Auchinvole Chris: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5093. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Normally I would say that it is a pleasure to follow Brendan Horan as a speaker but I am afraid— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Sit down then. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well it is not quite that simple Mr Faafoi. The reality is that he wasted an awful lot of his speech dealing with minutiae and dealing with personal difficulties that he has with other members of Parliament and there was very little concentration on the Marine Legislation Bill. Indeed it is quite interesting to hear the expressions of commitment that people have to the environment when something has gone wrong. I would have thought it more beneficial to the public to this House and to the level of debate to concentrate on what the bill will do. People are permitted to say what their connection with the environment is but they should realise—this is not a criticism of Gareth Hughes not a criticism at all—that others have an association with the marine environment as well. 
Indeed a lot of my early years of life were spent being an oyster farmer in Hokianga. I was very conscious of the purity of water and the need for that sort of thing. But so much concentration has been given to the tragic event of the  
Rena 
 that I am not sure exactly what people think legislation can do. No law that I am aware of can give absolute protection against accident against marine breakdown against human failings in officers and crew. 
Much has been made that this legislation could have been introduced at an earlier period. Well if you look at the legislation we pass I would have thought that that applies to most legislation. Generally we follow behind the requirement rather than in anticipation of the need. When we do do that I notice this Government comes in for a lot of criticism. Just think about that. Just dwell on it a little. 
It is said that this bill could have been introduced as soon as we became the Government. Well if it was that close—and I reflect the view of my colleague Mr Jami-Lee Ross—why could it not have been done a little earlier? Why is it that now after an awful event it should have been done earlier? Why was legislation not introduced by the previous Government? I do not think that we are going to be told that. I do not think we are going to be told. But I do encourage the members opposite to reflect on their criticism of our not having legislation in place to deal with events that may not have happened in the past—may not have happened in the past—and of our introducing legislation so that we can cope with events when they do happen. 
I reflect back to  
Q+A 
 on Sunday when our Minister of Internal Affairs was talking about legislation that could be introduced to process large numbers of people who have not arrived yet. Will we be criticised for that? I guarantee we will. But perhaps Opposition members will think about things a little in the light of their response and reaction to this particular bill not having been introduced earlier. These changes that are going to be introduced show that National is committed to building a more competitive and productive economy with a commitment and a balance between strong sensible legislation and effectiveness towards the environment. It provides certainty around the laws that are involved as well as improving safety and enforcement practices and environmental protection. 
The main provisions of the Marine Legislation Bill—rarely touched on in speeches so far from the other side of the House—make amendments to the Maritime Transport Act and the exclusive economic zone legislation including changes to the oversight of port harbour and navigation safety. 
Phil Twyford 
: I said that. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well I am sure you did. Actually I heard that your speech was one of the better ones—and I am sorry but on that score that does not say a lot Phil. But I did hear it was one of the better ones. It concentrated on the bill on things like implementing the international maritime conventions and protocols—which is a really good idea—changes relating to the making of maritime and marine protection rules and transferring the regulation of discharge and dumping of waste. 
Our safety procedures in our ports and harbours will always need improvement towards being state of the art. They are expensive pieces of infrastructure. Amendments will give clear authority for Maritime New Zealand to take action in situations where port management poses a significant risk to the safety of shipping and of the marine environment. This will reinforce the important role of regional council harbour masters in maintaining maritime safety. 
This is a useful piece of legislation. It is incorporating changes to other legislation. That too is a good thing. I cannot see why members on the other side of the House are getting quite so upset. They should be pleased. They should in the words of one of my colleagues who spoke earlier be pleased. They should say well done to National and I know that in their heart of hearts that is what they want to do. That is what they want to do. 
They are smiling nicely because they know this is a useful piece of legislation. They are smiling nicely because they know they can give us a little bit of stick but we have done what they should have done. We have done it now. We are facing up to it. We are meeting the requirements. Members opposite are basically pleased. They will join us in voting for this bill. I would hope that New Zealand First will join us in voting for this bill. I would hope that the Greens and all the other parties will vote for it because there is no danger in it. There is no harm in it. It is a good bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you.