O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): As we all know New Zealand is surrounded by vast oceans which—to quote Shakespeare—serves it in the office of a wall" and yet even those vast oceans would not be enough in this day and age to prevent acts of marine terrorism. So we in New Zealand First are glad to see this bill finally coming back to the House for consideration because this is a very important matter that does need quite urgent attention. New Zealand needs robust laws to deal with it while at the same time making sure that we do not compromise the valuable right to protest that people may wish to exercise in the marine environment for one reason or another. We think that the bill actually succeeds in that balance both providing a robust legal system to prevent or reduce acts of marine terrorism and promoting and in fact preserving the right to protest that I spoke of.I see that the bill actually implements the two 2005 marine counter-terrorism treaties the Protocol of 2005 to the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the similar Protocol of 2005 to the Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. Having read through the bill in some detail we in New Zealand First approve of the new offences to implement the offences created by those protocols. They have been a long time coming but I suppose it is better late than never.They relate to the use of ships or fixed platforms for terrorist acts and include—and I will list the ones that I think are the most important—the carriage of any radioactive material or biological or chemical material that could be used or could enable threats of use. Those are covered in some detail which we are pleased about. The carriage of nuclear waste in circumstances in which there is a danger or threat might be in fact quite relevant to New Zealand and that is covered.Likewise the carriage of a nuclear weapon in a manner that is likely to cause death or cause serious injury or for the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act—that would also be covered. That is actually quite consistent with New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance and apart from that it is a very sensible piece of legislation and it is a wonder that we did not already have provisions for prosecutions of that in New Zealand.I am also pleased to see the one that deals with the illicit trafficking by ship of weapons of mass destruction their delivery systems and related material—a bit unlikely in and around New Zealand I guess but still a good provision to have. Another important one for New Zealand is the transportation of fugitives by ship where the person assisting knows that the person being transported has committed an offence in relation to terrorism. That is one that could actually be quite relevant for us and it is good to see that covered as well.Another important provision in the bill is the one that clarifies the law as far as the maritime boarding regime is concerned so that maritime officers will know what they are entitled to do and what they are not. We have seen some examples of that doubt when one of our ships—some time ago now—was involved in a chase in the oceans around Antarctica of a foreign vessel that had been I think acting illegally and a chase ensued. I think there was some discussion in the news media and amongst others about what the rights of our officers on board our ship might be if a boarding was to be undertaken so it is good to see that covered as well. In the same way the extraterritorial jurisdiction is clarified as well to make sure that New Zealand does claim and has jurisdiction over New Zealand ships in the maritime environment where that is relevant under the Act.I am also glad to see however that the Attorney-General is required to consent if there is going to be a prosecution. I think that that is very important. On the one hand New Zealand First does not see how the bill could potentially cover the actions of protesters such as an environmental group unless they were to go so far as to create a threat of the kind covered in the bill. That seems to me highly unlikely so if they stick to protests they should not have a problem because they would not seek to be "compelling a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act". However it is important that the Attorney-General be required to consent to a prosecution in those circumstances because there may need to be a judgment made about how far a protest can go before it would infringe the bill.I am also very pleased to see the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee's addition of new section 3B in clause 7 which I think I have time to quote. It says this: "To avoid doubt the fact that a person engages in any protest advocacy or dissent or engages in any strike lockout or other industrial action is not by itself a sufficient basis for inferring that the person—(a) is carrying out an act for a purpose or with an intention specified in any offence in this Act; or (b) intends to cause an outcome specified in any offence in this Act." I think that does clarify the matter quite well.I am a little bit amused by the committee's avoidance of the word "terrorism". I think that that is a little bit strange since it did not change anything at all. However it is a minor matter and it would not stop New Zealand First from approving of the bill. I also have no issues with the committee's changes concerning the term "serious injury or serious damage" and the term "intentionally". I think that it has done a pretty good job.This is a necessary bill even though it has been brought forward far too late but it is a good bill and New Zealand First will be very pleased to vote in favour."