Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12201] 
Maritime Security Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Maritime Security Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call to alert the Committee that I have put up a Supplementary Order Paper which contains mostly technical amendments plus a further amendment as a result of a small glitch we found in the bill today with regard to clause 42. A small change to a term in that clause was needed but not picked up at the time the Supplementary Order Paper was drafted. I hope that clarifies the situation for members. Those amendments are on the Table. 
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. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make it clear from the start that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. But having said that I say that the Government Administration Committee has not got it right. In fact it has made some significant errors. Let me give members four words to show why this should be corrected. The four words are “Australia” “USA” “United Kingdom” “Spain”. New Zealand imports and exports— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: That is five words. 
PETER BROWN 
: I tell Mr Cosgrove that they are four words and this is a serious matter and he should listen. Forty percent of New Zealand’s imports and exports by value comes and goes from those countries and I suggest that 99-plus percent comes and goes by ship. Why do I mention those four words? Because they are the countries that went to war with Iraq. Do not underestimate maritime security folks; I was going to say “gentlemen” but I know that the ladies are interested in this as well. I have to say after listening to my colleague from Taranaki - King Country Shane Ardern that I accept that the select committee did its best. But there is not one of the committee members who would know the front end of a ship or the back end of a ship from a motorbike. The best I can say is that David Cunliffe would know something or I would expect him to know something because he has a reputation for being “all at sea” most of the time. 
There is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name that addresses five issues basically that are the shortcomings of this bill. One of them—and it is an important one and is in Part 1—is the definition of a company security officer. This bill is based on the code I have here the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. I note that the Minister is shaking his head. This book which is the backbone of the bill refers to three types of security officer: the port facility security officer the ship security officer and the company security officer. The legislation that is about to be passed today in this Parliament has no reference whatsoever to a company security officer. That is a major shortcoming. I can tell members that nowadays many of the foreign ships that come to this country—[ 
Interruption 
] the owners are not easily identifiable. One cannot necessarily say that that is owned by such and such. One can on many occasions but not every ship. Quite often the crew are put on board the ship by a management contract. They have little or no commitment to the owner of the ship. They are there only to do a job—to take a ship from A to B and to carry cargo from A to B. But they are not necessarily concerned in depth with the security arrangements in this country and how they are implemented. Whilst if there were a company security officer that would be a different matter. He or she would be obliged to consider the security of that ship in that port in a total scene. 
I know that he or she might well be based in Hong Kong and might be out of easy contact by whomever. But I can tell members that a ship security officer will no doubt have to contact the Hong Kong office anyway. If an alert or a concern were raised of any significance it is likely that either the master of the ship or the ship security officer would have to contact Hong Kong. This bill is downgrading the company security officer. It is telling the world at large and the shipping fraternity at large that these three people who are key people in this type of legislation are not equal. I know that the company security officer will be referred to in the regulations. I am not privy to the regulations. I have not seen a copy of them. They stand in this code on an equal footing of importance and they should be reflecting that importance in this bill. Imagine how a shipping company in this country would feel when a company security officer is not referred to in this legislation. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I am interested in this Maritime Security Bill and members might be interested to know that as fisheries spokesperson I have had the industry contact me—its concern being that the 1 July 2004 deadline imposed by the United States and European Union would not be met in time in this country with the passing of the Maritime Security Bill. Their concern of course was that having had port plans put in place the Maritime Safety Authority was in a position to take those port plans and give them to the authority to be approved and implemented. They are concerned of course that their export products in reaching other nations would end up being parked in some corner of Rotterdam New York or other ports of the world and would have to go through long lengthy detailed and unnecessary importing procedures before they could be put on the markets of those countries. 
I thought that that concern was fair enough and that is why I put to the Minister a number of questions on the matter which the Minister replied to. My first concern was whether it was true that New Zealand ports have to file security plans to the Maritime Safety Authority by 31 March 2004. Of course that date is pretty soon and no one is going to argue with that. Also if they were to be lodged with the Maritime Safety Authority by 31 March 2004 what then—given that the authority was not in a position to acknowledge those plans approve them and have them implemented? 
