Duynhoven Harry: Maritime Security Bill — Second Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Maritime Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12030] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maritime Security Bill be now read a second time 
. The purpose of this bill is to establish in New Zealand a maritime security framework to detect security threats and take preventive measures against security incidents affecting ships or port facilities that serve New Zealand’s international trade. Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001 New Zealand and the rest of the world has faced an increased global risk. The Government recognises that New Zealand’s relative geographical isolation does not provide immunity from the threat of terrorism. Historically the international maritime sector has not been as well advanced in respect of security systems as the aviation sector. To its credit however the International Maritime Organization responded quickly to September 11 and it took just over a year of intense work over 100 countries to develop and reach agreement on a detailed comprehensive and workable framework for international maritime security. 
The International Maritime Organization adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and the security-related amendments to the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea which is known as “SOLAS”. As a contracting party to the convention New Zealand is required to enact legislation to put the International Maritime Organization’s new maritime security framework in place. This new framework requires ships and port facilities to approach security with an increased level of seriousness to develop expertise to assess the security status of their operations and to come up with an auditable plan to manage security risks. 
Ship and port facility operators will be required to undertake security risk assessments. The purpose of the assessment is to identify what the security risks and vulnerabilities are for that particular port or ship and to form the basis upon which to develop appropriate security plans to reduce the risks. 
The Government Administration Committee considered this bill and has submitted its commentary to the House. The committee recommended that the bill be passed with the amendments proposed. I would particularly like to thank the committee for the priority that it has given the bill and for the improvements it has made to the bill since it was introduced. 
The International Maritime Organization agreed that the new maritime security regime should come into force on 1 July 2004. This is a tight deadline but the precedence given to the bill by the committee will ensure that we stay on target for meeting that 1 July deadline. 
I would also like to thank everyone who made submissions on the bill. The committee received 13 of them. Submitters tended to support the overall intent of the bill. They recognised the importance of New Zealand being part of a multinational effort to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks on ships or port facilities. Many of the submitters were also aware of the consequences for New Zealand’s overseas trade of failing to comply with the international requirements. In general the submissions did not seek any major changes but sought to clarify further the approach taken in the bill. 
I would like to address briefly some of the more important issues raised by submitters. Part 3 seeks to prevent the unauthorised introduction to ships in ports of weapons and other dangerous items. It contains the power to undertake in certain circumstances screening and searching of any person or anything in a designated port security area. The inclusion of the provisions relating to the screening and searching powers is essentially to future-proof the legislation so that it contains the ability to implement such measures should the need for them ever be established. 
The select committee has recommended that section 43 in part 3 be amended to remove port facility operators from the list of possible maritime security organisations. This is a sensible amendment. Several submitters were concerned that employees of or contractors to a port facility operator may be able to screen search and detain their fellow employees. The inclusion of port facility operators as maritime security organisations in the bill was to enable the system to respond quickly should a threat arise. However given the considerable powers provided for in Part 3 and the need for those powers to be exercised appropriately the committee has recommended that only Government employees should be able to exercise those powers. 
Several submitters also expressed concerns that the bill could unduly restrict legitimate demonstrations protests or strikes. That is not the intention of the bill. However a consequence of the ship and port facility security plans is that at times there may be areas as there are now where protest is not possible. Clarity was needed to allay the concerns of some of the submitters. Therefore the committee has recommended that a definition of “suspicious act” be added to the bill to make it explicit that the definition of “security incident” does not include lawful demonstration protest and strike. 
Several submitters raised the issue of costs resulting from the new international regime. The Government is acutely aware of industry concerns and every effort has been made to reduce the cost of implementing the new regime. Close cooperation between industry and the Maritime Safety Authority in the development of the regime has gone a long way to ensuring that costs are kept down and are related directly to the findings of the separate ship and port facility assessments. 
A number of submissions proposed that the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea position of “company security officer” should be defined in the bill along with the associated duties and responsibilities that relate primarily to oversight administration and management. The select committee has not seen fit to accept that proposal. Most international voyages to New Zealand ports are from foreign-flag vessels. Thus most companies’ security officers will be domiciled overseas. This being so it was not deemed appropriate to have such officers as the first and primary points of contact for the New Zealand authorities and port facility officers. Clearly communication with a vessel that is either at a New Zealand port facility or has signalled its intention to soon enter a New Zealand port is best made with someone on board the vessel. Further it would be very difficult to enforce the bill against those people who are domiciled overseas. The bill makes the master who is responsible after all for the safety and security of the ship and who will obviously be on board the ship the primary contact point. 
The duties and responsibilities associated with the position of company security officer will be set out in regulations as will the other mandatory provisions of the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea that have not been included in the enabling bill. 
The Maritime Security Bill is one of three pieces of legislation this Government has introduced to safeguard New Zealand from terrorism and transnational crime and to keep our trade and tourist markets secure. I am pleased that the Government Administration Committee considered the Maritime Security Bill alongside the Border Security Bill. Both those pieces of legislation affect ship and port facility operators. The committee has been mindful to avoid duplication between the two pieces of legislation and a number of mostly minor technical amendments have arisen since the committee considered the bill. Therefore I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper to incorporate those amendments to improve the workability of the bill. 
Given the increased global terrorist risk the bill is intended to address gaps in current maritime security and is a vital step towards ensuring that our ports and the ships visiting them are well protected. I commend this bill as reported back from the Government Administration Committee to the House.