Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak to the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill the purpose of which is to align our legislation with the 2005 Rome convention—the Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee had 150 submissions and the main concerns were I think in three areas. First of all legitimate protest had by far and away the most submissions; there were 83. Secondly a clarification of the phrase serious injury or damage" received 80 submissions. Thirdly clarification around threatening versus actual offending received 50 submissions. I would like to talk to each of these one at a time.At least half of the submitters were concerned that legitimate protest activity could be caught up in the clause that describes "compelling a government … to abstain from doing any act" as an offence. The committee clarified and resolved four responses to address this very legitimate concern. The first response to that is that the legislation has been vetted by the Attorney-General as being consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The second response to this concern is that one of the clauses retained was indeed "compelling a government … to abstain from doing any act" and that needs to be consistent with the 2005 protocol but there are other safety measures put in place to protect legitimate protest—specifically the requirement for a serious offence to also be committed.The bill describes three serious offences. The first is when a person discharges from a ship explosive radioactive biological chemical or nuclear weapons that cause the death of any person or serious injury. The second is when a person discharges from a ship oil liquefied natural gas or other hazardous or noxious substances that cause the death of a person or serious injury. The third type of harm is when a person uses a ship in a manner that causes death or serious injury or damage. I think that we can see the requirement for a concomitant serious offence—one that causes death or serious injury—significantly raises the bar above what we would consider a legitimate protest. Even so there are two further protection measures.The third measure I would describe is that clause 21 in the bill requires the Attorney-General's consent to any prosecution under this bill. The final protection—and we had 79 submitters who recommended this—is as the Minister of Veterans' Affairs has mentioned the avoidance-of-doubt clause. This is a clause similar to that in the Terrorism Suppression Act. Officials actually advised us that there were clear differences between the two—a very specific description of offences in this bill compared with the Terrorism Suppression Act. However it was considered possible to include an avoidance-of-doubt clause. This would not confuse the bill or compromise consistency with our international protocols. So the addition now reads to the effect that "the fact that a person engages in any protest advocacy or dissent or engages in any strike lockout or other industrial action is not by itself a sufficient basis for inferring" that the person is carrying out an act or an offence. So I think the committee landed on a very good set of safety measures to reassure the public that legitimate protest is still preserved under this bill.The second point that received a large number of submissions was around clarification of "serious injury or damage". Eighty submitters had concerns around the openness of the wording "serious injury or damage" and were looking to use definitions in the Terrorism Suppression Act (TSA). The committee decided against this for several reasons. A prime reason was that the existing descriptions in article 2 of the 2005 Rome convention were already quite a high bar to reach as they describe serious injury. They include: serious bodily injury to people; extensive destruction resulting in major economic loss of a place of public use a State or Government facility an infrastructure facility or public transportation system; or substantial damage to the environment—that is air soil water animals or plants. Furthermore trying to utilise the TSA definition would conflict with and compromise the articles that we are signing up to in the Rome convention.The final point I will mention had the attention of 50 submitters and it was around the difference between threatening to undertake an act and actually committing an offence. A number of submitters were concerned that the penalty was the same for threatening to undertake an act as actually committing it. The committee however thought this was the correct positioning as it currently reads in the bill and furthermore this position is required by international protocols and is consistent with the Terrorism Suppression Act.So in summary on the issue of greatest concern—legitimate protest—the bar was already very high for this to be an offence but the committee did add an avoidance-of-doubt clause to further clarify the intent. I think this is another good example of committee processes responding to good submissions and making changes for the better. With that I commend this bill to the House."