The Minister will recall that he got back to me to say that the deadline for implementation agreed by the International Maritime Organization was 1 July 2004 and yes there was a deadline to get the port security to the authority by 31 March 2004. But the Minister did acknowledge that this legislation really had to be passed to give them the authority to acknowledge those plans. You and I had a formal meeting in the corridor last week to discuss what was happening in the interim between those plans being received by the authority and its getting the delegated authority. You acknowledged that there was— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has now brought me into the debate twice. If the member is referring to the Minister he must refer to him as “the Minister”. He cannot bring the Chair into the debate. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I met with the Minister informally in the corridor and put this to him and I thank him for this. I think the Minister Harry Duynhoven said that there was an interim authority for the Maritime Safety Authority to in fact accept those plans and give some sort of interim or informal nod to ports that the security plans that they had put in place were adequate complied and would in due course have the desired impact overseas when other ports—other countries—received goods exported from New Zealand and imported into their country. 
 I was able to contact the fishing industry to say: “Look don’t be too concerned we’ve got urgency next week. This bill is set down to be dealt with during urgency. Even if that were not the case the Minister does assure me that the Maritime Safety Authority has interim delegated authority to approve and implement those plans.” I am not sure how formal that interim authority was and exactly what happens next after some sort of interim approval. However I do appreciate that and would like to thank the Minister publicly for his response to those questions. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is of course supporting this bill. We are for appropriate maritime security although it is important as we consider the bill and some of its consequences which are not necessarily in the bill but supplied through regulation or by the agencies that previous speakers have referred to that we do not go overboard in adopting a higher level of security measures than is warranted in particular situations at particular ports and on particular boats. There is a bit of danger of that in the current climate where people are super-sensitive to the dangers of terrorism and sometimes adopt measures that are excessive for the particular circumstance. 
Part 1 refers to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and our relationship through the International Maritime Organization etc. in applying those measures and putting them in this bill. It is true that a lot of the practical detail and implementation that will follow is being dictated by the United States. It is the one country that plays hard ball and says that if we want our ships to go into its ports we have to abide by those particular provisions in terms of our wharf and boat security. So we can be stampeded into doing things a bit too much. 
In terms of going overboard on the definitions in clause 5 I have an amendment on behalf of the Green Party to the definition of “suspicious act”. The term “suspicious act” was referred to by a previous speaker and the present definition states “suspicious act does not include the lawful exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike.” My amendment is to omit the word “lawful” from the definition of “suspicious act”. 
The reason for that and it is something that is promoted by the two main unions concerned on this issue—the Maritime Union and the Rail and Maritime Transport Union—is that they are concerned that if they go on strike and for one reason or another somebody considers it illegal then they will be put in the category of “suspicious act” for going on strike and treated as terrorists or whatever it might be in the particular situation. I do not think the motivation behind the bill is to put the average group of wharfies or seafarers in that definition just for engaging in industrial action over a safety issue or whatever it might be. 
We know that often there has been a tumultuous series of relations between employer and worker on the waterfront. Sometimes one side is wrong and sometimes the other side is but it is true that often there is a lot of dispute about what is a legal strike and what is not. I do not think the bill should get into that determination by just removing the word “lawful” so in my view the particular clause would read “suspicious act does not include the exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike.” That would be more appropriate and I hope that members will support that amendment. 
Employers and unionists are concerned how that will be applied in particular situations on ships and waterfronts. Part 1 has security levels 1 2 and 3. Security level 3 is the highest one and means the level for which further specific protective security measures must be maintained for a limited period of time when a security incident is probable or imminent. If we get too carried away and apply that security level 3 just because there is a bomb scare or someone phones up or whatever then one of the problems could be that it becomes a hoaxer’s paradise. As it would seem to be applied—and some ship owners are worried about this—if a whole port is closed down for a prolonged period then it could stop different ships sailing and slow up unloading etc. If we go overboard with security measures that would encourage hoaxers. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 First I understand that the Minister has taken note of my amendments. He is looking at them very seriously and I am genuinely encouraged by that. I have worked closely with the Hon Harry Duynhoven on the select committee and I know that he notes points made by members that are genuine. I know that he would be aware that if Parliament ignores the relevant points in the Supplementary Order Paper put up by myself and something goes wrong with a foreign crew and its ship’s security officer it will reflect very very badly on the people who ignored that. I know that the Minister does not want to be in that category. I would suggest that this method if nothing else is playing extra safe. 
