Heatley Phil: Maritime Security Bill — Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Maritime Security Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12216] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak in the third reading of this bill. It is not usually my habit to acknowledge Labour Party Ministers of this Parliament but I would like to acknowledge the Associate Minister of Transport the Hon Harry Duynhoven for the way he has progressed this bill through the House. He has answered our questions both formally and informally. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: He should be in Cabinet. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The ACT member is quite right—he should be the Minister of Transport. He should be in Cabinet. He has done a brilliant job and I acknowledge him for that and in this case his ministry as well. 
This bill as we heard is to ensure that New Zealand meets its international obligations under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea which members will recall was amended in December 2002. Members would have listened to their wirelesses and heard that so they know it did happen. That convention is to enhance ship and port security. New Zealand’s obligations in case members are unaware of them involve assessing security risks for individual ships and port facilities and developing security plans based on those assessments. We also have to specify security levels at which ships and port facilities must operate; maintain communications; provide protocols for ships and port facilities; prevent unauthorised access to ships port facilities and restricted areas; and prevent the introduction of unauthorised weapons incendiary devices or explosives to ships and port facilities. 
Such requirements—and we in the National Party certainly acknowledge this—would place New Zealand in line with accepted maritime security regulations and contribute to our role in combating terrorism. That is something most of the House is pretty keen on doing. I cannot speak for the Greens but certainly other parties in the House do want to work towards combating terrorism. 
The United States and the European Union gave a deadline of 1 July 2004 for New Zealand’s port security plans to be approved. The Maritime Safety Authority advises that it acknowledges that. It is an international deadline and applies to all signatories to the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. I was barely out of nappies on that date but elderly members of the House such as Jill Pettis and others will recall it. I do not but I acknowledge that it was that 1974 convention when I was at kindergarten that brought this about. 
This is an international treaty obligation. The United States and the European Union along with many other countries including New Zealand have clearly signalled that they will expect full compliance with the international ship and port security code. That is understandable. New Zealanders acknowledge that and we are happy to support it. The Maritime Safety Authority advises that until this bill is passed it is not the authority designated to stamp plans that port authorities put forward but it expects to be and we expect to see it do that. In the interim the authority has asked ports to put forward their security plans. It will take an informal look at those and indicate whether they are appropriate and likely to be approved once it becomes the designated authority. 
I am appreciative of the Minister and ministry for allowing that interim arrangement to develop and go forward. It simply means that timeliness has been met and ports have had access to officials the Government and the Minister in terms of getting some sort of guidance as to what is expected. It means that from now on—after this bill is passed in the House tonight—they can move forward formally. So I acknowledge the Minister for putting that arrangement in place. 
Clause 7 of the Maritime Security Bill provides that “The Governor-General may by Order in Council appoint a Crown entity the Designated Authority.” We all knew that that was going to be the Maritime Safety Authority. We all acknowledge that that is the right authority to have this responsibility. Port authorities knew that and that is why in the interim they have been given the informal nod and direction. No such designation though can be made until this bill is enacted so the Maritime Safety Authority and the rest of us are certainly looking forward to that. The Minister always anticipated that that would happen and he always gave that indication. I would like to again acknowledge the fact that that information has not been kept under a bushel. It has been fairly public. Port authorities have worked with the Minister on that and that is useful. 
I have had contact from all sorts of trading sectors in our economy and most of all the fishing industry. It is concerned that its export products which provide huge value to our country might find themselves parked up in little alleys aboard ships in ports all over the world and not able to reach their export markets simply because countries signed up to this international treaty have seen that we have not met our obligations and therefore will not import our products or certainly not with timeliness in mind. Those have been the industry’s concerns. With the passage of this bill all those concerns fall away and we know we can access markets overseas. 
I was concerned that ships might be parked up in Rotterdam or other ports of the world with perishables in particular aboard. One can appreciate that the fishing industry would be subject to that but not only that industry. If perishable meat sheep and dairy products were sitting in ships for long periods of time that could hurt our economy. So it is useful to know that with this legislation passed—everything going well—we will move forward and see that our obligations are met and that that situation does not happen. It is pretty critical that we do these things and that we meet our international obligations. We must not just meet them but do them in a timely way. 
I am confident as the Minister is confident that all ports in New Zealand will get the nod to implement their security plans. It is my hope that where they have not met the appropriate approval process where they have not provided plans that are acceptable or to the high standards the ministry will demand they will receiveguidance from the Maritime Safety Authority. I seek assurance from the Minister that the Maritime Safety Authority will not just act as an approval authority but will give guidance and help port authorities make and put forward their plans. I know that has been the case to date but I would like to know as well that the authority would not just flick comments off to the effect that port authorities did not get approval or have plans implemented but rather that it would also give formal guidance as to how plans could be improved. 
I am unaware as I have not heard of whether port authorities are sharing information. The Minister nods so that is good to know. It would be good if they sat around the table and were able to develop those plans together so that there is some consistency across the country for security measures in our ports. We would like to see that. Lots of industries and sectors export from a number of ports throughout the country and consistency is quite important. 
I commend this bill in its third reading to the House. National is most certainly supporting it—not just because we think it is a smart move and good for international treaty obligations but because we believe it is good for exporters and we certainly want to combat terrorism where we can. I thank the Minister again for his lead on this legislation and acknowledge his work and that of the ministry.