Marine Legislation Bill

The debate on this part includes schedules 1 and 2.

Here we are debating the Committee stage of the Marine Legislation Bill. This is a bill that has taken the Government so long, a bill that should have been passed more than 3 years ago, and a bill that, if it had been in place, we would not now have taxpayers picking up the burden of the disgraceful Rena tragedy. But even then—look, we were ready to go with this way back in 2008. Who was in Government then? Oh, it was the Labour Government. What it had done was a national interest analysis relating to the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, which is known as the intervention protocol, and it had done the national interest analysis on the basis that the Labour Government wished to introduce legislation to have that convention in New Zealand law. That was back in 2008.

Then we had the Rena crisis, and, of course, we know that that has cost this country millions and millions of dollars more—$11.3 million of clean-up costs for the Crown and over $50 million—due to this sloppy, hopeless Government’s failure to ratify the international conventions when all the work had already been done. All the work was in place. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which I was a part of, which David Bennett was a part of, and which Kate Wilkinson was a part of, had already done the work on this. It was ready to go. Finally—finally—the Government got around to doing something about it last year, more than a year after the Rena disaster.

The bill was referred to the committee on 11 September, after its first reading. It was all a big rush then. We supported the Marine Legislation Bill then because we knew that we had to do something urgently because this Government had completely failed to do so. We had an urgent period of hearing submissions. The submission period was just 4 weeks—4 weeks to enable people to make submissions on what then became quite a substantive bill, not only dealing with the conventions but also dealing with a whole range of other issues in the Marine Legislation Bill. We heard 21 submissions. It was referred back and rushed through that great committee. All the Labour members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee cooperated so that we could get this bill back into the House. It finally got around, 6 months later—6 months after it was referred back from the select committee—to having its second reading. What was the date of that? That was 20 March 2013. So it has just dragged on and on.

It is interesting that one of the things that has been changed in the commencement clause is the commencement date. It was supposed to start on 13 April. It was supposed to start on 13 April. What is the date today?

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Which year?

Well, it was this year. What is the date today? It is nearly October, is it not? It is 24 September, so nearly 6 months later here we are in the Committee of the whole House stage, debating this bill, which should have been done by the National Government when it became the Government in 2009. So we struggle to understand why it has taken the Government so long. It is an utter shambles. It shows how hopeless this Government is in prioritising things that matter. As I said, this was all in place and ready to go in 2008, and it has cost us money—it has cost us money. The purpose of the legislation is so that we will not have to pick up the tab, we will not have to leave it to taxpayers to pay for polluters in the future, but with the Rena, of course, which is already sunk and being ripped apart, it is just too late.

There are quite a lot of things in Part 1 that bear consideration, and I want to start with new Part 4A, “Regulation of alcohol consumption by seafarers”, new section 40A and onwards, in clause 11.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: But I was going to talk about it.

I am very sorry, Mr Lees-Galloway, but I am sure you can talk just as eloquently as I can, and there is plenty more in Part 1 for us to dwell on. This is a very interesting part because what it does is regulate alcohol consumption by seafarers, which is fine, and we support that. There is a very, very long new part in this bill, with clause after clause, page after page, about regulating alcohol consumption by seafarers. But the interesting thing for us, and the thing that has had this side of the Chamber fascinated, is that we can pass this legislation, albeit somewhat belatedly, which has the regulation of alcohol consumption by seafarers, but we cannot pass regulation or legislation that regulates alcohol consumption by motor vehicle drivers.

The Government has mucked around with that as well, because, again, some time ago that issue of reducing the blood-alcohol content was discussed and was brought to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It was discussed there. It is some time now—I believe it is something like 3 years—since the Government told us that it needed to do research, and that it could not reduce the blood-alcohol level because it needed to do research on it. We were told then that it would take 2 years. Where is the research? Where is the research? No answer. Do not know. Interesting.

💬 Sue Moroney: There is none.

