Mahuta Nanaia; Brownlee Gerry; Salesa JennyHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. Just in relation to the helpful clarification of the question it is correct I guess to surmise that there is the potential for that situation to occur. Given that we respect the sovereign rights of other States and it is a fundamental rule under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea if they didn't agree—that would be a very interesting scenario if it did happen—we wouldn't be able to use the powers under the Act. We would instead be in a situation where would encourage that State to pursue our concerns under their own laws and on our behalf.The hypothesis is one that is useful to raise; in practice it would be a peculiar situation. But if it did occur again we would use other diplomatic channels to ensure that that State was well aware of our concerns and pursued our concerns under their own laws.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): You have no desire to particularly prolong the discussion but I wonder if the Minister might reflect—or perhaps the officials would speak to the Minister—about why we have got this in the law. If it effectively could become a hamstring for us in some circumstances hypothetical though they are at the moment given the volatility of the world currently then it's not so unreasonable to consider that hypothetical.So the question is really what would have been the situation had we decided not to put that in? If we'd in fact said that if someone is transgressing New Zealand law in an extraterritorial sense then we are going to have a domestic law that enables us to go after them. That may be something the Minister wants to clarify—I'm sure there are very good reasons but I just want to make sure that we're not doing something that the officials consider to be the puritan approach when in fact we want quite a punitive approach to anybody that's acting illegally inside our territorial sea or just beyond in international waters as prescribed in this bill. I'm sure the Minister's going to take a call in a minute so I'll leave it there.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): One of the things that I really want to ensure is that while the hypothesis is purely valid the practice of how we articulate the international rule of law and the respect that we have for for example the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea becomes quite an important context for considering the way in which we're framing this legislation but also the obligations that we would oblige ourselves to in other international waters as well. So we're trying to ensure that we're creating the context by which other States are abiding by international law; we're obligating them to do that. It would be unusual if States did not have the respect for those obligations that we all want to uphold across international waters.So the member I guess has identified that perhaps writing this into law when there is the potential for flagged States not to recognise or not to consent could happen however that shouldn't prevent us from writing the law in the strongest way possible to ensure that we're building the right architecture around international rules and norms that should exist in the high seas in our international waters in a way where we can protect our sovereign interests and advocate very consistently in other international waters for the same preservation of those similar concerns. So I do not think it would be useful to not have a provision in here around flagged States. I think we've just got to continue to stand on our values and principles—which we have always done as a small country—which means upholding international rules and norms that allow us to be a responsible citizen in the international community in the way that we protect our sovereign interests and advocate consistently across the globe in this area.Can I say if I come back to the reason why we're trying to ensure there is a bill of this nature is that we do recognise and the member makes a very good point we're in very challenging and complex times. There's a lot of unusual things that could happen actually because of those complexities. But we should always set the standard by which we choose to be measured by. I believe that this maritime bill that's been long awaited for it's an extension of existing enforcement powers within maritime waters to our international waters. It will give enforcement officers broader powers to be able pursue our interests especially where there are real concerning criminal activities around human trafficking trading in endangered species and wildlife the drug trafficking and the like. It's my sense that the House would want to see the progression of this bill fairly swiftly.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.