I shall talk about the company representatives in this country. Obviously New Zealanders will be on our ships and there will be a ship security officer who can speak the language will cooperate and what have you. But by not putting the company security officer in the legislation we are telling the industry at large that he is not as important as the security officer on the ship. In many ways right at the coalface that might well be true but we have to aim at consistency of standard over the whole fleet and the company guy is the one who will do that. Although he will be in the regulations he has to be in the legislation. 
My Supplementary Order Paper states that “contracting Government” means a Government that is a party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974. The reason that that is in there as a definition is that we are talking about Part 1. However it refers to new clause 19A that I suggest should go in Part 2 that outlines the duties of companies in a fairly comprehensive way. “Contracting Government” is an accepted term in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and in the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea. Therefore I felt that a definition should go in this bill to be able to use the term later on. 
This is a very important bill for this country; it is exceedingly important. New Zealand First is determined to support it. Equally we are determined that it should be as near perfect as we can help make it. As I said earlier on I am encouraged by the Minister’s response at least to Part 1 of my Supplementary Order Paper. He is asking officials to look seriously at incorporating it maybe with some modifications into the legislation. I hope that other members of the House will take it on board. This is not an attempt to play politics. This is a genuine attempt on behalf of New Zealand First to get this legislation correct. 
Phil Heatley 
: This is your first genuine attempt ever. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is not my first genuine attempt but I have to admit that from time to time we do have attempts to have a little bit of fun in this House but this is not one of those times. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Winston does and outside the House too. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Hon Winston Peters has been known to have a little bit of fun at someone’s expense. This is New Zealand First being absolutely straight. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: For the first time. 
PETER BROWN 
: Not for the first time. Some say I have lived my whole life being straight. I will now come back to the bill. 
 I cannot emphasise enough the importance of this bill to this country. The ports are very important for our exports and imports and for the economic well-being of all of us. I point out that 99.5 percent of exports and imports come in and go out by ships. We must have a secure infrastructure in place I would suggest reasonably—ifnot urgently— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Soon. 
PETER BROWN 
: Soon; that is the term the Labour Government uses. I am a bit reluctant to use it because when one asks the Minister of Transport about shipping he says “soon” and it never happens. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Finish the speech so we can get this passed quickly. 
PETER BROWN 
: If I thought that by finishing now we would get this passed I would cut my speech right to the core. I am encouraged by the Minister’s response on Part 1. I look to the same sort of response when we get to Part 2. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party indicated in the second reading that we certainly support this bill because we recognise it is appropriate. New Zealand is a trading nation and is more dependent on trade than most nations as a proportion of gross domestic product. This bill is all about the harmonisation of global security practices and anti-terrorism measures. To that extent this country has no option other than to ensure that our practices are in line or consistent with world best practice. Obviously if we were at variance with it our trade would suffer because we would have problems at the wharf with our exports and imported goods. So this bill is an important measure. But in saying that I make the point that we are at war. It is not a war of nation State against nation State but the war on terrorism does come with costs. Part of those costs unfortunately impinges on what would normally be ideal in terms of civil liberties and individual rights. That always happens at times of war and we cannot deny that we need to take what hopefully are extraordinary measures that can be wound back at some point in the future in a more peaceful time. 
I draw the attention of the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven to the amendment proposed by Keith Locke from the Greens in respect of the interpretation of the term “suspicious act”. The Government Administration Committee inserted a new definition in clause 5 “Interpretation”: “suspicious act does not include the lawful exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike.” I can accept that recommendation by the select committee but Mr Locke’s proposed amendment actually troubles me deeply because he wants to delete the word “lawful”. Therefore the definition would read: “suspicious act does not include the exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike.” In other words one could have a whole range of illegal strikes illegal protests and illegal demonstrations. We can imagine what could go on under the guise of an illegal demonstration and would not be regarded in terms of the legislation as a suspicious act. If that is the Greens’ thinking then the whole country should be disturbed. 
