So our first trading partner Australia our second trading partner the United States and our third trading partner Japan are all saying: “Um gosh. We can’t trust those funny little people in New Zealand. We can’t work with them. They are off side.” Once again the Government proved that fact by not entering into an agreement in our own region—the Pacific—about North Korea where we cannot get alongside Australia the United States Britain and Japan and also the Government’s own friends France Germany and the Netherlands. 
So when I read a bill like this with all its laudable aims I have to look at the bigger picture here which tells me that we are out of the loop missing in action and that the later decisions—the afterthought decisions—about Iraq and Afghanistan do not actually count. A few months ago Mr Mark for instance said that the Government was trying to buy favour with the United States by using the bodies of our troops. But even that is not working; it does not cut the mustard. Even that craven attempt by the Government does not work. At once that tells us that the issue is fundamentally about beliefs. It is about fundamental values and action. That is what countries are measuring—not the later actions when we look as though we are trying to curry favour but where we stand in terms of our beliefs. 
When it comes to the crunch the Government is simply not willing to make the key decisions that would put us alongside not just a narrow group of countries but a much broader group. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Which one? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Let me go through the countries again. Our first trading partner is Australia our second is the United States and our third is Japan. Each and every one of those countries is saying to us that we are not onside with it and that we are not doing the actions that would matter. So we are not in free-trade agreements and discussions with the United States or Japan. We do not have a hope of being in those. 
What is more we are leaving it to Australia to make all the running in the South Pacific because even there we have abandoned any pretence of leadership. Mr Goff had a phone call just a few weeks ago from Mr Downer who said he thought Mr Goff had said we would send 200 troops not the 100 that we sent to the Solomons. When Mr Downer asked where the other hundred troops were Mr Goff said he was sorry and that he would have to actually send them. That is not the way to make a decent relationship. Why are we always on the back foot? I ask the senior Government whip why we are always on the back foot. Why cannot the Government take some initiatives that deal with our relationships and get them driving forward so that we can make some realistic moves. 
I also want to refer to the issue of the costs of this bill. I note that the costs are quite substantial and that the annual operating costs for port facility operators will be $75000 for each and every port. 
That cost will be loaded on to cargo owners but the Minister did not say how clause 50 will operate. That clause deals with the inspection regime. The Minister said that the regime at our ports will be the same as that at our airports and he is right. As every member knows there is a very vigorous surveillance and monitoring situation for cargo at airports—and for people. This bill enables a similar situation to occur at our ports. The United States is already X-raying at huge cost virtually every container. This bill allows that also. I predict that there will be substantial extra costs not borne by the general taxpayer but imposed by the Government for our overall benefit. We would think those costs would therefore be borne by the overall community but they are in fact to be borne by the port operators the shipping companies and obviously indirectly by the importers. 
I have to ask where the reasonable balance is. When what is essentially a cost for the benefit of the community as a whole is imposed then at the very least we would expect some sort of reasonable sharing of that cost between the operators of the facility and the community. That has occurred with regard to airports but it does not seem to have occurred in this bill. So I signal that during the select committee process National will be vigilant in looking at the total extent of the potential cost of this legislation.