Marine Legislation Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Marine Legislation Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the chair and members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their work and unanimous support of the bill. I would also like to thank everyone who has taken time to make a submission to the committee.

This is an omnibus bill that amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 in order to promote maritime safety and to protect the marine environment. Amendments to the Maritime Transport Act will provide for local regulation of maritime activities by regional councils, enable the implementation of four international maritime conventions, and make other miscellaneous changes to improve the clarity, effectiveness, and enforceability of provisions in the Act. The bill also amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act to include new provisions in relation to some discharges and the dumping of waste and other matter from ships, and to ensure that New Zealand continues to act consistently with its international obligations.

With regard to local regulation of maritime activity, this bill replaces and updates measures currently contained in the Local Government Act 1974. The bill enables regional councils to continue to regulate maritime safety and maritime-related activities in their regions and provides for a stronger regime for the management of port, harbour, and navigation safety. The bill establishes clear duties and powers in respect of port operations to support and complement the New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code 2004.

The majority of submissions from local authorities supported the current division of central and local government maritime safety responsibilities and sought to clarify that the bill would not expand local responsibilities. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee recommended amendments that clarify that the bill will not create new responsibilities for regional councils, but will instead outline the functions that a regional council can undertake when appropriate.

The committee has also recommended amendments to give regional councils greater flexibility in procedure for setting fees and charges related to the maritime functions. This change will allow councils to use the procedures in the Local Government Act 2002, rather than continuing an existing requirement that fees for these functions be set only by by-laws.

The bill also enables New Zealand to bring four international maritime conventions into full force: the protocol of 1996 to amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001, the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil 1973, and the Manila amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978.

The grounding of the Rena on Astrolabe Reef in October 2011 and the subsequent 350-tonne oil spill highlighted the need to update New Zealand’s liability limit for maritime claims under international conventions. This bill will more than double the current liability limit for shipowners. It also provides a mechanism for giving effect to future increases to the limit. This will allow for a rapid implementation of a further 51 percent increase in liability limits, which is set to become available in 2015 for countries that are party to the conventions.

The Manila amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978 include a blood-alcohol limit for certain on-duty merchant seafarers. The bill gives effect to this measure, which will help to ensure that masters, officers, and other seafarers are fit and able to perform their safety, security, and environmental duties. Further miscellaneous amendments to the Maritime Transport Act included in this bill will improve enforcement, modernise penalty levels, and clarify the application of the Act.

The bill also amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act to transfer the regulation of dumping waste and discharging harmful substances in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf from offshore installations and mineral mining facilities on board ships from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority. The transfer of certain discharge and dumping regulatory functions will ensure that applications for marine dumping and discharges are considered in their entirety by the Environmental Protection Authority, thereby eliminating process duplication and providing certainty that the comprehensive environmental assessment requirements will be met.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee recommended changes to clarify and improve the bill in the following ways. The definitions of “mining activity” and “mining discharge” have been widened to ensure that the prospecting stage of mineral mining projects is captured and to ensure that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is subject to the legislation. A new section has been added to better clarify the interaction and relation between the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and the Maritime Transport Act in terms of the regulation and the discharge of harmful substances. This will more accurately reflect the jurisdiction New Zealand has over the continental shelf beyond the exclusive economic zone. The bill now allows for information sharing between the Environmental Protection Authority and Maritime New Zealand. This will ensure a clear interaction between the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and the Maritime Transport Act, and provide certainty that environmental effects are properly managed. Finally, the bill now provides clear transitional arrangements for the applications and consents of existing discharge management plans and dumping permits.

To sum up, the proposed changes will promote the effective management of the marine environment by enhancing existing measures in the Maritime Transport Act. In closing, I would like to once again thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members for the work on this bill. This bill will provide an updated and improved framework for maritime safety and marine environmental protection. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak in support of the Marine Legislation Bill, which is a largely technical omnibus bill that is probably worthy of the level of passion we saw from the Minister of Justice in her contribution. It was a very accurate representation of the legislation and of the select committee process. It was perhaps not an entirely accurate representation of some of the issues behind the bill, of course, and I will get to those later on in my contribution. I would like to thank the officials for their diligent work in assisting the select committee in what was a very technical piece of legislation that required a lot of technical advice, and I would also like to thank my new colleagues—[Interruption] No, I was not there but I am still going to thank them; that is the kind of guy I am. I did make some brief visits to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and now I have the pleasure of being a permanent member of that committee, so I would like to thank my new colleagues on that committee for the good work that they put into this piece of legislation as well.

This Marine Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill of two parts. Part 1 seeks to amend the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and Part 2 seeks to amend the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, which, of course, was passed through this Parliament merely weeks before this piece of legislation was introduced to make amendments to that piece of legislation. I do not know whether that is a reflection of the shambolic approach that this Government takes to making laws—that merely weeks later it needed to fix up something that it had only just passed—but them’s the facts and we worked hard to try to tidy up some of the Government’s shoddy work. This bill amends the Maritime Transport Act “to provide for local regulation of maritime safety and maritime-related activities by regional councils; to regulate alcohol consumption by seafarers; to implement four international maritime conventions; to create offences and prescribe penalties for the improper operation of ships; and to make other miscellaneous changes.” It amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act “to make new provisions in relation to discharges and dumping, and to ensure that New Zealand continues to act consistently with two international conventions to which it is party;”.

The bill implements a number of conventions. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims is currently only partially applied in New Zealand, meaning maritime liability is half what it could be for loss of life, injury, property damage, or other damage or loss. This bill enacts the convention fully and gives it the full force of law. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 is fully implemented in this bill, as well. It sets up a separate liability regime for fuel oil pollution, meaning claims would not be limited by the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969 has a protocol that includes substances beyond those that New Zealand law currently applies to, so the bill extends coverage to the substances in the protocol.

