Smith Murray: Maritime Security Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Murray: Maritime Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12035] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will support the second reading of the Maritime Security Bill. Coincidentally about this time last Thursday I spoke on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill and made the comment that very few of the bills that come before us are such that we must take account of international considerations and that it is important that we as a Parliament are in step with what is happening worldwide. That was one such bill and this is a second one. The Maritime Security Bill is one bill where we have to look continually at our obligations internationally and take account of what is happening there. I agreed with Ken Shirley when he said that we cannot take for granted the fact that we as a small country in the South Pacific sometimes feel a little protected by our isolation from world events. The fact of the matter is that we are not protected by isolation and there is always a risk—and obviously an increasing risk in terms of what has been happening in world events over the past few years—that New Zealand will become a target of terrorism. So our international obligations are very important. In particular New Zealand’s adoption of the requirements under the amendments to the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea and under the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code adopted by the International Maritime Organization in December 2002 is reflected in this bill and that is important. 
There is always a balance to be struck when it comes to what can be construed as fairly heavy-handed draconian measures. There is always a balance between freedom of expression for people and the commercial costs that will inevitably fall on businesses as against the need to protect our country from threats from without. I was very pleased to see in the commentary on the bill that the Government Administration Committee took full account of the need not to impose unduly onerous requirements and to preserve the liberties essential to New Zealand as a free and democratic society. I would like to express United Future’s thanks to the select committee—which I was not part of—in terms of the way it approached this bill. The committee sought to achieve a balance and United Future certainly feels that it succeeded in doing so. We are therefore very happy to support the provisions of the bill. 
I note that the Regulations Review Committee had concerns about the broad-ranging effect of clause 74 which gives the Minister the power to extend the scope of the bill simply by Order in Council and by ministerial gazettal of such decisions. I am aware that the Regulations Review Committee is concerned about the extent to which ministerial powers seem to effectively proscribe the rights of Parliament to make law and this is an example of that happening. It is important that it does not happen except in situations when it is truly justified. Therefore the select committee needed to closely look at that matter and it did so. There is certainly some justification for allowing the Minister considerable discretion because of the urgent and emergency situations that may arise and need to be addressed very promptly. 
I am pleased that the select committee has to some extent made some amendments to curb the powers contained in the bill as initially proposed. In particular the Minister’s notice in the  
Gazette 
 expires after 90 days and may be replaced by an Order in Council the bill is subject to the Regulations (Disallowance) Act any Order in Council made before 30 June in any year expires on 31 December of that year unless confirmed by an Act passed during that year an Order in Council made on or after 1 July expires on 31 December in the following year and is subject to the same provisions in terms of scrutiny by Parliament and also there is a requirement in terms of Orders in Council that the affected ships and port facilities must be consulted. Certainly those measures seek to ensure that the Minister’s power is limited to what is necessary in situations of urgency or emergency and do not extend beyond what is absolutely necessary to meet those criteria. I think that that is a very good example of the balance the select committee has brought to the bill and of the fettering of broad executive power by ensuring it is properly reviewed by Parliament. The executive is able to move speedily and without unnecessary barriers which is important but there is also the balance of legislative oversight of the executive power in order to ensure that it is not misused. 
The question of cost also arose in the select committee. Inevitably where there is regulatory authority there is a cost imposed and in this case commercial enterprises will have to bear that cost. This is not an example of a situation where it was possible to leave the security issues to each shipping company or port facility—as is probably the first desirable action—simply because the consequences of terrorist actions flow far beyond shipping companies and port facilities to affect the whole country. Therefore it is appropriate for there to be some national oversight of those security issues and that means there will inevitably be a cost. But it is a cost that we as a nation cannot avoid paying in the world scene we now see. 
Finally there is the question of the time pressure and it is of concern that because this legislation has to be in place by 1 July of this year there is a need for speed. Perhaps I was a little disappointed to see how long the bill remained in the select committee given that only a handful of submissions were made on it. Maybe the bill could have come back to the House a little sooner than it did. Nevertheless we are faced with that situation now. We are also faced with the situation whereby the companies have to lodge their draft port facility security plans in time to enable the designated authority to approve them by 31 March which is of course very very close. We have been assured and this is reflected in the commentary on the bill that the appropriate measures needed to enable that to happen will be put in place so that the 1 July 2004 deadline for implementation can be met. Of course we still have the third reading of this bill to get through so all we can do is to hope that that deadline can be met without undue pressure or without greater pressure being put on the commercial operators who will have to come up with those plans. 
United Future is pleased to see this bill getting through the House. We are pleased that we are fulfilling our international obligations on this issue and keeping in step with other countries in terms of the world environment. We will be supporting the bill.