Little AndrewMARITIME POWERS BILLSecond ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I present a legislative statement on the Maritime Powers Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Madam Speaker. I move That the Maritime Powers Bill be now read a second time.I want to start by thanking all those who made submissions on the bill for their time and efforts and also to thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its very careful consideration of the bill. The committee has recommended a number of changes that in my view are going to improve and strengthen the bill.The bill is designed to close gaps in New Zealand's domestic law which create uncertainty when enforcing our criminal law in international waters which are the oceans and seas beyond the 12 nautical miles from our coast—an area which includes our exclusive economic zone. The bill provides a clear statutory basis for New Zealand and its agencies and authorities to exercise enforcement powers in international waters in order to enforce New Zealand's criminal law—essentially extending enforcement powers that New Zealand agencies already have on land and in New Zealand waters into international waters. Addressing these gaps is critical for New Zealand because there are increasing threats within our extensive maritime domain including trafficking of humans drugs arms and wildlife. Such threats have the ability to seriously harm New Zealand's people economy wildlife and environment.Importantly New Zealand already has the right in international law to exercise enforcement powers provided for in the bill but the bill simply implements into our domestic law and properly recognises it so there is no doubt at all that those rights we already have in international law can be exercised by our various agencies.Turning now to the committee's work the committee received an overwhelming seven submissions on the bill and one submitter presented an oral submission. Of the seven submissions four expressly supported the bill—so that's a majority at least. The other three submitters did not take a position on the bill so we now have an overwhelming majority of public support for the bill. No submitter expressed opposition to the bill progressing—an even more compelling reason why the House should eagerly embrace it and its contents.Some submitters made suggestions for improvements to the bill and a few raised concerns with particular clauses in the bill—and I will cover some of those off now. Two issues raised in submissions relate to the bill as a whole which the committee carefully considered. The first is whether the bill should be amended to clarify that the Bill of Rights Act—or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as it is properly known—applies to the exercise of powers in the bill. It isn't necessary of course for an Act to include a clause for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to apply because on the face of that piece of legislation it already does. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applies to the powers in this bill in accordance with the relevant sections of that Act and accordingly the committee did not recommend that there should be an explicit clause stating that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applies. The second issue raised by submitters is the bill's approach to warrants. Consistent with existing domestic legislation which confers comparable powers in international waters the bill does not require warrants for the exercise of its powers. This recognises the unpredictable nature of the maritime environment where there is always a risk of evidence being destroyed or made irretrievable usually by tossing it overboard. This recognises the unpredictable nature of the maritime environment where there is always a risk of evidence being destroyed or made irretrievable—sorry but it also reflects the unique challenges of exercising enforcement powers in international waters in particular the need to obtain the consent of the flag state in the case of foreign ships for the exercise of those powers and that of course is not always easy. For these reasons the committee did not recommend a change to the bill's approach to warrants.The committee did recommend a number of minor amendments to improve the bill including clarifying the purpose clause to reflect that the bill has been designed to ensure consistency with international human rights law. The committee also recommended adding examples to illustrate the types of offences that are within the scope of the bill and to reinforce that the bill does not create any new substantive offences or expand the jurisdiction of any existing offences. The committee also recommended a number of useful technical improvements to the bill which relate to terminology—clarifying the limited situations where consent of the flag state is not required to exercise the powers of the bill—and ensuring the powers in the bill are exercisable in respect of persons charged with a serious offence against New Zealand law who then abscond into international waters.Once again I want to thank the committee members for their work they've done on this bill. I believe the bill is a positive development which will enable us to better secure our extensive maritime domain from increasing threats such as transnational organised crime in a fair reasonable and proportionate way that is consistent with international law and our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This will support the wellbeing of our communities and advance our security and shared prosperity and our economic interests. On that basis I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.