The bill also introduces a 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres of blood-alcohol limit on all seafarers, and this is perhaps one of the more curious aspects of this piece of legislation. Although the Government has accepted an international convention that states 0.05 is an appropriate and acceptable alcohol limit for seafarers, the Government has continued to abjectly refuse the concept that that is an appropriate limit for car drivers. It seems odd that when only 80 vessels will be affected by this change, and it is estimated that there are just 10 incidents a year that will be affected by this new regulation, the Government is so quick to move on this change to blood-alcohol limits when it is not prepared to act on the 34 percent of fatal car accidents that have been linked to alcohol. It is utterly inconsistent from this Government to acknowledge that 0.05 is an appropriate blood-alcohol limit for operating a vessel, and yet it refuses to act on something that has got the potential to save far more lives and do far more good than simply implementing this for seafarers alone. But that is not the most curious aspect of this legislation.

The most curious part is that it took so long for the Government to actually implement the conventions that this legislation allows us to sign up to. In particular, the one that most New Zealanders will be mindful of is the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or the bunker convention, as it is more common known. There was a discussion document all the way back in 2007. Regional councils received a discussion document from the then Labour Government about implementing that convention. But after this Government came into power, everything went silent. In the briefing to the incoming Minister in 2008 there was a recommendation that he implement and sign up to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage and to a number of changes to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. Legislation was prepared and ready to go by 2009, but that bill sat on the Minister’s desk. In fact, it was lucky if it was sitting on the Minister’s desk—it disappeared to some distant filing cabinet, never to be thought of again. So while Steven Joyce was planning his uneconomic, unaffordable roads of national significance, a little bill waited. While Steven Joyce was running focus groups and running scared from doing the right thing by lowering the legal blood-alcohol level for drivers, a little bill waited. [Interruption] They have woken up. And while Steven Joyce was busy fixing up the mistakes of his colleagues in this shambles of a Government, a little bill waited and hoped that one day somebody, somewhere, in the Government, would actually pay attention to it and introduce it to the House.

Well, that day finally came. The day when somebody in the Government actually thought: “Gosh! We really ought to progress this Marine Legislation Bill.” That day came on Wednesday, 5 October 2011, to be precise, at around about 2.20 a.m. That is when the Rena ran aground on the Astrolabe Reef. The ship was carrying 1,368 containers, eight of which contained hazardous materials, as well as 1,700 tonnes of heavy fuel and 200 tonnes of marine diesel oil. All of a sudden the Marine Legislation Bill became very important. But it was all too late. How late? About $50 million late. We needed this bill passed before the Rena ran aground, not afterwards. If National had managed to carry out that simple task, the New Zealand taxpayer would not have been left in the position of having to fork out the lion’s share of $50 million to pay for the clean-up of the Rena grounding.

When the New Zealand Shipping Federation came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, it approached the bill thus. The federation expressed its concern regarding the haste with which the bill was being progressed. It understood the reason, which was that the Government was attempting to quickly close the door after the horse had bolted, but it said: “This merely serves to compound our frustration, as it demonstrates that the maritime sector is regarded as a low-priority sector within official circles.”

The haste with which the bill is being progressed, as far as the New Zealand Shipping Federation was concerned, was quite understandable, because there was, in fact, a time limit, which was 1 January 2013. In order to meet our convention requirements regarding alcohol limits, we were supposed to have had this legislation passed by 1 January 2013. I do not know whether it is a continuation of the shambles of this Government or whether it is the walking shambles that is David Bennett, but somehow or another the Government has failed, again, to meet its international obligations by failing to get this legislation passed in time. Mercifully, I do not think we will suffer any penalty as a result. But this bill is a good bill. It is a technical bill, but one that is very important for protecting our coastline and our environment. It is just a pity the Government could not get off its chuff and do this sooner.

This Marine Legislation Bill is a good bill, which all parties in this House apart from probably the Green Party are going to support. It was very disappointing to see that last speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, trying to politicise it. I know he is a new member to this House and has little experience, but he needs to actually understand how you work together with other parties. I must admit that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—

💬 Dr Cam Calder: I hear he’s on the committee.

He is not on the committee. He is a recent member on the committee. He got promoted to the committee from something or other that I think was meeting at 8 o’clock in the morning; now he is headed to a full meeting. He is learning, but it is very disappointing to hear that member say those things.

I want to just make one point before I go on to a few points about the bill, and that is that the Labour Government did not put that convention through. The Labour Government at that time was so busy trying to sort out the shambles around election laws and trying to save its butt around illegalities in the electoral system that it had promoted that it did not put this bill up. It is rich for the Labour Party to come into this House now and say that the National Government should have done it. The Labour Government had it on its books and did not do it, and the reason it did not do it is that it was trying to buy votes in an election, as it always does, and it did not work. So those members should not come into this House and now blame the National Government for this. The Labour Party is the party at fault. It was the one that was in Government and should have done it at that time. It did not, and it is a bit rich for that member to come in here—I know he is a new member, but it is a bit rich for him to come in and say those things at this time.

This is good legislation. This is legislation that even the Green Party and the National Party worked together on. We worked together and got a solution around fracking and things like that, and it would be good to see the Green Party actually support this legislation today. But I am sure it will find some minute detail that makes no difference and that will be its reason to not support the legislation, and that will be very disappointing.

But there are some big parts to this bill. There is another part that the last speaker mentioned, and that is the alcohol requirement. OK, it is at a lower level than the driving requirement, but it is for only 80 vessels, as that member identified. The vast bulk of vessels, or seafarers, you could say, are not covered. This covers only commercial seafarers in that sense. It relates to international seafarers’ boats that have international crews coming in and out on a commercial basis, so it is consistent with that. That member was making reference to things that are not the case. It is not an approach that is different from what we do in the sense of our roading network, because—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: You’ve got one for the roads and one for the sea. What’s the difference?

It is because a lot of people on the sea do not actually have any limit, because there is a zero limit for all other sea captains, unless you are in a commercial enterprise.