Oh, there is none. It has kicked it for touch. It is not bothering with that. But here the Government can, in this legislation, regulate in a very, very comprehensive way the proportion of alcohol in a seafarer’s breath, have evidential breath tests, and make sure it does not exceed 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. I know that my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway will have a lot to say about this, because I believe that he took over a member’s bill on this very issue in relation to people driving on our roads. It is still—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Still in the ballot.

—in the ballot. It is still waiting for the Government to wake up and realise that this is a very, very easy thing for it to do. It would save lives on the road if the Government supported Iain Lees-Galloway’s member’s bill to reduce the blood-alcohol limit for people driving cars.

As I said, there is a lot in this part, Mr Chairperson, and I know that you will be very indulgent in allowing us to pursue this. I just wanted to touch on one issue that was of great interest to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which heard from regional councils. That was the issue of harbour masters. Harbour masters may be appointed by regional councils, but harbour masters are very hard to find. They have a very, very highly skilled job. The powers in this bill, under new section 33F, inserted by clause 6, are extensive.

Harbour masters have to be highly qualified. They have to be highly qualified to be able to: “enter and remain on any ship in waters within the region: (b) enter and remain on any maritime facility, or on any land or property of a port company or a port operator, within the region: (c) give directions regarding—(i) the time and manner in which ships may enter into, depart from, lie in, or navigate waters within the region; (ii) the position, mooring, unmooring, placing, removing, securing, or unsecuring of ships: (iii) the manner in which ships may take in or discharge cargo; (iv) the manner in which cargo is secured or handled on a ship if there is a risk of cargo falling overboard or becoming a hazard to navigation: (d) direct the master of any ship to—(i) weigh anchor; or (ii) moor, unmoor, anchor, secure, unsecure, place, or move the ship: (e) cause a ship to be moored, unmoored, anchored, secured, unsecured … (f) cause any floating, submerged, or stranded object that the harbourmaster considers to be a hazard …”, and on and on it goes. It also includes requiring “… any person appearing to be in charge of any ship or seaplane”—or seaplane, so they have got authority over seaplanes—“to stop, and to give his or her name and address:”. So they have extensive powers, and I am hoping that I will get quite a lot more time to talk about that.

This will be the first of many calls on this bill, the Marine Legislation Bill, and particularly on Part 2, which is where, unfortunately, the Government is introducing some very disturbing Supplementary Order Papers, but that will come in due course. The overwhelming question on Part 1 of this bill has to be why it has taken so long. Why has it taken so long?

New Zealand has not yet ratified the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001, and that fact was driven home to us in a very unfortunate and a very environmentally destructive way with the grounding of the Rena off the coast of Tauranga some years ago. That particular environmental disaster cost New Zealand taxpayers a lot of money, and our ability to recoup that money from the vessel operators or vessel owners was limited by the fact that we had not yet ratified this international convention, which would have lifted the liability cap that was in place in terms of what New Zealand could claim.

Currently, we are party to the 1976 convention, but we have not yet ratified the updated convention. When the Rena disaster happened, of course, the issue of the ratification of this bunker convention was a very hot issue. Labour had moved to put in place legislation that would allow the ratification of this convention by Order in Council. That work had stalled for whatever reason, and sometimes, you know, it takes a huge wake-up call like the Rena to make us realise that we need to apply a bit of pressure, really make this a top priority, and ratify that convention as quickly as possible.

Well, I do not think anyone’s definition of “urgency” would meet what has happened since the Rena disaster occurred, since the Government indicated that, yes, absolutely, it was going to ratify that convention and it was going to make sure that that $50 million cost to the taxpayers would be mitigated in the future. The scales have fallen from the eyes; these disasters do, unfortunately, happen, and something needs to be done about it. Well, that was years ago, and here we are 2013, finally in the Committee stage of a bill that will make the changes that will allow us to ratify that convention.

