Duynhoven Harry: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12207] 
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?