The other thing I wanted to go through was the role of regional councils—I think this is a very important part of this Marine Legislation Bill—having the ability to set some of these rules around harbour masters and the rules and regulations around their maritime activities in certain areas. It is a good example of how Government can work with local bodies. There were some submissions from different regional councils that felt that we should do it in different ways, and I know the Deputy Speaker represents an area that has strong views as well. In the end this is a good balance where we are showing that central government and local government are working together. So I think that is another good part of the bill.

Effectively this bill does change two major pieces of legislation, and it does it in a way that shows members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee have worked hard to try to accommodate the interests of all parties and reflect the advice we received from officials. I look forward to this bill passing through the House. We look forward to the Labour Party actually supporting this bill, not only in vote but in spirit, in the way that the select committee worked, and that would be good to see. It would be good to see this bill pass through the House unanimously. Thank you.

I take great pleasure in rising to speak on the Marine Legislation Bill. Talk about having something handed to you on a platter. All of the work had been done for this bill by the previous Labour Government. It had taken a number of years to get to the point where this legislation was written and ready to go. By the end of 2008, of course, we had an election. There it sat on the new Minister’s desk. Here was something that could have been implemented immediately, but, no, National reverted to type and said that this was an idea from the Labour Party, therefore it was not going to give it any credence whatsoever. It took a shipwreck, it took a disaster, for somebody to go back and say: “Gosh, Minister of Transport. Ooh! Were you meant to do something about this? What’s this about a convention? Was the Minister meant to do something about this? What’s our responsibility here?”. Even then, having all of the work done—everything prepared, legislation ready to go, everything handed to the Minister on a platter—he still did not act for another 4 years. Even then, it is late. It should have been in by 1 January this year. Even then, the Minister could not get it right.

So for David Bennett to whinge and moan about us, and my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway before me, and saying that it is a bit rich of the Labour Party to get up and complain, I am sorry, but there needs to be some responsibility sheeted home for why this was not managed earlier. The Government has had 4 years, and it has not been able to implement something that was all done and dusted and ready to go. We will continue to make that point.

We are supporting the bill. We wish it had been given the chance by this Government to pass before the Rena disaster, but the other thing that is of concern—well, let us just say we welcome it coming anyway. Fortunately, if there are not going to be international penalties for us in getting it in late, then that is well and good, but it is no thanks to the assiduousness of the Minister. Due to the Government’s failure to ratify the international conventions, when the Rena crashed, of course, we know that it was liable to pay only $11.3 million of the clean-up costs for the Crown, which ended up being over $50 million. Although the Government was able to negotiate that up to about halfway, it would not have been necessary for the Government to go through those negotiations had it subscribed to these international conventions in the first place.

I suppose there is one other thing that I want to reflect on just briefly. One of the parts of this bill sets a blood-alcohol limit of 0.05 grams for people in charge of ships and for people sailing ships, but the Government cannot bring itself to do that for people driving lethal weapons on our roads. I do not understand the difference. I do not understand why there should be one standard for maritime safety and quite another for road safety. More New Zealanders are going to be travelling on our roads than are ever going to be travelling on vessels covered by this legislation. I would ask one of the Ministers in the House—well, the Minister in the House, the Minister of Justice—to consider that again. Do not be afraid to revisit legislation on alcohol limits, because I do not think the Minister got it right last time.

Do not be afraid to revisit things, because it is perfectly clear that Amy Adams has had to revisit a few things in the course of developing this legislation and contributing to it. In fact, there are 37 pages of amendments to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act that have been introduced in this legislation, even though National passed that bill only about a month ago. From one shambles to another—although at the same time I do say to Minister Collins that should she choose to revisit blood-alcohol levels, I am sure there would be a number of people around this country who would be prepared to welcome that.

Amy Adams has brought forward 37 pages of amendments to a bill that she clearly did not get right a month ago. The primary aim of the amendments, which I do support—and this is where I am particularly interested—is to move the powers from Maritime New Zealand to the new Environmental Protection Authority. The Environmental Protection Authority is a regulatory body whose responsibility it will be under these amendments to monitor and regulate around waste dumping. The amendments go on to implement the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships as modified by the protocol of 1978, and to implement the 1996 protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.

The quality of our oceans is something that should be of concern to all of us. The original exclusive economic zone legislation was weak. It was inadequate, and 37 pages of amendments go some way to providing the Environmental Protection Authority with its regulatory oversight, the strength to monitor, to comment on, and to regulate around waste dumping in our oceans. When people get out to sea and they do not think anybody can see them, they think it is fine to release waste into the vast oceans and it will just wash away. But anybody who has travelled around the Pacific can tell you it does not wash away, it washes up—it washes up.

These amendments raise the question of why the Minister for the Environment had to dump the substantive changes to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill in Supplementary Order Paper 100 on Parliament after the Local Government and Environment Committee consideration, rather than including them in the bill so they could be consulted on and people could submit on them. It would also go some way, perhaps, to explaining why that exclusive economic zone legislation was rushed back from the select committee, as the Marine Legislation Bill had to be passed this year. Given that it contained these amendments, it could not be put into Parliament before the exclusive economic zone legislation was passed. With that confusing set of consequences and time lines it is clear that Ministers around this area, whether they be of transport or for the environment, are clearly not across the detail of the job, and not across the urgency of this job. Having been critical of the Ministers in this regard, I still support the legislation. We wish it had happened years ago.

It is my privilege to speak to the second reading of the Marine Legislation Bill. I take this call, and I acknowledge that I am speaking on behalf of my colleague Gareth Hughes, who has been the Green MP who has been ushering this bill through its first reading and the select committee process. He will no doubt have a lot more to say on this bill as it reaches the next phase, the Committee of the whole House, and the subsequent third reading.