I want an absolute assurance from the Minister in the chair that he will not be leveraged shall I say by the Greens in a trade-off situation to adopt that definition in the amendment they propose. I want to gain the attention of the Minister who seems to be distracted for the moment. I would like him to take a call and assure all of us about that because it is a matter of public safety and of the security of the realm. Our trade is dependent on that and I certainly find that suggestion from the Greens to be a very foolish and a very dangerous suggestion. I do seek an assurance from the Minister that he is not entertaining doing a trade-off with the Greens as he has done on other occasions to accommodate them by insering that proposal into this legislation. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 In response to Mr Shirley’s comments the advice I have from the Ministry of Transport’s legal advisers is that the proposed amendment to take out the word “lawful” as proposed by Mr Locke neither adds nor detracts from the interpretation of the term “suspicious act”. It is neutral so therefore I do not see any reason to support the amendment. 
I turn now to Mr Brown’s amendment which makes some useful suggestions. I received his amendment earlier this afternoon and it went off to the officials with my view that we should look at the suggestions as Mr Brown obviously has a huge experience in the maritime world. There is some merit particularly in the first amendment to clause 5 “Interpretation” by adding “company security officer”. Unfortunately the wording of the amendment is not the same as that in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code so I have asked the officials to redraft Mr Brown’s amendment. Mr Brown has agreed to withdraw his amendment at this stage. A new amendment will be here in moments I suspect if it is not here already and it will have the correct wording. I propose that in the meantime we support Mr Brown’s first version of the definition of “company security officer”—not that it will add greatly to the bill because those matters are dealt with in the regulations but it will add a little clarity. I can add that Mr Brown has agreed to that course of action. 
I also add that the draft regulations have been out in the public domain. The shipping companies and port authorities have all received them and have worked through them with the Maritime Safety Authority. That was something that I asked for earlier on even though the draft regulations did not have the authority of legislation. I was very mindful of the fact that the people who are involved in this industry had a very limited time so we put out a draft regulation on the basis of our draft legislation in order to bring through the industry’s very good support for this legislation which was begun back in about May of last year. Mr Heatley and Mr Ardern both talked about how quick the process has been on this legislation. I say to them that we used every bit of time we could on it. I commend the Maritime Safety Authority and the Ministry of Transport officials for the way they have handled the whole issue in a very tight time line. As Mr Brown said the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code developed under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea by the International Maritime Organisation gave us specific requirements to meet by 1 July this year. There has been some controversy in the media with regard to that but it is very interesting to see that one of the key people who has been in the media and concerned about it actually sent me a congratulatory message the other day on the fact that I had moved this legislation along as speedily as could be done. 
I say to Mr Heatley that he took me a slight step further than I had intended to go in that we did not have an interim authority but we had an understanding with the maritime industry the shipping companies and the ports authorities. They all knew of course that it was my intention as Minister responsible for this bill and the Government’s intention that the Maritime Safety Authority would become the designated authority and that therefore the whole issue of how this matter would be managed would be in the Maritime Safety Authority’s court. There was an understanding within the industry that everyone would work together cooperatively to ensure we could get the best possible outcome. I think that has certainly occurred. We are very encouraged by the way that right from the beginning the entire industry has worked together to see that we had as robust a debate as possible over how the practicalities of this legislation may work. I think it was Mr Shirley who said earlier in this debate that without this legislation we cannot export products to the countries that we need to be exporting them to which would be a huge huge hit for exporters in this country. 
This bill is about ensuring that we actually do have the possibility without security implications of exporting and that we do have the possibility of getting in place all the security measures demanded by the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code for the purpose of ensuring that our exporters get maximum access to their markets. I think this bill has very rapidly come to a point where we can progress it. I am very pleased that all parties in the Committee are supportive of it and that we have a very good understanding of the issues involved. The Government Administration Committee members themselves have really progressed and debated the issues and the unions and everybody else involved have done a terrific job. 
