Smith Murray: Maritime Security Bill — Third Reading 
Smith Murray: Maritime Security Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12222] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future also supports the third reading of the Maritime Security Bill. In my second reading speech I talked about the importance of New Zealand remaining in step with other nations and the importance of paying due regard to our international obligations when we are dealing with other nations to provide the consistency that is altogether necessary and that has developed over the last few years in respect of security in particular. I also talked in the second reading about the need for us to be a responsible participant in the international community. That certainly is part of the motivation for the bill although obviously there is a degree of self-interest. Without the bill no doubt we would find difficulties as a nation in terms of international trade which could be economically detrimental to us if we were out of step with other nations that felt that our security measures were not up to the standard that international requirements dictated. 
United Future is very pleased to see the balance that has developed in the bill—particularly the balance that was brought to the bill by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. There is a balance between freedom of expression and commercial cost on the one hand and security of the nation on the other and also a balance between executive power and parliamentary oversight. The amendments made by the select committee are welcome in that they effectively tip the balance a little further towards the parliamentary oversight aspect rather than simply pure executive power. 
I do not want to dwell on the specifics of the bill as they have been repeated by the other parties in the House but if there is one concern that I have with regard to the bill it is the fact that it has had to be pushed through under urgency. I know that the regulations which I assume are still to follow will provide that security plans have to be lodged by 31 March 2004—today in fact—and that the bill has to be in force by July. It seems to me that this rush is not desirable in terms of promoting legislation. Rushed legislation is poor legislation. 
When I talked in the second reading debate I suggested that the select committee could have worked more speedily but I see that it worked very well and I apologise to the select committee for suggesting that it could have worked faster. I note the bill was referred to the select committee on 10 September last year having been introduced into the House 8 days previously. Submissions closed on 17 October 5 weeks later and that gave a reasonable amount of time for people who were affected to get their submissions together and put them in—and I would have been reluctant to see that curtailed. The bill was reported back from the select committee on 8 December some 7 weeks later. Given the numerous amendments made by the select committee it seems to me that 7 weeks was not an inordinate time and that the select committee did very well as far as that was concerned. 
We waited from 8 December through until last week for the second reading debate and that is something that could have been speeded up. I suggest to the Government that the bill could have been brought back to the House a month ago to give a bit more time for it to be considered and hopefully put into its final form. That would have given time for those affected to arrange their affairs exactly and precisely as the bill provides. I understand that they have been working on this matter since April or May of last year in expectation of the bill and it is only because of that that we have been able to get anywhere near meeting the time lines. I understand that although the date of 31 March is provided for as there are no penalties if people do not adhere to it people will be able effectively to lodge plans late and still have them accepted and processed. That is a very undesirable way of operating. 
It seems to me too that the rushed processing of this bill is evidenced in the fact that we now have a first Supplementary Order Paper that makes 49 amendments—albeit small—to the bill. That gives rise to the feeling that the officials were rushed did not get the bill right even in the select committee and subsequent to the select committee process have come up with another 49 changes that they want in order to correct deficiencies in the bill. Tonight yet another amendment has been tabled which has had to be dealt with at the last minute. I do not think that is desirable. I think the Government ought to look at and review the time factors involved. I do not know how much time the Government had before September to bring the bill into Parliament but clearly the time between September when the bill was introduced and tonight has proved to be inadequate in order to have the legislation passed in a timely fashion and in such a way that everybody knows exactly what the legislation does that regulations can be promulgated based on the legislation in its final form and that everything can be put in place in order to meet the July deadline. 
That was the only concern I had about it. Certainly the contents of the bill are something that United Future thinks is important. We are very happy to support the bill and therefore we will be voting for the third reading. 
Bill read a third time.