The Greens will be supporting this bill. Just to recap, this is an omnibus bill that primarily amends two Acts: the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012—the EEZ Act; the one that was referred to previously as having 37 amendments to it. It is an omnibus bill that will also enable New Zealand to accede to three international maritime conventions, the amendments implement changes to another international maritime convention to which New Zealand is a party, and it makes changes relating to the making of maritime and marine protection rules.

I would like to acknowledge and give thanks to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members, to the officials, and also to the submitters. I note that there were 48 submitters from a wide range of organisations, including Local Government New Zealand, regional councils across the country, the merchant officers’ guild, shipping companies, oil companies, port companies, and also individuals. My colleague Gareth assures me that the select committee worked cooperatively to bring this bill to the House with the amendments that have been agreed to in the report. Personally, I would like to see a lot more of that, so I encourage the Government to think about other bills that are sensible and solutions-focused, that protect our special places, and that support our people and are just—quite unlike the previous bill that was in the House, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Then we could look forward to more cooperation in the House and much better decision-making.

But I go back to the Marine Legislation Bill. This is the bill that will become the Act that we should have had in place at the time that the Rena crashed into Astrolabe Reef and leaked debris and oil on to our beaches and into our marine environment. At the first reading of this bill in the House, my colleague Gareth Hughes said that the Rena disaster and aftermath shocked New Zealanders—and I agree with him—and that our people were particularly shocked by the Government’s initial lack of response, its failure to act with speed, and the lack of urgency, expertise, and infrastructure that it supplied to deal with the environmental degradation the wreck was causing. Gareth also highlighted in the first reading that the cost of cleaning up after the Rena was borne by the taxpayer to the tune of around $130 million because we were not adequately protected by our own laws and because we had not acceded through legislation to three international conventions that would have protected our taxpayers when this accident occurred.

We do support this bill. In particular we support the bill’s positive changes, which I will get to soon, but, unfortunately, there are still within the bill some weaknesses that we raised at the first reading and which remain unaddressed. No doubt we will get to them during the Committee of the whole House. The bill does not go far enough to protect New Zealand against the environmental and economic risks of an oil spill. Even with this bill in place, it is likely that the taxpayer will still have to cover some of the cost of potential future marine disasters. For example, the bill does not sign up New Zealand to the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund’s supplementary fund. New Zealand is already a party to the 1992 fund. But it is not a party to the supplementary fund, which would allow us to access over $1 billion for compensation and clean-up if there were a spill from a tanker.

The Government has also failed to adequately fund the Oil Pollution Fund. In the case of oil drilling, the Government should be increasing the amount of insurance required for companies that wish to engage in oil drilling. The Gulf of Mexico spill cost $40 billion. However, our Government is happy to allow oil-drilling companies to have insurance of only $30 million. Who pays the difference? The Government still does not have adequate oil spill protection within the country. I note that this bill does not introduce compulsory shipping lanes, which would go some way towards highlighting where the super-highways are on the sea and could even be used in my part of the country—where I live in the Hauraki Gulf—to steer ships away from the endangered Bryde’s whales that live in the Hauraki Gulf. As I said in my speech in the first reading of this bill in the House, those whales, although endangered, have a tendency to live near the surface and so are more likely to be hit by ships, particularly when the ships are going fast.

We do support this bill, though. In particular we support the changes that outline the responsibilities of regulating maritime safety as a function of a regional council, and the amendments that involve more comprehensive details for duties and requirements of harbour masters. We support the new section allowing for enforcement officers or constables to exercise the certain same powers as harbour masters and to restrict this exercise to occasions of special request or authority by a regional council. So, basically, we support the regional councils having some autonomy here.

Like the other parties in this House we agree with the alcohol limits that should be set for seafarers and, again, we do note that they are set at a lower level than those for the driver of a car. We also support the new section to create an offence of, and prescribe a penalty for, the overloading of a ship, and to allow consistency with the International Convention on Load Lines. This is an extremely important piece to have in this bill, as unstable loads or overloaded ships are at risk of further capsizing. We are also pleased with the proposed insertion of a new definition of “mining discharge” to ensure that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, would be subject to this legislation, and I think that is a major achievement. Although fracking is not actually occurring in our oceans at present, it is good to see that this legislation is being futureproofed if an application were lodged.

Our oceans are under threat. However, we believe this bill goes some way towards supporting some positive changes. It is curious, however, that this bill comes with 37 amendments to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, which was passed less than a year ago, which kind of highlights the sloppiness of the Government’s process of creating that bill.

However, in summary, we support this bill. We think it is a good bill. It has been improved through the select committee process. It does not go far enough in terms of protecting New Zealand’s waters or the taxpayer from liability, but it does start a process of improving things for our oceans.

I am really pleased to take a call on this love-fest bill. I am sorry; it is not that at all. It is the Maritime Legislation Bill. I just acknowledge the fact that this bill is supported across the House, although it is a little bit like Clayton’s support—“beatings will continue until morale improves” support, if you like. But none the less, there is support across the House. As a new member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I just acknowledge the committee’s work. I have only recently joined the committee, as deputy chairman. It has an excellent chairman in David Bennett, and it is a very hard-working committee, embodied in its name—it is a very industrial committee. I just acknowledge its work, and, of course, the work of the respective Ministers.

Successful economic policy really does embody successful environmental policy, and of this National-led Government, this National Party is the one party that actually marries up those two important factors successfully. We hear a lot about it from over in the “watermelon patch”, but it is just some sort of crazy ideology—a little bit of printing money, and a bit of green stuff thrown in there every now and then. But this National-led Government gets that balance right, and this bill really does embody that.

The Maritime Transport Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act are amended in this bill, and the changes include changes to the oversight of port, harbour, and navigation safety; implementation of international maritime conventions and protocols; changes related to the making of maritime and marine protection rules; and transferring the regulation of the discharge and dumping of waste, essentially. This is all very sensible stuff. The changes in this bill will provide greater certainty and reduce compliance costs, which I think we can all agree is a very positive addition; increased efficiency and avoiding duplication in process; enhanced management of the environmental effects and impacts; and, of course, the opportunity to improve public and iwi consultation. I just want to also acknowledge the fact that this bill will provide for and empower the regional councils to set about having a greater involvement and a more effective involvement, I believe, because regional councils are people who do know their harbours and waterways better than anyone. I think that is infinitely sensible.