I do think that the Committee needs to take careful note of the various changes to the bill. There are a couple of amendments that do need to be highlighted as we get to them and I think that when Mr Brown’s amendment is here we can move along. It could be that we can approach the matter in another way and maybe seek leave for Mr Brown’s amendment to clause 5 which there seems to be genuine agreement about in the Committee to be put. If this is an acceptable process and is OK with the Chair I will cease this speech and perhaps I or Mr Brown could seek leave—or maybe I could seek leave now—that when Mr Brown’s amendment is here his paper is withdrawn with his approval. He has given that approval now so if his amendment is withdrawn now may I seek leave that his replacement amendment can be tabled and dealt with at that stage? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will just respond to the Minister by saying that Mr Brown himself is able to seek leave for that and I understand he will do so. The question now is that Part 1 stand part but before I put that question there are a number of amendments to be voted on. The first one is to clause 5 and it is to do with the definition of “security officer”. I think that is Mr Brown’s amendment that we have to leave at the moment but we can move on to the next one to clause 5. It is the honourable Peter Brown’s amendment to insert a definition of “contracting Government”. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in its appropriate place the following definition: 
Contracting Government  
means a Government that is a party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next amendment to clause 5 also in the name of the honourable member Peter Brown is an amendment to insert the words “and company security officer” in the definition of “port facility security officer”. All those in favour will say “Aye”—[ 
Interruption 
] I have just been advised that before we do this we need to do something. I ask members to bear with me for just a minute please. The honourable member Peter Brown’s amendment has arrived. He needs to seek leave that we can do this now. Will the member please seek leave? 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to do exactly as you have suggested. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not quite sure of the process here so can you assist us?. Are you advising the Committee that the amendment was filed late and the member needs leave for it to be considered? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise the member that the honourable Minister advised the Committee that he was waiting for an amendment that had been agreed to between himself and the member Peter Brown regarding the definition of “company security officer”. Because the first vote has already been taken the honourable member now has to seek leave for it to be voted on and he has just done that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert after the definition of  
company 
 the following definition: 
Company security officer  
means the person designated by the company to— 
(a)ensure that— 
(i)a ship security assessment is carried out; and 
(ii)a ship security plan is developed submitted for approval implemented and maintained; and 
(b)liaise with port facility security officers and the ship security officer. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next vote to be taken also relates to clause 5. It is Peter Brown’s amendment to insert the words “and company security officer” in the definition of “port facility security officer”. Is that one withdrawn? 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The earlier amendment has a definition that is withdrawn. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 I just clarify for the benefit of the Committee that Mr Brown’s amendments to clause 5 included the one we have just passed which was originally not in line with the wording of the International Ship and Port Security Facility Code. We have dealt with that one now. We lined the wording of that amendment up with the code and passed that particular part of the amendment and Mr Brown has withdrawn the others. The other part was about contracting out the port facility security officer by inserting in clause 5 “Interpretation” the definition of “company security officer”. We have already dealt with the amendment concerning “contracting Government” and it was lost. I hope that clarifies the situation for the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of Hon Harry Duynhoven to clause 5 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of  
suspicious act 
 by omitting the word “lawful”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Ship and port facility security 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There is at least one clause left on my Supplementary Order Paper that I would like to re-promote. It is new clause 17A “Communicating with ship operators” which deals with ships’ agents. I should confess from the word go that I have had more arguments with ships’ agents than I have had hot dinners but nevertheless they play a very important role in the successful operation of ships coming and going from port and throughout port operations. They are a very competent group of people who communicate with ships and that is not as easy as it might sound particularly with foreign ships. The crew of many ships cannot understand our language either genuinely or deliberately. Agents take it upon themselves to assist port operators stevedores and everybody involved in the successful operation of ships coming to sailing from or berthed at New Zealand ports. To exclude ships’ agents from this bill when I think that most of us in the shipping industry know full well that they will have some involvement is to undervalue their involvement. 
I would like to promote new clause 17A “Communicating with ship operators” which states: “For the purposes of this Act a person may give a notice or direction to or otherwise communicate with a ship operator for a ship by giving the notice or direction to or communicating with the shipping agent for the ship.” This clause is directly extracted from the Australian legislation that deals with maritime security there. It recognises the importance that agents play in the whole scheme of things. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they will play an important role in maritime security here. 
This clause does not impose security people to go through an agent; it states that they “may” give notice. I think it is quite a reasonable clause to put in if for no other reason than to let agents know that they are valued in the industry and to let people know that agents’ importance will not be overlooked. The principal reason I put in the clause is to bind agents in a manner of speaking to maritime ship and port security. I cannot emphasise enough that if something goes wrong on a ship at one of our ports we will all pay for it. A little while ago we learnt—from the access gained by the people who graffitied the Royal Australian Navy tanker—that damage can be done to a ship relatively easily and that our maritime security people will have to be on their mettle; sometimes more so than others. I believe that security people will rely heavily on ships’ agents. 