The reason I am so surprised it has taken so long is that this is an absolute no-brainer. I look at the national interest analysis that was produced on the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage—this was back in 2009, I believe—when the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee conducted the international treaty examination of the convention. It lists the advantages and disadvantages to New Zealand of ratifying this convention. The advantages are: “a) Shipowners operating in New Zealand waters, and their insurers, have a clear responsibility to carry insurance and the certainty of limited liability … b) An insurance certificate scheme (already in operation in New Zealand) gives transparency to the insurance responsibilities of shipowners and their insurers … c) Any claims for economic loss or clean-up costs can be made either in New Zealand or in another jurisdiction ... and can be made against either the shipowner or the insurer ... This arrangement allows more adequate, prompt and effective compensation. It also substantially increases the probability of a successful claim in the event of the shipowner going into receivership. d) Third parties suffering economic loss because of a release of bunker oil have a simpler and more certain remedy available.”—something I am sure the good people of Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty would have loved to have in place at the time that their own businesses were facing enormous risk and uncertainty because of the Rena disaster—and, lastly, “e) Government and regulatory authorities suffering economic loss or facing clean-up costs because of a release of bunker oil have a simpler and more certain remedy available.” That was the advice given to the Government about the advantages of entering into this particular convention. So what were the disadvantages? “There are no significant disadvantages”.

So here we have a convention that provides enormous advantages, and, with the benefit of hindsight, the people of Tauranga, the businesses of Tauranga, the communities of Tauranga, and the rest of the Bay of Plenty who were affected by the Rena disaster know they would have had a transparent recourse to address their economic loss. The liability cap for what the Government could claim back would have been lifted, and the process that would have been in place would have been far simpler and it would have been faster. There would have been requirements on the vessel operators to actually have proper insurance in place. It would have been clear that if the vessel was not flagged in New Zealand, we could still chase that compensation not just in New Zealand but in the courts in other jurisdictions.

All these things lead us to ask the question as to why it has taken so long when there are no significant disadvantages, and when we have seen what happens when something goes wrong. Heavy fuel oil is just about the most disgusting kind of oil that you could possibly put into the water. It is very viscous. It is environmentally very toxic. It is nasty, nasty stuff. So we are talking big, big bikkies when it comes to cleaning this up—really big dollars. We saw that with the Rena. So it is good that this legislation is finally, finally passing through, but this could have been passed very quickly, I suspect, with the support of all parties across the House. It could have been put in place far sooner, rather than dragging it out so that we can have an excuse to have a piece of legislation to which we add dreadful Supplementary Order Papers that restrict the rights of New Zealanders to have a say in consenting processes, because that is what we are going to be doing in this Committee part—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Part 2.

I know it is in Part 2. I am glad the Minister agrees with my assessment of what is about to happen in Part 2. That is in Part 2 of the bill, and this is being dragged out so that we can add these Supplementary Order Papers into the next part of the bill, when in fact this should be going through very, very quickly indeed.

I remember going to public meetings in the Bay of Plenty during the 2011 election campaign when the Hon Dr Nick Smith was the Minister in charge of this particular area. He promised a packed meeting in Whakatāne that everything would be done to ensure that we were not put in this position again. He promised that everything would be done to ensure it would not be the taxpayers who would be fronting up, and that local business owners and communities would have some kind of recourse. He promised there would not be any kind of out when companies go into receivership or when they are based in other jurisdictions. He said the Government was going to tighten down on this; that, yes, this should have been ratified earlier; and that no one could have foreseen what was going to happen. He said the Government had learnt from its mistake, learnt from this experience, and that it was going to do something about it.

It has been 2 years and nothing has happened—2 years when this could have happened again, 2 years when the risk to the environment, and the risk to our economy, which relies on our natural environment, could have put us in the same situation. I look forward to hearing from Government members as to why this has not been made more of a priority, why this bill has been delayed in its passage through the House, and why there was not more of an effort to look around the House for a cross-party consensus to get this done as quickly as possible in order to limit the liability of New Zealand taxpayers when a foreign-owned vessel, whether it be its fault or not, causes oil to be released into the environment—and, of course, one of the qualities of this international convention is that that is not part of the discussion. If something goes wrong and the oil ends up in the water, then New Zealand taxpayers will be protected, regardless of liability on the part of the vessel operator or owner.

