Key John: Maritime Security Bill — First Reading 
Key John: Maritime Security Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8579] 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 This day 10 September 2003 will indeed be remembered in this Parliament but not I suspect for the young ladies who were representatives of Mothers Against Genetic Engineering coming to this House and taking their tops off to protest against genetic engineering and not because today we have the first reading of this bill. Those will not be the things that mark this day. No this day will be marked for one other reason. It is a very sad day in New Zealand’s history because Shane Ardern MP has been charged by police officers—the very people who will be looking after this bill. What a sad day it is for the New Zealand Parliament! That event will overshadow the first reading of this bill. I only hope that justice is done and the police come to their senses and drop that charge against my respected colleague the honourable Shane Ardern the MP for Taranaki - King Country. 
It is befitting I think that this bill is having its first reading in the House on this day—nearly 2 years to the day since September 11 2001 a day the world changed a day when more than 3000 people worldwide were killed in terrorist activities in New York City and in Washington a day when two New Zealanders lost their lives. This piece of legislation is part of a trifecta of legislation that has been introduced by the Government. The first measure was the Counter-Terrorism Bill which was introduced some months ago and it was followed rather quickly by the Border Security Bill and now tonight we are having the first reading debate of the Maritime Security Bill. Those three pieces of legislation are looking to add significant security framework and structure to New Zealand. 
What a mockery that makes of that fabulous statement by our Prime Minister that New Zealand is a benign strategic environment—what a complete mockery! Every thinking New Zealander knows that ours is not a benign strategic environment; if it were we would not have the Maritime Security Bill. No we would not have this bill if ours was a benign strategic environment. That is what she parroted out on television. That is what she told the country: “Don’t worry about the ports don’t worry about the airports and don’t worry about New Zealand; we can hide away in the corner and no one will remember us.” She said that we will not be with our traditional allies the Americans the Australians and the British those whom we have fought shoulder to shoulder with in every war from here to Timbuctoo. She said that we will not worry about that because we are in a benign strategic environment. Well lo and behold we are not and tonight we are debating the Maritime Security Bill. 
One of the reasons it is very important that this bill is passed and one of the reasons that National will be supporting the referral of this important legislation to a select committee is that other countries in the world are taking up their responsibilities and are spending more. We are talking very significant amounts of money. Tom Ridge America’s Secretary for Homeland Security went to the Senate and asked for $29 billion for homeland security. He asked for US$29.8 billion. That is what it is costing to protect America. It is not in a benign strategic environment. Even our Prime Minister has had to admit that we are not in a benign strategic environment either and she has had to introduce this legislation at some cost I might add. The first-year cost of the Maritime Security Bill will be $950000 plus GST—that will be the cost to the Government—and $750000 is the yearly run rate for this legislation. 
But the bill will cost not just the Government money; there are many—13 in fact—port owners in New Zealand that will have to go through a risk assessment. Many shipping companies and offshore rig owners will have to comply with the Maritime Security Bill. There will be costs and they will be spread across New Zealand. We may ask ourselves why they are being forced to comply with the Maritime Security Bill. The reason relates back to the International Maritime Organization and our commitment through that organisation to fulfil our international treaty obligations under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea or “SOLAS” which is the acronym by which it is known in the shipping world. For those who come off the “love boat” and the other cruise ships that come to New Zealand I point out that “SOLAS” is the international convention that is being complied with. 
What does this Maritime Security Bill require? What will be forced upon the shipping companies and the port owners? The 13 ports in New Zealand will have to undergo an individual risk assessment. So it is not a universal blanket—every port having to follow the same thing. In Westport where a bit of coal is exported occasionally on the odd ship— 
Simon Power 
: They used to export timber. 
JOHN KEY 
: Yes that area used to export timber but then along came Labour and now it does not do that. Now it has Jim Anderton’s “jobs machine” dishing out money—but we will not go there; we do not have time to talk about that on this very sad day when Shane Ardern has been charged by the police. 
Every port will have a different individual risk assessment. Auckland’s port where a great many container ships come and go—a port that I see regularly as I drive around dealing with my constituency activities—is far more likely to have a rigorous risk assessment. It will attempt as Mr Brown mentioned in his remarks to prevent unauthorised access to ships port facilities and registered restricted-access areas. This is nothing new in the sense that it has been a requirement of our airports for very good reason for many many years; it is now moving to the maritime area. 
If I may digress for a moment I would like to point out that it is great that the Government is taking up its responsibilities under the Maritime Security Bill. I just wish it would take up its responsibilities a little bit more vigorously when it comes to stopping things from getting off the boats. I am thinking in particular of biosecurity. It would be nice if the Government focused a bit more of its activities on biosecurity and a little less on some of its pet projects. That would be helpful to our country. 
Certainly shipping plays a major role in New Zealand. Members may be interested to know if they have not done their research on this topic—and if I may take a moment to educate them about some of the interesting issues in this area—that 99 percent of all New Zealand’s cargo goes by ship. There are a great many ships coming into our ports. By value 85 percent of New Zealand’s exports leave by ship and 77 percent of all imports come here by ship. By value $28 billion worth of New Zealand’s exports float away on those ships and $24 billion of imports come into the country on them. From those numbers members can get some idea of the magnitude of the problem we are dealing with and the need to address this issue. 
There is also the matter of cruise ships. I talked earlier about the “love boat” and the sorts of ships coming into New Zealand. 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s enough about your honeymoon. 
Simon Power 
: How come this member gets 40 minutes? 
JOHN KEY 
: Well I am going to ask for an extension of time because I am noticing how much members even those on the Government benches are enjoying my address on this particular topic. I am certainly enjoying being part of this debate and having the opportunity to liven up what have been rather dull contributions from many members in this House. But I do not want to waste my time; time is short. 
Darren Hughes 
: It’s precious. 
JOHN KEY 
: Time is precious; that is exactly the word I was looking for. Time is precious on this particular occasion. Because I am running out of time I now want to address those areas where the bill falls short and I note the comments made by Dr Wayne Mapp. The Maritime Security Bill would have been a wonderful opportunity for New Zealand to be part of an international agreement wherein 11 countries have said they will introduce provisions to allow ships to be accessed when people are looking for weapons of mass destruction whether they be chemical nuclear or biological. What sorts of countries are in that agreement? I look down the list and I see Australia; yes the roos are there. So is Britain. So is the United States. Our traditional allies are in this agreement. Where is our name? Missing! It is “MIA” just like it was during the war in Iraq—missing. 
This country will pay for that—members need not worry about that. There will be no US free-trade arrangement with New Zealand. One thing we do not have to worry about is container ships going to America because none will be leaving this country for America; there will be no free-trade arrangement because of the absolute shambles that the Government has made of that position. It does not matter that the Government is offering up bodies and all the rest of it now; that is not helping. The Government has missed the boat with this bill. 
I thank Madam Speaker for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this wonderful bill which we will be supporting.