Mark RonHon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Look it's a pleasure to be able to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Maritime Powers Extension Bill. I know that—Brett Hudson: The old sea dog Ron Mark.Stuart Smith: Are the P-8s on the way Ron?Hon RON MARK: It was a good dinner was it? It shows. It's an interesting bill—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Yeah like your leader after lunch.Hon RON MARK: —because I know the reasons and the rationale behind the bill a bill that was put together under the Hon Chris Finlayson's Government—and he's obviously enjoyed dinner as well. I've got to say of young Mr Bidois knowing some of his family: it's good to see him here.It's an interesting bill and it doesn't surprise me that most of the focus in the debate thus far has been around what I would describe and New Zealand First would describe as the scourge of drug trafficking and the methodology by which international drug traffickers seek to get their wares into New Zealand. We know—the documentation and the papers are all very clear—that one of the reasons we're seeing an upswing in the illegal importation into New Zealand of illicit drugs and their precursors is because of the profitability. The National Party more than any party in this House understands the market forces or says it understands the market forces and if you look into that sort of philosophy it's easy to understand why drug barons drug lords drug traffickers see some lucrative gain to be harvested here in New Zealand by peddling their wares amongst our vulnerable.It's an easy argument to put up in support of this bill and New Zealand First supports that but as the Minister of Defence one of the things that concerns me is the fact that for this bill to have effect it needs an enabler. The enabler in this case is and always will be the Defence Force particularly the men and women in the navy and in the air force.Brett Hudson: Replace those Orions.Hon RON MARK: Mr Hudson I know—he's commenting to me across the House and that's because I know he understands maritime law. He's probably going to make a far better contribution on this bill than I will because I do not profess to be an expert in maritime law but I do know a little bit about the responsibilities that skippers captains of warships must bear and the responsibility of ensuring that their crew firstly themselves do not contravene international law; secondly that they do not jeopardise the safety of the vessel that they are in command of; and thirdly that they do not jeopardise the lives of their sailors of the service personnel on board in the execution of their duty. I understand also that there is a line of authority that exists between the customs officers who are placed on board those vessels—and let's be clear: the bill we're talking about empowers customs officers to exercise their authority but from a naval vessel. The lines of authority are very clear and set down in international law and it doesn't matter what the customs officer may think what sort of intelligence that person may have and what their aims or goals may be; the skipper of the vessel cannot breach the international laws of the sea.The reason that this piece of legislation is important is because it gives the power for the skipper of the naval vessel to actually put aboard or to—I think the naval term is to visit"—visit a foreign vessel that is believed to be engaged in illicit trafficking activities or illegal activities on a scale and a size that is recognised internationally and is specifically noted in the convention that this bill seeks to ratify.So as the Minister of Defence it concerns me that when we pass laws such as this we are cognisant of the duties and responsibilities that we're now asking our naval personnel in particular to exercise and that what they have is the full toolbox of law on their side to enable them to assist customs to (1) pull alongside (2) board or visit that foreign vessel (3) search it (4) detain the people on board and (5) at worst to confiscate—either take into tow or take command of—that vessel and return it back to New Zealand waters and to New Zealand authorities. Understanding the lines—and I'm really looking forward to the select committee looking into these questions to make sure that we've got it covered off right because this is a bill that started for all the right reasons under the previous National Government which this Government is responsibly picking up and advancing. So it will be encouraging for me as the Minister of Defence to know the select committee has cast its eyes across these questions of legality to make sure that our Defence Force personnel are not jeopardised and that they are not short-changed in terms of their powers. So I'm keen to see that.Essentially the key points that the law is going to address are the questions around the fact that the current international law doesn't provide for the right to visit vessels on the high seas—that is in international waters—that one suspects of smuggling drugs unless they have flag-State consent. This bill provides that if one does have consent or if the vessel doesn't have a flag—and I'll get into that—then one can not only board and take off the drugs but also prosecute under New Zealand law. This would require bringing the people to New Zealand which is another question again if that vessel has been apprehended let's say for argument's sake just outside of the Fijian exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or just outside of you know Vanuatu's EEZ or maybe off the coast of the Horn of Africa.So those are questions and we know from our operations that the navy's been engaged in to date that New Zealand Defence Force personnel particularly from our Royal New Zealand Navy have been involved in some massive drug busts. I think there was one—$235 million worth of drugs apprehended. Now that was not actually just an operation involving our navy. That involved air force capabilities as well which I guess brings me to the next point and I'd ask the House at this point in time as we pass this first reading to consider going forward what capabilities the Defence Force is going to require to do this sort of work. The combination of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance of a P3 or a P1 or a C Hercules or a P8 to do that sort of work concurrently with a naval frigate or an offshore patrol vessel on the water jointly staffed manned crewed by customs police and naval personnel is what actually delivers the punch at the end and actually enables us as a nation to protect ourselves. So we have to have a capability. We have to have a capability that can deploy over long ranges and have that level of endurance but we also must have the law that protects our personnel when they finally do make that decision.The point to note in here is that if the vessel we're talking about in this legislation is unflagged this law is quite clear: the skipper has the authority to put the customs police and his own crew aboard and to do what has to be done. Where the grey area is is when the vessel is flagged. At that point the communications have to come from the skipper back through joint force headquarters and then out to the flag nation where we are required to ask for consent to board. Now all things being equal if they're all signatories to this UN convention they're going to give that consent. The question then becomes a little murky if they do not. We know there are many nations out there who are not too good when it comes to the corruption indices who turn a blind eye to drug trafficking and we're seeing quite a bit of that on the news lately with a certain particular nation.So I'd just say to the House: I'm looking forward to this bill coming back from the select committee looking forward to the select committee giving some consideration to the legalities as they affect the navy as they affect our skippers who will be the ones held accountable for decisions that are made—either rightly or wrongly—as to whether or not there are gaps in the legislation or whether there are some things that we just have to accept where the legislation and the Treaty don't quite go as far as we might well have liked. Fundamentally at the end of the day this is about protecting our nation and it's about protecting our service personnel who will be doing this work."