The bill goes on to make some fairly serious improvements, and creates the sort of clarity and effectiveness that is absolutely warranted in very, very busy waterways. Way back when—I cannot remember how long now; it seems like about five lifetimes ago now—I was a naval officer. Rest assured, members of the House. There are plenty of big sharp things floating around out there in the sea, and when things go wrong, as we found with the Rena, things get very, very concerning for all parties concerned, onshore and offshore. This bill creates an effectiveness and an efficiency that will provide some certainty out there.

It also improves the safety and environmental protection that, again, as I started to say in my short contribution to the House, are so important in terms of getting the right balance between the environmental impacts, the environmental consequences, and the economic importance. This is a pragmatic bill. It is another good example of what this Government is doing to move things ahead. I am certainly happy to commend it to the House.

It is a pleasure to follow Mr Sabin and his unique brand of jocular sincerity. I am pleased to rise to take a call on this, the second reading of the Marine Legislation Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill. We supported it at its first reading with some reservations. I have had to consult the Hansard to discover what those reservations were. Apparently they centred on the Rena and the effects of the fuel oil that leaked from that now infamous vessel on to the pristine beaches of the Bay of Plenty. I was uncertain as to the nature of our reservations, because during the first reading New Zealand First was represented by the now independent member from Tauranga. The independent member from Tauranga was very concerned about the oil on the beaches, and rightly so. We are very concerned about oil on the beaches as well. We remain concerned, despite his absence from our caucus. He did not take that concern with him. I look forward to hearing the independent member from Tauranga speaking on this bill again. I look forward to his speech, as I am sure it will add to the powerful contribution he is making in his new role as New Zealand’s most effective independent MP. I wish him well with that. As one of my old teachers used to say, as my old chemistry teacher at high school used to say when we were facing exams, as he used to remark to those of us who were about to be examined, I wish him the success that he deserves. But I digress perhaps just a little.

New Zealand First supports this bill. We are happy to support good legislation as and when we encounter it. If we have any criticism, it is perhaps that it has taken this long for this legislation to reach this stage of its passage through the House, and that it will be some time yet—some not inconsiderable time yet—before it becomes law. The longer it takes before this bill becomes law, the greater the chances will be that another Rena disaster may be visited upon us. We may be faced with yet more oil on the beaches. The independent member from Tauranga may be forced, or at least feel compelled, to avail us of yet more photos on his iPad of oil on the beaches. I can think of little else that I would wish to see less than pictures of oil on the beaches on the iPad of the independent member from Tauranga, or indeed anything else that may be on it. I suppose I should be grateful that at least he did not sing. Or perhaps he did—perhaps he did sing. I cannot be sure, as I confess that I did not read the Hansard in its entirety. If it is indeed the case that the now independent member from Tauranga did burst into song about the oil on the beaches, I am sure that some honourable member who was present at the time will remind me of it, unless of course they have blanked that occurrence from their memory. It is possible that that happened, and perhaps understandable. Again, I am digressing.

New Zealand First is happy to support this bill, and we are glad about the various concerns that it will address. The Minister for Building and Construction, Mr Williamson, made references to the broad aims of the bill during the earlier debate, and we agree with those broad aims. He said that “The purpose of this bill is to promote maritime safety and marine environment protection.”, and we support that aim. The Minister said much else with which we agree. He remarked that “The bill also transfers the regulation of waste dumping and discharges from ships and offshore installations involved in seabed activities in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority. This change is achieved through amendments to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. … It seeks to promote safety in maritime transport, protect the marine environment, and implement New Zealand’s obligations under international maritime conventions.”—the main issues and benefits of this are, of course, those very international conventions—“The bill enables New Zealand to accede to three international conventions to protect New Zealand’s maritime interests.”

The Rena disaster has “highlighted the need to update New Zealand’s liability limitation regime for maritime claims. The bill will enable New Zealand to accede to the 1996 protocol to amend the International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976. … The bill also enables New Zealand to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001, which makes shipowners strictly liable for bunker oil spills. Claims for pollution damage from ships’ bunker oil will be treated as a separate category of claim. The increased liability limit established by the 1996 protocol will apply to such claims. This arrangement provides a more certain remedy for parties facing economic loss or clean-up costs because of bunker oil spills. Thirdly, the bill enables New Zealand to accede to the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil 1973. This will help protect New Zealand’s environment in the event of a shipping accident involving hazardous or noxious substances.”—such as perhaps that which occurred with the Rena—“The bill also implements amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978 that establish an internationally applicable alcohol limit for merchant seafarers.” I note that other members have made mention of the alcohol limit and how it differs from that which applies to road users in New Zealand. Mr Lees-Galloway, I think, could be reassured that masters of container ships operating on our roads will, indeed, be subject to lower alcohol limits.

“The bill establishes clear functions, duties, and powers to complement the voluntary guidelines of the New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code 2004, and maintains the division of central and local government responsibilities. These measures provide a stronger regime for the management of port and harbour and navigation safety. The bill also contains miscellaneous amendments to improve enforcement, modernise penalty levels, and clarify the application of the Maritime Transport Act. … The bill also amends rule-making provisions in line with amendments already made to the rule-making provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Land Transport Act 1998. Transfers of discharge and dumping functions from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority are covered. The bill transfers regulation of waste dumping, except emergency dumping, and certain discharges within the exclusive economic zone and over the continental shelf from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority. This will enable discharge and dumping applications to be considered entirely within the new exclusive economic zone regime,”.

