Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): 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."