I look forward to taking more calls, particularly in the next part, but I do look forward to an explanation from the Government as to why this issue, which in the 2011 election campaign was going to be an issue of overriding importance and urgency, has since gone completely off the boil, and why this legislation has been delayed while we have passed legislation that is far less important and far less urgent than this legislation. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation on that.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is a privilege to rise and take a call on Part 1 of the Marine Legislation Bill in front of this Committee. First up, I would like to thank all of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members and the submitters. In Part 1, I am going to take a pretty short call. It is Part 2 that I am very interested in exploring in depth. Part 1 is pretty non-controversial. All it does is some port and harbour navigational safety upgrades, and it is acceding to some international conventions and clarifying some miscellaneous amendments. It is the implementing of those international conventions contained in Part 1 that is the substance of my call.

The Rena catastrophe almost 2 years ago was a wake-up call for New Zealand. It should have been a wake-up call for the Government, but it is clear that the lessons of the Rena still are not being learnt by this Government. What we know from the Rena catastrophe is that the New Zealand taxpayer had to come to the party to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, more than $100 million, because successive Governments had not signed up to conventions or updated our legislation to protect the taxpayer. I think it is a shame. This money could have been spent on better things, like breakfast for kids in schools, supporting Kiwi businesses, or creating jobs. I point to the Labour Party, of course, as those in glass houses should not be throwing stones. What we know from the Labour Government is that, like the National Government, it dragged its heels. It did not sign up to and ratify these conventions, despite successive Governments signalling internationally that they wanted to.

There are three international conventions on the subject on the floor of Parliament today. Firstly, there is the Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1996, or the LLMC. All this does is update the limit for liability, when ships have accidents at sea, from $11.2 million to $27 million. Hopefully, an Australian proposal to extend that further will gain international traction. Again, we know that the Rena was, I think, the third most expensive maritime disaster this century, possibly of all time. Still, it was much, much greater than the $27 million maximum cap under the Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. Secondly, you have got the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, and then, lastly, the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, which extends powers in the Maritime Transport Act. They are three common-sense legislative upgrades, ratifying international treaties that all parties in Parliament support. I agree with the Labour Party. We should have done this years ago, and the taxpayer would not be in hock for tens of millions of dollars with the Rena.

Likewise, what we should have seen is the maximum corporate rate under the Resource Management Act upgraded. The maximum penalty is only $600,000, and the Government is not taking the opportunity in this legislation or further legislative actions to actually upgrade that. $600,000 is laughable when we have seen the taxpayer having to pay tens of millions of dollars. While we were at it—protecting our Kiwi environment and protecting the taxpayer—we could have been upgrading our oil spill response capability. We could have been building up the Oil Pollution Fund. We could have been listening to business in union and purchasing a rapid response multi-purpose vessel. We could have had a truly independent inquiry into the Rena, not a stitch-up from the Government benches—getting the Prime Minister’s mate to do an in-house job, which I am sure is just going to find that everything was hunky-dory. But what we know from the Rena was that it is a case study in how not to deal with a spill, how not to communicate with the public, and how to alienate the public when it comes to volunteers who are going down to the beaches and picking up the oil blobs themselves because there was no one from Maritime New Zealand to tell them what to do.

This Government fails to learn the lessons to protect the environment or protect the taxpayer. All in all, the Greens will be supporting the measures in Part 1, but we should have learnt these lessons an awful long time ago.

Part 1 of the Marine Legislation Bill makes a number of amendments to the Maritime Transport Act 1994. It 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.”

The bill does indeed implement a number of conventions—four conventions, in fact. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims is currently only partially applied in New Zealand, meaning that 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.

These are all good, important moves that we have been waiting, waiting, waiting for the Government to pay attention to. I take the point that the Green member Gareth Hughes made that Labour was certainly in Government when these conventions were brought before New Zealand and were considered by the New Zealand Parliament, but the select committee that considered them and the select committee that was tasked with making recommendations to the Government came back to the Government of the day in mid-2008. Shortly after that, we had an election. Unfortunately, Labour was no longer in Government after that election, but the recommendation was there. All the work had been done. It was simply for the incoming National Government to pick up all the work that had been done by the previous Labour Government and the parliamentary select committee and implement it. It was as simple as that. That is all it needed to do.