In short, this is a good and necessary piece of legislation, and we commend the Government for advancing it, although I reiterate we are not entirely happy about how long it has taken for it to be implemented. New Zealand First supports this bill.

What a pleasure it is to follow Mr Richard Prosser after his dissertation on the previous New Zealand First member, fitting in a few details about the Marine Legislation Bill as he went. Those details were significant and I thank him for doing that, because he clearly has a details type of mind. I, in fact, would probably say that I am more of a generalist, so I am going to have a general look at this bill. When it came into the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I read that it was an omnibus bill that amends the main Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.

That introduction could lead one to think that this would be an updating, regulatory, reinterpretation sort of bill, which might not be the most riveting part of one’s parliamentary life. It did involve updating, it did involve reinterpretation and regulation, and it was a very large piece of legislation, but what a riveting, interesting piece of legislation it has been. I will always remember it for four main reasons: first, for the phenomenal reach of the experience, knowledge, and practical common sense of the officials in response to our questions. There seemed to be little that they could not handle immediately, and it was amazing the way they did that. The range of subjects and activities involved in the bill were from oversight of port and marine safety and environmental effects through to the appointment of harbour masters, the role of the harbour masters, how to deal with putting writs on derelict ships, and alcohol limits.

Listening to the clarity of submissions from groups of people who have saltwater seemingly running through their veins and the accumulated knowledge of generations of master mariners in their profession was a privilege that was a pleasure to experience. They took their work extremely seriously, they thoroughly enjoyed their work, and they were pleased to put their experiences and opinions, as submitters, before us.

The fourth reason why I particularly wish to commend this bill to the House is in recognition that marine regulations and mariners, through those regulations, carry our country’s wealth. They carry our exports to market and bring our imports in through seaports, using the regulations that are legislated in this House. That is 49 million tonnes of product coming through our ports—49 million tonnes a year, at a value of $75 billion.

Good marine legislation has always been critical and crucial to New Zealand. It is crucial to New Zealand, and always will be crucial to New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to take a call in the second reading of the Marine Legislation Bill, and I share my colleague Chris Auchinvole’s enthusiasm for this bill. It was indeed extremely interesting to work on. Also, while I have the opportunity, may I welcome Mike Sabin as deputy chair to our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. He is not listening, but anyway—

💬 Mike Sabin: No, I am listening—absolutely. I appreciate that.

Oh, you are listening. OK. But may I also point out that it is actually the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It has got a lot to do with workers, and I fear that it is going to be very challenging for that member when the time comes to consider this Government’s terrible programme for cutting the rights of workers. Can I also assure Mr Sabin that he going to get a ritual beating from me in my speech as well, because I have been on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—

💬 Hon Kate Wilkinson: For ever.

For ever—that is right. The member is right. I have, since 2005, when I came into Parliament with Kate Wilkinson. Actually, we were on the select committee together then too. So I know quite a lot of the history of the events that led to some of the provisions in this bill.

Also, I arrived in Tauranga the day after the Rena hit the Astrolabe Reef and before the storm. There was a big storm and overnight the sands of Tauranga turned black. I will never forget waking up in the morning and looking out of my window and seeing that all of the beaches surrounding where I was staying were black. It was just devastating. The people of Tauranga were heartbroken. They were already reeling, as we know, from the impact of Psa on their kiwifruit. What they were looking at was what was happening to their beautiful coastline, the wildlife, and their kai moana. What was wonderful was how they got out and helped where they could. Although that was more than 2 years ago, there are still questions, I think, that this bill brings up.

As I said, I have been a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee since I entered Parliament in 2005. Maurice Williamson was a member from 2005 to 2008. Kate Wilkinson was also a member during that period. Both became Ministers in the new Government. David Bennett was also a member, and he has been there for ever as well, but he is now chair of the committee. What is interesting—Kate Wilkinson can speak for herself, but I wonder about this—is that David Bennett cannot even remember that in 2005 to 2008 that committee passed a recommendation that the two conventions that this bill introduces should be passed into legislation so that they could be enforced by the New Zealand courts. Those two conventions are the international treaty Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, which would have doubled the $12 million liability limit in the case of the Rena and funded compensation for businesses and properties that were adversely affected, and the bunker convention, the second convention that this bill deals with.

The then incoming Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce, had a briefing in 2008 that noted that the ministry was ready to introduce legislation to update the Maritime Transport Act. And guess what? This is now 2013 and we are just on the second reading of this bill—5 years later. It has taken all this time to hit the House. In the meantime, what I saw as I sat on that select committee was Maritime New Zealand being engaged in pointless value-for-money exercises demanded by this Government—demanded by the Government—when all the time we had an accident of the size of the Rena waiting to happen, with dreadful consequences. In fact, the consequences could be described as the leaky homes crisis of the sea.

It goes back even further than that. I think it goes back to Maurice Williamson’s days as Minister of Transport, when he deregulated coastal shipping in New Zealand—when he gutted the regulations required for coastal shipping and ships sailing around our coastline delivering freight, and basically opened up our seaways to the sort of disaster that we ended up seeing with the Rena. That is another debate, and I am sure we will have that debate at some stage, because Labour is certainly committed to reinstating coastal shipping. I think one of the members before described how important shipping is, how it brings huge amounts of goods in, and how it is worth billions of dollars and so on, but what this Government does instead, of course, is it tends to put all of that freight and other things on the roads, when we have perfectly great highways of the sea that currently are not regulated and that need to be regulated.

But there are other things in this bill, and, as I mentioned, some of them are very interesting. I am fascinated—and this again goes back to the length of time that I have spent on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—by the Government’s keenness to introduce the blood-alcohol limit of 0.05 grams for seafarers. Yes, we know that it is part of a convention that we signed up for, but this issue of the blood-alcohol limit for drivers on New Zealand roads is not new to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and, in fact, the Government has had several opportunities to introduce it. When we last considered it, I think it was 2 years ago, and what we were told by the Government then was that there was not enough research available. Actually, there are mountains of research, but we had to have New Zealand - specific research, so we are still waiting. I think, actually, one of the things that our committee should do is ask for an update as to where that research is, because I suspect that it may well have been just a means of putting off a difficult issue that this Government did not want to tackle.

