Heatley Phil: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12204] 
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.