Brownlee Gerry; Mahuta NanaiaHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): When we concluded last night there were three questions that we hoped that the Minister would be prepared to answer. If you give me a moment Madam Chair I'll just find through here what those are and restate them so the Minister knows what they are.The first is will non-police personnel be restricted in the exercise of enforcement powers provided in the primary legislation that provides the limited enforcement powers they have? In other words will non-police staff be restricted in what they are able to do according to the Act that empowers them in the first place? So that's wildlife officers rangers—I'm not sure where defence would fit in that but the Minister might like to reflect on that.The second is will the enforcement officers in all cases have power to arrest but no power to execute a warrant? Clause 25A seems to refer to a constable" and of course the definitions make it clear that that's a constable in relation to the Police Act. So I'm just wanting to know what exactly the status for those people are.Third question is why does the agreement of the flag States—it's a fairly important question. Why does the agreement of the flag State for any vessel that might be subject to surveillance subject to pursuit subject to boarding have to be sought from the flag State before those actions can be undertaken—particularly if it's likely to be undertaken because it's believed that the particular vessel has been party to some transgression of either New Zealand or international law?Those are three questions that we would have to ask. So I said before the National Party is supporting the bill but we do have concerns about the range of powers being conferred upon a range of different persons known as enforcement officers who sit outside the normal policing-type enforcement that we understand in New Zealand.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): In relation to the question so we did make a note of the ones that the member that's just spoken identified as well as other questions. So I'll go through and respond to them.In relation to the existing powers of enforcement officers the bill confers powers to the Police Customs New Zealand Defence Force along with the Department of Conservation where an offence at issue is within their jurisdiction. Again these powers are comparable under existing legislation.However in terms of the limitation I note that the bill does not confer the power to carry weapons to all enforcement officers. It's only the police and the New Zealand Defence Force that are permitted to carry weapons. So I think that is the exception where there is an extension for a specific purpose of the existing powers.In relation to the flag State consent regime pursuant to international law the consent of the flag State is required to exercise powers in relation to foreign vessels except in certain limited situations. This is reflected in clause 12 of the bill which also sets out the limited situations where in accordance with international law flag State consent is not required to exercise powers. This includes where a foreign vessel is engaged in piracy or slavery.Clause 37 of the bill sets out the process for obtaining flag State consent. It provides that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade is responsible for obtaining consent of the flag State and this reflects that such requests are typically transacted through diplomatic channels. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has experience in both requesting and providing flag State consent to other States.On the issue of—and this was raised last night by the member—the reference to "aircraft" in the maritime bill. Clause 6 of the bill deals with situations where a foreign vessel commits an offence within New Zealand's maritime zone and then flees into international waters and New Zealand chooses to pursue it. As recognised by international law a ship or aircraft can be used to pursue an offending ship in that scenario and that's why there is a reference to "aircraft" in the bill.Then there was a further question in relation to the consenting powers of the Attorney-General. Clause 34 of the bill creates some offences necessary for the functioning of the bill such as threatening or intentionally obstructing an enforcement officer. In line with New Zealand's practice to require the Attorney-General's consent to prosecute extraterritorial offences clause 36 of the bill provides that the Attorney-General's consent is required to bring proceedings for these offences.A technical change was recommended during the select committee phase to clause 36 to make it clear that the Attorney-General's consent is not required to arrest a person or remand them in custody or on bail. This is important as it may be necessary to urgently arrest someone and remand them in custody before the Attorney-General's consent is received if the person is a flight risk or a danger to the public. That technical change is consistent with the approach of existing New Zealand legislation which is to require the Attorney-General's consent for proceedings to be brought for extraterritorial offences but allow powers to be exercised before that consent is received."