Gerry Brownlee, Leader of the House, simply had to say: “This is a priority for our Government and we will push this legislation through.”, and it could have been done. It would have been done a long time before 2.20 a.m. on Wednesday, 5 October 2011, when the Rena ran aground on to the Astrolabe Reef carrying 1,368 containers, eight of which contained hazardous material, as well as 1,700 tonnes of heavy fuel and 200 tonnes of marine diesel fuel. That was the moment when, suddenly, this bill became of interest to the National Government.

It could have seen to it before then. It could have saved this country millions of dollars—millions of dollars—that could have been spent on far more important things. It could have been spent on schools. It could have been spent on feeding kids. It could have been spent on health care. It could have been spent on all number of things. Maybe a few projects to get New Zealanders into work—that might have been a good use of those millions of dollars. But, no, it was spent cleaning up a mess that was really of the Government’s own making. I am not saying that those members drove the Rena on to the Astrolabe Reef, but they were negligent in their—

💬 Darien Fenton: It had a little bit to do with their deregulation of coastal shipping, though, didn’t it?

Sorry?

💬 Darien Fenton: It had a little bit to do with their deregulation of coastal shipping.

It did have a bit to do with the Government’s deregulation of coastal shipping, as Darien Fenton points out, but what it specifically has to do with is the fact that it did not make adopting those conventions a priority when all the work had been done. The Government simply needed to pass the legislation, and it just was not important to those members. It just was not important to them. They have got no forethought, whatsoever. They could not see the possibility of a disaster like the Rena occurring.

The other thing that Part 1 deals with is, of course, the breath- and blood-alcohol limit for seafarers. What it does is it adopts the international best practice of having a blood-alcohol limit of 0.05, or 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The legislation adopts that number—the 0.05 number—because that is what all the international evidence tells us is the right level, below which people are able to operate machinery or ships or motor vehicles and above which is inappropriate for people to be operating machinery or a seagoing vessel or, indeed, a motor vehicle.

It is curious—at the very least it is curious—that the Government is happy to adopt the 0.05 limit at sea but it is not prepared to adopt the 0.05 limit for road-going vehicles. I heard an interjection from Mike Sabin, who said: “Oh, if you got run into by an oil tanker, that would be a lot worse than getting run into by a car.” Well, I say this to Mike Sabin, who is a former police officer and who, I am sure, has attended, as a former police officer, a number of road incidents where there have been deaths and injuries. I am sure that that member has seen firsthand the results of people being involved in motor vehicle accidents where alcohol has been involved. I refer him to this: as of today, 24 September, to date this year, 184 people have died on our roads in 173 incidents. The fact that it has happened slowly, one day after the next, in 173 separate incidents, does not make it any less of a tragedy than if it had happened in one incident involving a seagoing vessel.

But, do you know what—and the member opposite might want to consider this—

💬 Mike Sabin: Apples and oranges, Mr Lees-Galloway.

No, it is not apples and oranges, Mike Sabin. That is exactly the point because, actually—do members want to know what the officials think to do—

💬 Mike Sabin: So being behind the wheel of an oil tanker is the same as being behind the wheel of a Suzuki Swift, is it?

No, Mike Sabin just wants to be quiet for a second and listen to the official advice about this. Mike Sabin should know that the official estimate is that 80 vessels will be affected by this change and that, on average, there are around 10 incidents a year where this law change will be effective—10 incidents a year where, at sea, seafarers have been found to be over the limit and an incident has resulted. I compare that with the 173 incidents, so far, on our roads this year—we are in only September. So the member might want to think about that. He is someone who has seen firsthand what happens when someone gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car. He should think about why his party, the party he is a member of, refuses to do not only what the evidence tells us is the right thing to do but also what the public is telling us is the right thing to do, which is to reduce the alcohol limit.

