Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. As the member who has just resumed her virtual seat has said it is a pleasure to contribute to the process of passing this legislation. It's a worthwhile endeavour and as far as I can tell it's supported by all parties across the House. National's indicated of course already that we do support the Maritime Powers Bill at this the second reading.So I haven't had much to do with the particular bill so I'm standing on the shoulders of giants in the sense that I've read the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee report and by doing so had a bit of a flavour of some of the submissions and had the benefit of the work that they've done. So passing off their homework as my own I'm going to copy that and pretend that my points are original in the traditional way. But actually I did genuinely have some reactions of my own to the legislation as I was reading it so I've compared notes with the select committee report and indeed the bill itself as it now sits and the legislative statement. And I think it's pretty clear what we've got is a bill that does cover some pretty important gaps. That's what it sets out to do—not actually create many new offences if any so much as clarify powers that are existing and extend them in a geographical sense. So not extending jurisdiction in the sense of any new kinds of offending being captured but extending jurisdiction in the way of the reach of New Zealand's sovereign power even out into international waters which is sort of an interesting concept in itself.Taking a step back the obligations that allow New Zealand to exercise its authority—and indeed as obligations New Zealand is required to exercise this authority in some senses—to be able to enforce those laws actually makes them meaningful. If New Zealand—and indeed other nations in an equivalent way—weren't able to enforce the laws then those laws would not be meaningful and of course the high seas could be the Wild West if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor. So it's explicitly to try and make consistent with New Zealand's international obligations under for example UNCLOS—the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. I'm glad I remembered that acronym—every now and then it's possible to start one isn't it and get a couple of letters in and can tail off if you're not careful. But anyway I don't think I've embarrassed myself on this occasion. So that's sort of the underlying purpose and rationale of this legislation. So it's domestic law but giving effect to and consistent with international law. And doing so not only in New Zealand domestic waters—where actually we probably already have these powers—but doing that in international waters too. So it's a pretty big deal. It's a big deal physically—it's a huge area.I note that the legislative statement calls New Zealand an island nation with extensive maritime domain." Of course that's a perfectly orthodox and reasonable way to characterise New Zealand another way of thinking of our country though is we could say that we are a really large nation of which most of our territory is water. So if we thought about it in that way we have a huge amount of real estate—or territory—over which we are sovereign and that might sound very much expressed in the language of—Greg O'Connor: Talk about the navy.CHRIS PENK: —having rights but also responsibilities attached as well. I'm being encouraged I think by Mr Greg O'Connor to talk about the navy. And I don't usually require too much encouragement on that but the only subject on which I can be more reliably depended upon to fill 10 minutes of a debate is the law. And this is at the intersection of law and maritime matters so I'm very much in my element Madam Speaker and I can only hope that you're enjoying my contribution as much as I am but I doubt it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'm in love!CHRIS PENK: Anyway so the idea is for the New Zealand law to be extended. The long arm of the law needs to be pretty long if we're thinking about an exclusive economic zone as some 200 nautical miles. That's of course beyond that initial realm so to speak of 12 nautical miles—being the territorial sovereignty so to speak. And then further out of course you've got international waters which are exactly as they sound. And if we think about international waters being the waters inter or between the nations but thinking about trans-national crime the things that could take place between different countries—such serious matters as trafficking of humans drugs arms and wildlife—then it's of course pretty obvious pretty quickly that we're talking about pretty serious stuff. And the enforcement officers that the legislation empowers are pretty wide in their range and that indicates a wide range of different interests and ideals that we have out on the high seas.So we've got variously constables I presume in the sort of New Zealand standard police kind of meaning of the word—and I look over to Mr O'Connor this is a subject with which he is well versed—so constables as well as Customs officers members of the armed forces Department of Conservation rangers warranted officers and endangered species officers. Endangered species of course important to protect—I'm thinking birds sea life and of course Labour MPs: all endangered species. So we have obviously on a more serious note some pretty serious powers. The select committee turned its mind to the ones that could—in fact do—breach human rights in a way but in a way that they've obviously decided ultimately is reasonable. So we've got warrantless searches so searches and I suppose—following that—seizures potentially of vessels without a search warrant. The practical dimension of course of boarding at sea—an opposed boarding so to speak; one in which the boarders are not welcomed in fact may be actively repelled—is that it's pretty difficult to get hold of a justice of the peace or a judge to provide a search warrant at short notice in "Sea State Nine".So those matters were thrashed out—I think pretty well—by the select committee. I can see reading between the lines—and in fact the very words of their report back—they did grapple with that question. A previous contributor and it might have been Helen White mentioned that the New Zealand Law Society contributed—in fact it might have been Ingrid Leary. Apologies to either or both of those if I've misidentified them but in any case obviously these were important matters that the select committee considered deeply. But I also think they added some value in some other ways that may be worth highlighting in my remaining time.One is the idea that these powers are given—for example to New Zealand - flagged vessels in international waters or indeed to offences that take place on a foreign-flagged vessel in international waters but for which we've got extraterritorial jurisdiction. And then the idea that at the point that they come into New Zealand's more standard sphere of influence that the powers would actually somehow go away and that's the last thing we would want of course is for the certainty that this law is trying to provide that's given to the Customs or the navy or other law enforcement agency to actually disappear at the point that they are getting closer to shore. Actually the closer they get in a way you would think that the stronger New Zealand's influence and ability to detain and control would be. So the select committee in its wisdom—and I do mean that genuinely—recommended amending clause 33 to state explicitly that the powers may continue to be exercised in New Zealand's territorial seas internal waters in any port in New Zealand or at any place where a ship reaches land even though that exercise of power under the legislation had actually started considerably further out. So I think that's a really useful little confirmation there. You don't want to be having these arguments out at sea. I don't know how technical the legal arguments would be and how much it would be more a matter of force but of course it's important to have a proper legal basis for these things which is of course the very basis for us being here tonight.So my final comment again in the spirit of commending the select committee's careful consideration is that they've gone to pains to make sure that this concept of a vessel being pursued without interruption reflects the international law. So that unclosed convention article 111—Nelson's number of course: one eye one arm etc. So that uses the same language as in that international instrument as in this law in clause 6. And they've recommended the insertion of another clause to make it clear that if reasonable efforts have been made by the enforcement officer to communicate requirements to stop that basically they can go ahead as though that had been received and acknowledged which I think is probably fair enough. So anyway good bill supported across the House including by National and for what it's worth by me. Thank you Madam Speaker."