I ask the Minister to look seriously at inserting a clause that recognises the importance that agents may have to play. I think that to ignore them would be wrong and would send the wrong signals to the whole industry. The Minister looked positively on the clause that I asked him to insert regarding the company security officer and I thank him for that. I ask him now to talk to his officials and ask that they consider a clause that recognises the importance of ships’ agents. I understand from talking to the officials that there is no definition of a shipping agent—everybody in the world knows what a shipping agent is— 
Shane Ardern 
: The member from Taranaki. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member from Taranaki? I am encouraged. I understand that there is no definition of a ship operator but I would think that everybody knows what a ship operator is. 
I urge the Minister to look seriously upon this. Ships’ agents play a very responsible role in ship operations now and if we were to have a maritime incident they would be in the midst of it. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I thank Mr Brown for his helpful suggestions. In his handwritten amendment he has proposed a new clause 18A which we need to complement the change that we made earlier so I recommend we support that. I do not support his proposal to insert new clause 17A providing for communicating with shipping agents because they are not defined in the code. There is nothing to stop the designated authority from communicating anyway with the shipping agent locally—that is not a problem. For a variety of reasons I am sorry that the Government does not go with the rest of Mr Brown’s amendments. 
However I want to talk specifically to the proposal to delete subclause (2) of clause 36. I am afraid that the Government cannot agree to that because it is specifically required in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. It would be most unwise to take that out in line with the consistency of the remarks that Mr Brown made previously. I draw members’ attention to the minor technical change to clause 42 which is outlined in my amendment on the Table. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to insert new clause 17A be agreed to: 
17ACommunicating with ship operators 
For the purposes of this Act a person may give a notice or direction to or otherwise communicate with a ship operator for a ship by giving the notice or direction to or communicating with the shipping agent for the ship. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to insert new clause 18A be agreed to: 
to insert after the heading  
Ship security 
 the following new clause: 
18AAppointment of company security officer 
A company must appoint company security officers in accordance with regulations made under this Act. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 19 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “The master of a ship and the company must” and substitute the words “The master of a ship must act on the security level specified by the chief executive and”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to insert new clause 19A be agreed to: 
19ADuties of companies 
(1)The company shall ensure that the ship security plan contains a clear statement emphasising the master’s authority. 
(2)The company shall establish in the ship security plan that the master has the ultimate authority and responsibility to make decisions with respect to the security of the ship and to request the assistance of the company or of any contracting government as may be necessary. 
(3)A company must appoint a company security officer in accordance with regulations made under this Act and who is responsible for— 
(a)the shore-based security management of the ship including the formulation implementation and maintenance of the ship security plan; and 
(b)liaison with the ship security officer the port facility security officer and the designated authority. 
(4)The company must appoint a ship security officer for each ship in accordance with the regulations under this Act. 
(5)The company shall ensure that the company security officer the master and the ship security officer are given the necessary support to fulfil their duties and responsibilities under this Act. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 36 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2). 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 37 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by inserting after the words “ThePort facility security officer” the words “ company security officer”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to clause 42 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (1) by omitting the word “company” and substituting the words “port facility operator”; and 
to amend subclause (2) by omitting the word “company” and substituting the words “port facility operator”; and 
to amend subclause (3) by omitting the word “company” and substituting the words “port facility operator”. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Preventive security measures 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Miscellaneous provisions 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maritime Security Bill be now read a third time 
. Given the pivotal role shipping plays in the conduct of worldwide trade there is a common understanding both internationally and domestically of the crucial significance of maritime security. 
I have been impressed by the high degree of cooperation between Governments and between Government and industry on this matter. It has enabled rapid progress to be made on enhancing maritime security. That was clearly illustrated in December 2002 when the international maritime community adopted a new comprehensive security regime for international shipping. The measures were the result of just over a year’s intense work by the International Maritime Organization and the regime comes into force on 1 July this year. The Maritime Security Bill which is in front of us today also represents a lot of hard work by many individuals and groups and I particularly want to thank my colleagues in the House this evening for their very speedy processing of the bill. The members who contributed to the debate and the amendments submitted by Mr Peter Brown made a real difference to the bill. 