💬 Mike Sabin: How many people between 0.05 and 0.08, Mr Lees-Galloway?

Mike Sabin raises an interesting point. This is the red herring. Mike Sabin asks how many people were between levels 0.05 and 0.08, but he knows, because I bet he has read the literature on this, that reducing the blood-alcohol limit actually reduces the number of incidents of people who are heavily intoxicated getting behind the wheel. That is a fact. That is a scientifically proven, evidence-based fact. Mike Sabin knows it, and yet he continues to pursue the red herring of asking: “Oh, how many people between 0.05 and 0.08?”. Reducing the blood-alcohol limit for driving would reduce the number of seriously intoxicated people getting behind the wheel. So that—

💬 Mike Sabin: Tell us what the member thinks about drugs and driving. What does the member think about drugs and driving?

He wants to know what I think about drugs and driving. You should not use drugs and get behind the wheel of a car, and if you do, the penalties should be heavy and the law should come—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

—and if someone does get behind the wheel of a car under the influence of any substance, the penalties should be severe for that person. Mr Sabin knows that and he is being disingenuous.

This legislation is not only late, it is not only behind—way, way, way behind—schedule, and it has not only wasted this country millions of dollars but it shows up this Government’s hypocrisy.

Not that I wish to be critical of Mr Iain Lees-Galloway—and congratulations to him on his new position—and far be it from me to be critical, but I thought that his speech on the Marine Legislation Bill was losing just a little momentum and was getting a bit sort of personalised. This, I think, is a strong and sensible piece of legislation that will work well. It will work well. It was, I must say, one of the more interesting bills that we have had through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is a substantial piece of legislation in its scope and reach, and, being an omnibus bill, it embraces a whole range of legislative detail.

The submissions that came forward, especially those affecting Part 1 of the bill, were from a blend of local authorities and mercantile marine interests, all of whom, I think, are to be complimented on the sincerity and the depth of knowledge that they displayed in their submissions. They are experts in their subjects and they put forward a lot of practical information from a user point of view that was useful to the committee’s consideration, especially, I might say, on this business of alcohol consumption. These are people who know their stuff. It is not that Mr Lees-Galloway does not know his stuff, but these were the guys who made the submissions, and I found them to be very substantial.

The significance of the bill is one of economic and environmental importance. These two elements go hand in hand in a successful society, albeit that the Greens would like to chop them apart. I think that this Government can be justifiably proud of the progress New Zealand is making through its reforms. The reforms that are included in this bill provide enhanced environmental effects management—we will come to that in Part 2—greater certainty and reduced compliance costs for industry, increased efficiency from avoiding the duplication of processes, and the opportunity for improved public and iwi participation. This highlights the National Government’s commitment to build a more competitive and productive economy.

In terms of Part 1, there are a number of key achievements in the maritime transport sector that this bill brings about. It addresses gaps in the current legislation, it aligns regional and national interests, and it sets penalties for offences within its scope that are consistent with other comparable offending. This includes penalties for overloading ships, failing to comply with internationally recognised alcohol limits, and knowingly breaching requirements for the carriage of dangerous goods. This bill has provided for conducting a value-for-money review with Maritime New Zealand to improve the services and reduce the cost.

This is not something that has just been dreamt up; it is a tested, well-discussed series of changes. It has developed the qualifications and operational limits framework, ensuring the safety of vessels, their crew, passengers, and cargo. One has only to dwell briefly on some of the tragedies that we read about rust buckets being used in overseas countries that do not have this sort of legislation and the dreadful deaths that result from that. Published port productivity data will improve the flow of exports through our ports—and may I just mention at this point how nice it is to hear that Lyttelton Port has had a tremendous acceleration in exports over the last year. This bill has made changes to the maritime rules around fishing boats, which will improve safety, lift compliance, and better meet the needs of the industry. I would like to commend this bill to the Committee.