Anyone who loves the sea, as we do in New Zealand, and who is fascinated by ships would be fascinated by this bill. There are some really interesting things in it—a whole provision around the removal of wrecks. It had never occurred to me that there would be regional council responsibility for removing wrecks, which, of course, become a hazard in their own right. There was lengthy discussion around responsibilities and the requirements around that. Of course, wrecks become not only a hazard to other ships but also an environmental hazard.

The other recollection I have of working on this bill are the long discussions we had about harbour masters and the role of harbour masters, who are apparently very, very difficult to find. We have very few trained and qualified harbour masters in New Zealand, and local councils were very concerned about some of the provisions that were being proposed, because they say that it is almost impossible to hire trained and qualified harbour masters, as required by maritime legislation. When I asked why, they were pretty frank. They said that there was no training programme going on and also that the salaries are not attractive enough. I think that is something we will have to address in the future.

The other thing that I was interested in and that there were some good submissions on were the proposals around the responsibilities of port facilities in ports to ensure health and safety—the responsibilities that they would be required to carry out. Under the original bill they had responsibilities to prevent health and safety accidents that could endanger or were likely to endanger any person or property on a ship or at sea. We all know that ports were a bit of a sensitive topic, and still continue to be—actually, Auckland port is still not settled. What they did note was that the Government has this great ministerial task force on health and safety. It considers that our health and safety levels are below the levels of other countries, and it is absolutely right about that. The Port CEO Group wants to see the task force process actually completed, and was concerned that there was going to be a mix-up between the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the requirements under this bill in terms of port facility responsibilities.

So it is an interesting bill. It is a very long bill. I also want to endorse what Chris Auchinvole said about the contribution of the officials, their willingness to answer questions and do the research, and their very impressive knowledge of what is clearly a unique part of law in New Zealand that very few people have experience in. Labour is supporting this bill. We look forward to the debate in the Committee stage, when, I am sure, we will get into discussing it in a lot more detail. Thank you.

It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on the Marine Legislation Bill. I must say that I enjoyed the contribution from the member Darien Fenton, who has just sat down. It betokens the pleasure and enthusiasm, I think, that members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had in considering this rather arcane but none the less interesting piece of work. A lot of work has been done. The bill enjoys widespread support across the House, and that in itself is a pleasure. I would like to acknowledge the chairmanship of David Bennett. I have just had the pleasure of joining this committee, and it is of regret to me that I was not there for the consideration of this piece of legislation.

Trade is, of course, our lifeblood. It is New Zealand’s lifeblood. We export the majority of our commodities by sea, and most of the essential imports that we all appreciate also come by sea. As a principled, pragmatic Government we are committed to building a more competitive and productive economy, and part of that is growing our exports. The work that Tim Groser has done around the world is legendary, and our Prime Minister has just come back from South America and developing new markets there. This bill highlights our commitment to creating strong and sensible legislation that works and allows us to achieve that end. It aims to improve the clarity, consistency, and effectiveness of the Maritime Transport Act and it will also provide more certainty around the laws involved, as well as improving safety, environmental practices, and environmental protection. That is a crucial part of our plank—economic development that is sustainable, with protection of our environment. We have heard that the Marine Legislation Bill makes amendments to the Maritime Transport Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, and I will not go into any further detail on that.

As a young lad I grew up in Taranaki. It is an area I am proud of. You can take the boy away from the mountain, but you can never take the mountain away from the boy. One of my earliest memories is going down to Ngāmotu Beach and seeing a nodding donkey oil well—an oil well, I was told, that was one of the longest-serving producing wells in the country. Because of my interest in the region and in the oil industry itself—which, incidentally, is the third or fourth plank to the New Zealand economy. We export $2 billion - plus of very high-quality oil to the overseas markets, which is a fact I was not aware of until some years ago. Of course, “Taradise”—Taranaki—is where most of that oil comes from. We are committed to getting more out of that area and also other parts of New Zealand but also to protecting the environment, and this is what this legislation helps us do. With the New Zealand Business and Parliament Trust, I am hoping to spend a bit of time with the oil industry in Taranaki. The industry has worked very well over the decades—very, very well indeed. There has been a very, very small number of extremely minor oil spills, but this legislation actually provides some clarity in terms of civil liability for pollution of the marine environment from marine structures. The clarity comes about through a committee recommendation amending a particular clause and inserting a new part relating to civil liability for pollution from marine structures and operations. This makes it clear that insurance requirements extend to pipelines that connect to offshore installations.

So it is a very positive piece of legislation. The other area that it deals with is in a similar part of the legislation, in that Maritime New Zealand will remain responsible for oil spill response and emergency dumping, as expertise and power to deal with these aspects lie within its scope. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call. The Hon Ruth Dyson.

It is a split call. I am delighted to join with the other members of the Labour team in supporting this Marine Legislation Bill, but I have to say that it really does still beg the question—despite all the National members who have spoken, none of them has answered the question—why did this take so long? Why did it take New Zealand ending up losing millions and millions of dollars, when in 2008, leading into the election, National received the bill? It had this legislation all ready to go. It won the election—and it has reminded us of that on many occasions—yet for 3 long years Steven Joyce sat on this legislation and did nothing. Then he was stripped of that portfolio—clearly he was not up to the job—and, blow me down, who was it given to but the Hon Gerry Brownlee. He took another excruciatingly long period of time to bring this legislation through.