The bill develops a legislative framework so that we may implement the new maritime security regime in New Zealand and to ensure that we meet our international obligations under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea. Given the comprehensive nature of the regime and the tight time frame for compliance imposed by the International Maritime Organization implementation was always going to be a challenge. Passing the Maritime Security Bill is a key milestone towards meeting the 1 July deadline. In spite of the criticism we can all be very proud of the very rapid progress we have made in processing this bill through the House. 
The Maritime Security Bill takes the approach that the security of ships and port facilities is basically a risk management activity and that to determine what security measures are appropriate an assessment of the risks must be made in each particular case. Therefore the bill requires ships and port facilities to prepare have approved and implement security plans. For port facilities that means that those plans will detail security standards and procedures for normal operations—that is security level 1—as well as contingencies for operating at a “heightened” risk—security level 2. Plans must also include procedures to facilitate the response of authorities to an “extreme” risk—security level 3. 
The Government must then set the security level at which the port facility will normally operate and approve the security plans. We recognise the potential cost to industry and the New Zealand public of imposing very stringent security measures when the threat level is low. To that end the flexible framework established in the bill means ports will only be required to put in place security measures appropriate to the level of security threat applying. If the threat level increases then obviously port facilities will increase security across the port commensurate with an increase in the risk of a security incident. Plans must periodically be audited and the Government must undertake ongoing risk assessment and if necessary adjust a ship or port facility’s security level. 
In keeping with the international approach primary responsibility for operational security rests with the port facilities and ships themselves. However should they require assistance the Maritime Security Bill provides that the Governor-General may appoint a Government department or Crown entity as a maritime security organisation. They will undertake screening and searching to prevent the unauthorised introduction of weapons and other dangerous items. Overseeing the implementation of the maritime security requirements and ensuring effective security is being maintained will be the job of the designated authority. 
The Government intends to appoint the Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand as the designated authority. Its regulatory functions in respect of security at port facilities will include managing the risk assessment process setting the operational security level and approving and auditing the port facility security plan developed by a port operator. Additional functions include the provision and coordination of security information to ships and ports and the exercise of port State control measures in respect of compliance by foreign vessels arriving here. As mentioned earlier I have been impressed by the high degree of cooperation between Government and industry. Both the Government and the maritime sector realised very early on that much could be done in advance of the enactment of this legislation. In fact that work has been crucial in providing as much lead time for implementation as possible. It actually began around May last year. 
Risk assessments for all the affected port facilities are now complete and most of those ports are well on the way to developing their security plans. All the parties involved have been acutely aware of the importance of getting this legislation right and the consequences to New Zealand’s trade and tourism industry of not progressing it promptly. There are still some challenges to face as we move closer to the 1 July deadline and I am sure that there will be some operational details that will need to be worked through. How to deal with access to sensitive areas of the port facility will no doubt be one of those challenges. Port workers may well be required to carry special identification and sailors visiting New Zealand ports may well find it more difficult to preserve the tradition of entertaining on board. I am confident that such issues will be worked on and resolved before July. 
The excellent work that has been done on the bill along with the very constructive approach shown by all concerned means that New Zealand is now very well placed to meet the new international requirements. The enactment of the Maritime Security Bill will mean that New Zealand’s approach to enhancing maritime security is in step with accepted international practice. Through the implementation of a consistent framework for ship and port security it will ensure continued confidence of trading partners and tourist markets in the security of the New Zealand ports. 
 I would especially like to thank the chairperson Dianne Yates and members of the committee who have processed this bill. I would like to thank Mr Brown and no doubt he would like to thank Frank Wall for his constructive work in preparing Supplementary Order Papers etc. I would especially like to thank members of Parliament who took part in the debate and particularly the officials on my left David Corlett Tamara Mutu Roger Brown and Hilary Talbot and others from the Maritime Safety Authority and the Ministry of Transport for their role in processing this bill very quickly and providing all the advice and information the House has needed in order to do a thorough job on this in a short time. 
Debate interrupted.