Shirley Ken: Maritime Security Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Maritime Security Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8577] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand will certainly be supporting this bill going to the Government Administration Committee. I have to say at the outset that that is with some considerable regret but this bill is inevitable. The regret is that this bill represents a regime of big government State intrusion compliance costs and regulation. The sad thing is given the global situation that we are in particularly— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Moaning about it again. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Here is Mr Benson-Pope from Dunedin crowing along. He just cannot help himself; he really cannot. 
David Benson-Pope 
: The ACT party the rort party—we have to do it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do take offence as the previous speaker did at the inane comments that emanate from the Government senior whip David Benson-Pope. I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence. I ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The ACT party does support this legislation. We will be supporting it going to a select committee. [ 
Interruption 
] He is at it again. He cannot help himself. I do not know what sort of liquid dinner he had but he is not in good shape. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a totally unacceptable implication and I ask you to ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence at that. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I assumed he had either tomato or mushroom soup. I did not specify what liquid. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made a very clear implication and the member has taken offence. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: If he has taken offence I withdraw and apologise. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It may be helpful if there were fewer interjections and then we might be able to get on to the business. I am sure that the senior Government whip wants to get the business through the House. It might be timely to remind him that a little less interjection from him might well help the progress of the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I also remind members that when points of order are being raised there will be silence. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I hope we will make some progress without the Government whip doing his little chirping act. The ACT party will be supporting this legislation going to the select committee. That is with regret because it does represent big government compliance costs and regulatory State intrusion but it is inevitable given the global situation that we face. Indeed as a trading nation we are more dependent on trade than most other nations. To meet international expectations we have no choice but to implement the measures that are now part of international conventions with regard to trade and transport. We certainly have done that with airlines and we know that the post - 11 September costs now associated with airport security are severe. This measure is in essence the maritime equivalent of what we see at our airports. Therefore I believe we have no choice other than to pass this type of legislation. I think there are a number of points that need to be fine-tuned and addressed at the select committee which is where those measures should be addressed. 
The issue of security cannot be separated from where we sit in respect of others in the world. Mr Mapp in his speech made a very good point—and I would like to reiterate some of the points he made because they are very pertinent to this bill—[ 
Interruption 
] I am not sure whether it is a member coughing or a stranger in the gallery but it is quite distracting. Mr Mapp pointed out that in the weeks ahead a major exercise involving Australia the United States the Netherlands Japan Germany and France will be held off the Queensland coast on matters of maritime security that directly relate to the measures in this bill and New Zealand is not participating. The Deputy Prime Minister is here in the House and I ask him why New Zealand is not participating in that exercise involving maritime security systems which are so critical in the post - 11 September world. France Germany Japan the Netherlands the USA and Australia are participating but New Zealand was not invited to the party. 
And why might that be? The reason is that we persist with our archaic chest-thumping bumper-sticker ban on nuclear ship visits. It is a nonsense. There is no strategic or environmental reason for it. It is purely one of the mantras of this Labour Party that should have been left in the 1980s. Unfortunately this Government just does not see fit to address that issue so that we can re-establish our traditional links with like-minded allies who believe in an interdependent global economy between trading nations based on market economies. 
Unfortunately we are not a member of that club. As hard as we might try to be a member of that club we are not. It is interesting to note that Japan Germany France the Netherlands the USA and Australia are members but New Zealand is not. Those countries will be exercising in our backyard in the weeks ahead on matters of maritime safety—which is the very subject of this bill—and we are precluded from participating in that exercise. That is incredibly regrettable and I put it to this House that we are the poorer for it. We can pass all the legislation and rules that we like but unless we are in the security loop and have the information we are at risk. Because of this Government’s “no nuclear ship visits” mantra we have been precluded from participating in that exercise. We no longer have a place among our traditional security allies. We are not part of the coalition of the willing and that is very regrettable indeed. 
Many members would have noticed the articles written by Michael Bassett a former Labour Minister who has been very eloquent on the subject. He recognises the nonsense of this Labour Government’s policy but still it persists. As we know there was a major review in 1993 with the Somers report which made it very clear that there is no security or environmental reason for our not accepting nuclear ship visits. We know that there are no nuclear weapons on those ships. The “neither confirm nor deny” policy was dropped in 1991 but still we persist with the old-fashioned Labour Party mantra and we are out of the loop. We are not invited to the party. We are persona non grata. We have gone AWOL. That is the reality and that is very very regrettable. 
Clause 50 of this bill sets out the inspection regimes. They are very draconian and impose massive costs. The one good feature of the legislation is that it is going to be based on management systems. One can have an audited and approved management system to minimise risk and that is a preferable alternative to having prescriptive inspections by bureaucrats. In other words provided that one has an adequate management system for these types of securities such as inspections of containers prior to sealing them etc. one can get the tick and one can participate. It would have been frightful if it were just a massive bureaucratic case by case inspection system. 
That aside it will mean massive costs. We all know the costs associated with our airports now; there are massive numbers of security staff and there is screening of all passengers with people losing their penknives manicure scissors and all those sorts of things. This will be the equivalent and it will be applied not just to merchant ships bringing cargo to our country and taking our export products away but also to all cruise ships which are a very significant part of our tourism industry. But it is tied into international agreements conventions and understandings. We have no option but to impose those costs which is regrettable but hopefully at some time in the future we will have solved the security risks that are so very real at this time. Hopefully we will be able to move forward and unwind at some future date some of these very intrusive measures that are being imposed.