Locke Keith: Maritime Security Bill — Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Maritime Security Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12217] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support this bill although it has serious concerns that the legislation might be applied in an exaggerated way in practice compared with the needs of the actual security situation we face in New Zealand. We just need to look at the background of a little bit of hysteria and over-reaction at the time Tiger Woods came here for the golf open when there was a huge security alert that did not seem to be based on much at all. 
Just a week or two ago we had headlines in our newspapers about how Mr al-Zawahiri the deputy of bin Laden had been visiting New Zealand in the 1990s. They were just based on some report from a dodgy journalist with probably no foundation whatsoever. The next day the journalist said he knew that al-Qaeda was running around the world with nuclear-suitcase bombs. That is just an indication of how people can take a little allegation of a security problem a phone call or a bit of powder in the mail—some hoaxers operating—and take security measures that actually cost us millions of dollars and inconvenience thousands of people. It becomes a hoaxer’s paradise so that somebody can phone up and cause huge damage because there is over-security in terms of our procedures. 
That is not to say that we should not have security plans in place and that is why the Green Party is supporting this bill. I tried to introduce an amendment—unfortunately it failed—to take the word “legal” out of one of the provisions that would affect workers on strike because we do not want this law to apply to any workers who might be on strike on the waterfront. That is not a security problem; it is something that has happened traditionally in New Zealand. 
There has been a lot of industrial action—some of it legal and some illegal—but that is surely not what this bill is about. It is good that there have been changes in the bill as it has proceeded so that workers on the waterfront will not be searched by their employers—the search has to be by authorised people such as police officers independent of the employer—and so that workers do not need to stand around when there is a real high-security situation. They can leave their workplaces and do not need to put themselves in the firing line. 
It has been indicated that an international security system is being put in place and around the world at the moment—particularly in European countries like France Italy and Spain—workers are taking industrial action and getting upset at the more intrusive searching that is going on under such measures. On the other hand a fleet of about 20 ships owned by the bin Laden family is apparently floating around the world with “flags of convenience” and not suffering too much at all. Of course it is those flags-of-convenience boats from the bin Laden family and many other big business people who are trying to make maximum profit by having the worst conditions and cutting corners on everything including biosecurity and security measures. So if there is to be any serious security problem or intrusion into New Zealand be it through biosecurity crime drugs terrorism or whatever then it is likely to come through those flags-of-convenience boats. It will be good if these measures actually restrict the number of such boats coming into New Zealand. 
But we have to be careful that we do not go overboard on security plans. I have been talking to a shipowner today who is worried that it can get too expensive in terms of the relatively low risk. For one of the boats he owns overseas he had to spend $20000 on a video system and $128000 for other security measures. Training cost several thousand dollars. For a New Zealand owner to send people to Australia to do a course with Lloyds can cost $6000 a time. If as a result of some of those measures extra staffing has to be provided then that is difficult for them too. 
Just last Friday I think it was we experienced a security situation with the  
Santa Regina 
 one of the ferries going across the strait. A hoaxer phoned up and there was some inconvenience associated with that incident. There were complaints from workers that the police came on and wanted to fingerprint them and all the rest of it. It was not too bad and they did not really go overboard but it just showed that we do not want to set things up as a hoaxer’s paradise. 
Another question has concerned some people. For instance down in Timaru there has been a discussion about closing off sections of the wharf that have traditionally been open to the public and used for fishing and there could be a problem for Picton ferries like the  
Santa Regina 
. Picton is a very nice tourist spot but under wharf security plans there is a danger that too much of that waterfront—from the ferry area right across—could be excluded from public access. That would reduce its tourist appeal if it happened. 
Even across the street on the Wellington wharf most of which we can walk around at the present time there was concern the other day about somebody putting a sign on a visiting Australian warship—something about John Howard being a “US bootlicker”. I cannot remember the wording of the slogan exactly but certainly no one was trying to put a bomb anywhere. There is not much danger of people running around like that putting bombs on visiting warships. The boat was actually moored I think at what is a public space. We would not want that public space closed off and officials going overboard on such minor things. 
In Timaru it was reported that the Prime Port chief executive had said that current levels of access for the public would be maintained. But as this bill is applied and mainly through regulation we will have to monitor how it goes along and how those regulations come out. If the pressure is put on people like that chief executive to overly restrict access to some of those regional wharfs it would be of great disadvantage to the public and again to tourism. In a lot of places wandering around the wharf and having a cup of coffee a beer or whatever one has down at the wharf is part of the tourist and local experience. We do not want those wharf plans to cut into that too much. 
The Green Party supports this bill but we do have those concerns. There are problems particularly on the west coast of the United States where some workers are getting a bit upset at the way things are being applied in the wharf security area such as having unnecessary ID. Even in New Zealand there is concern that there are too many restraints on trucks coming into the wharf areas. At the present time shipowners and wharf people pretty much know who is coming in and out. If we applied very rigid systems we could slow down shipments into and out of the wharves and unnecessarily restrain people. So we just have to bear all of that in mind. 
But we see a very positive side to this legislation if it restricts the number of flags-of-convenience boats coming in here; if it leads to a much higher standard generally on the boats including hopefully the condition of sailors on them; and if it helps reduce the main security threat to New Zealand which is biosecurity—some of those bugs creepy-crawlies and insects that are going to affect our forests or agriculture. We see the positive side to this legislation if we can stop those pests coming in through the range of security measures that are being brought in with the Border Security Bill affecting containers and this set of procedures relating to wharf and ship security plans. 
With those comments I would like to indicate the Green Party’s support for this bill.