Well, some people might think that it is not important, and often we would not see directly the implications of having legislation that was below standard. But, tragically, we did know the impact of having substandard legislation, caused by the National Government sitting on its hands, when the bill was written and given to it. We saw the tragic effects on our economy and on our shorelines when the Rena hit the Astrolabe. If that had not happened prior to this legislation, then we would not have had to have huge amounts of resources involved in haggling over what will now be our legal entitlement. When damage like that is done to our environment, we know who should pay the consequences. But, because of the shoddiness of Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee, New Zealand taxpayers paid the cost, as well as the poor people in the Tauranga area, who had to look at the dreadful mess made by that incident.

I went up to Tauranga just a few days after the Rena disaster, and I have to say that it was pretty awful looking at the penguins and the birdlife covered in oil. I would like to take the opportunity to put on record my admiration of the passion and the knowledge that was demonstrated by the people who were cleaning those animals and making sure that they were brought back to good health. It really was a fantastic gift that they were giving to the animals themselves, obviously, and also to the surrounding area. There were a lot of people involved, from local community people right through to Government departments and agencies. They did that because they care about the community and they care about the beauty of our beaches and our water. All of that time the Government was sitting on its hands, letting the financial liability be carried by those people and their fellow New Zealand citizens as well. It was a shambles and we lost literally millions of dollars as a result.

This bill really is another indication of how poorly some Ministers are running their portfolios and the cost that we have to bear as a country as a result of their shoddiness and laziness. We will be supporting this bill. It is a good bill to support. It is a long way overdue; it should have been introduced as a priority in 2009. We wish that we had been given a chance by the Government to back this bill earlier.

I am also pleased to take a brief call to reiterate our support for this bill, the Marine Legislation Bill, albeit our somewhat qualified support. It is a good bill. It could have been a great bill. It could have done a great deal more. It could have gone further towards protecting both our economic and our environmental interests in the marine environment, particularly in the exclusive economic zone.

I think perhaps that we tend to take for granted as New Zealanders our uniqueness, and that we are literally in the middle of a water hemisphere. We have one of the largest exclusive economic zones of any country in the world, a coastline of some 15,000 kilometres long. It is a remarkable asset to us. It is something extraordinary, which does shape our culture, and, of course, does have a significant economic influence, as well. To the extent that we have that extraordinary asset—all this enormous exclusive economic zone; we have control over such a large area of the marine environment—it perhaps equally carries with it a responsibility to protect, to enhance, and to do the very, very best we can to ensure that our human activities, our exportation, and our transit across that marine environment do not cause it harm. It must be said that that is where this bill does somewhat fall short of what it could have been.

It was interesting to see the pleasure some of the National members took in getting general support for this legislation. I would have to say that to have that happen more regularly, more routinely, the answer is in their hands, really. It is simply to present bills that give us economic sustainability, that enhance and protect our environment, and that are socially responsible. Give us legislation, bills, that are fit for use in the 21st century, and we will be very happy to support them, as I am sure our Labour colleagues would, too.

But, having said that we will support the bill, it is worth reiterating also some of the shortcomings of this legislation. It does leave us exposed financially to future maritime disasters on the scale of the Rena, or lesser or greater. The numbers that my colleague mentioned are compelling. The cost of the Gulf of Mexico disaster was some $40 billion; we are covered in New Zealand to the tune of some $30 million. At the same time, it looks as though this Government will allow, despite all the evidence and contrary advice, deep-sea drilling. If we are going to start drilling for oil in some of the deepest water on the planet, if we are going to be drilling for oil in some of the most exposed, dynamic seas anywhere in the world, one would think, even from an economic position, that you would protect yourself against almost inevitable disasters and failures of equipment or people that inevitably will have a massive environmental impact, as well as an economic one. So it is unfortunate that this bill does not go further towards protecting our economic interests as well as our environmental responsibilities.

It is interesting that we now have legislation that will recognise that alcohol impairs the behaviour and the performance of seafarers. It was fascinating that just today in the Law and Order Committee in another context we read the Auditor-General’s report on the police performance in terms of monitoring and enforcing drink-driving law in New Zealand. The short story is that they are doing a very good job, albeit in the face of a ridiculously high alcohol limit. A Labour speaker mentioned the Government’s excuse for not lowering the alcohol limit on our roads to be lack of research. I encourage the National Party to read the Auditor-General’s report, which spells out very clearly the clinical, the medical, and the behavioural effects on people who are within the existing alcohol limit, and the danger to the rest of us imposed by that. So it is a good thing that at least the seafarers in future will be subject to prosecution if they are found to be operating vessels or behaving in a way under the influence of alcohol.

I will leave it there. As I say, there are some good parts to this bill; it could have been a great deal better. We look forward to a future time when we will have the opportunity to make it better legislation that will protect our economic and our environmental responsibilities much more. Kia ora.

I want to begin by acknowledging what really has been cross-party support for this bill, the Marine Legislation Bill, and that I am conscious that various parties are not completely in tune as to where the Government is going. Two quick points I wanted to make in a sort of retort is that I am not sure that “inevitable disasters” is a fair statement. Of course, that is a point for debate, I suppose. Any role of the Government is to try to mitigate risk and there is risk involved with everything, from getting up in the morning to having a drink and so forth. So I think we do need to be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and understand that the Government is about mitigating risk, particularly around deep-sea drilling.

We also heard concerns from the Labour Party about why the time frame has been what it has. I suppose there is an element of “good things take time”. But I mentioned last night to the point of consistency—and I just note that the bunker convention was adopted in 2001, during Labour’s time. In 2001 the bunker convention was adopted and Labour sat on that, so one has to be very careful about talking around time or making accusations.

I think it is important to acknowledge the hard work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I think it was incredibly constructive, under the chairmanship of David Bennett. But I think what was most notable was that people coming to present, to give their submissions—both written and oral—were heard, were listened to. When I think of things around load lines, ferry usage, and alcohol as well, people came and submitted, the select committee debated and discussed, and it took advice from officials and continued to develop it from there.

This is a good piece of legislation. It is time, as we continue to move it through the House, to take it through to Committee stage and on to its third reading. So I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.