Ardern Shane: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Ardern Shane: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12202] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 After having been away for a little while and spending a few days in the UK it is a pleasure on my return to the House to stand for the first time in support of something instead of in opposition—the usual role of the Queen’s Opposition. Having just returned from visiting the Westminster system I understand the role of the Queen’s Opposition even better than I did before. So it is good to stand in support. 
The National Party will support the Maritime Security Bill particularly Part 1 for a number of reasons. The bill as outlined by the Minister in the second reading is necessary. I ask the Government why it has taken so long particularly with regard to the commencement purpose application and interpretation which are all in Part 1. The Minister may like to take a call during the Committee stage to say why it has taken so long. This bill had it not been put through the House—it is now at the Committee stage—would have ended up costing this country millions of dollars through lost trade opportunity. It has come about as a lot of these security bills have as a result of the 9/11 events in the United States which were a wake-up call for the rest of the Western World as to the kind of world we live in today with regard to terrorism. 
A number of people made submissions to the Government Administration Committee during the select committee process. I think 13 submissions were received and they raised a number of issues. By and large the committee resolved them. The Government Administration Committee is a very very good select committee. I have not been a member of it for long but I can already see it is an excellent committee. The main concern of the submitters was whether this bill would create too much difficulty for the normal passage of goods people and services at our ports. Of course there will be restrictions with regard to some of those activities. The inter-island ferry is a good example to use today. It would have been forced into a range of security measures that potentially would be nonsensical not adding at all to the general purpose of the bill and adding only costs and restrictions to people going about their normal business. Through the select committee process we were able to eliminate some of those concerns and make amendments. 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven is nodding his head. I know he played a key role in that. It is good to note that my fellow “Taranaki-ite” had the common sense to accept that those submitters were right and to bring those amendments about. 
The main changes to the bill were to application. The select committee recommended that mobile offshore drilling units like rigs—which are a major concern for the member for New Plymouth and for myself as the member for Taranaki - King Country where we have the energy capital of New Zealand—be included in clause 4. In a way they are vessels or ships that come in and out of ports at the times they are in their mobile form so they needed to be included. 
The definition of “suspicious act” was another area that created quite a bit of debate in the select committee. I was not there for the whole time but the committee was able to come up with what that might mean which is most helpful to those who have to carry out the business of identifying what a suspicious act is. We see one or two of those kinds of acts in the Parliament from time to time—particularly from members on the other side—but this was something that was of concern to the 13 submitters to the committee and it is a pleasure to be able to stand here today and say that that was clarified. Now those who have to carry out the work of security can do so with some clarity.