I rise to speak to Part 1 of the Marine Legislation Bill, currently under discussion. Previous speakers on this side of the Chamber have traversed some of the issues that have exercised me about this particular part, namely the delay in this bill coming to the House, so I will not traverse that again unduly. But, similarly, my colleague Moana Mackey also raised the issue about the bunker convention and the protocol surrounding that and why that had not been pursued with more rapidity by this Government. Other colleagues have talked about the completely indefensible difference around blood-alcohol limits for those in charge of vessels at sea vis-à-vis people in charge of a motor vehicle on land, so I do not need to go over those things again.

But there are two things I want to talk about. One is clause 62, inserting new Part 26A, “Civil liability for pollution of marine environment from marine structures”. The other thing I wish to talk about is the reference in the national interest analysis to the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil—and this is the intervention protocol. This is included in the material that is in front of us today for consideration. One of the things that has emerged from the dreadful incident that was the wrecking of the Rena—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Whoever has the radio on, it is not permitted. [Interruption] Well, it is no different from the telephone. If it is in the Chamber, it should be switched off. This is a debating chamber.

Before I was rudely interrupted I was talking about the intervention protocol. The thing that is emerging from the wreck of the Rena on the Astrolabe Reef off Tauranga is that although the oil was the thing that was immediately obvious and did immediate damage to the environment, and there was a great deal of effort put into the cleaning up of the oil discharge from the vessel into the water, what is emerging now is that there is ongoing environmental damage from substances other than oil and from structures—marine structures, which are defined in the bill. It appears that the cargo on board the Rena and various containers full of material are still leaking into the water around the Astrolabe Reef, and that the vessel itself, the bit that is remaining of the vessel itself, is a hazard. There is damage that is being done to the environment by things other than the oil that originally came out of that tragedy. So I am pleased to see, belated though it may be, that there is some consideration of civil liability for pollution of the marine environment from marine structures, which means “an offshore installation, a pipeline … [a] facility, site, structure, or thing used to transfer a harmful substance to or from a ship, or an offshore installation”. That is going to be covered and the civil liability for pollution from those things is to be covered under this bill.

I want to go, in particular, to the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, which is the intervention protocol. As I understand it, and somebody could correct me if I am wrong about this, this was one of the things that were considered by the former Labour Government in its preparation of a number of conventions that needed updating and ratification in this area, and it was included in the select committee material that has resulted in this piece of legislation—well, the legislation that was debated at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The select committee report at that time in 2008, as we know, did recommend that the Government take action and ratify these various protocols.

As my colleague Moana Mackey did, I would like to draw attention to the national interest analysis, which talks about the advantages and disadvantages of engaging in such treaty action. Again, it is a call to the Government about why it did not see fit to exercise its Government privilege in respect of this matter before now. Why did it take so long? Under “Advantages of treaty action” in respect of the intervention protocol, it says in this analysis: “The Intervention Protocol is an important element in the IMO marine protection regime, of which New Zealand is a committed supporter. The advantages to New Zealand of ratifying the Protocol are: [it] affirms New Zealand’s right to take such measures on the high seas as may be necessary to prevent, mitigate or eliminate danger to its coastline or related interests from HNS pollution following a maritime casualty; and ratifying [it] would maintain New Zealand’s good international standing and interests as a member of the IMO council.” It then goes on to talk about the disadvantages of treaty action, and says that there are not any. But it goes further than that and says that these are the disadvantages of not taking treaty action: “Given [our] role as a member of the IMO, a decision not to ratify the Protocol may undermine New Zealand’s stated intention to be a good international citizen.”

There is no excuse for the delay in this legislation. The fact that the Government has been catapulted into action by a disaster only serves to underscore the fact that it has been lacking in conscientiousness about our duties and about the protection of the Crown by making sure civil liability provisions are in place and by protecting the environment around New Zealand. That delay is inexplicable, indefensible, and is right in everybody’s face in the wake of this disaster. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

Can I first of all congratulate you, Mr Chairman, on the extraordinary talent you display in chairing the Committee stage of the House—in particular, most recently, the calls you have just made. I am really pleased to be able to speak on this legislation, the Marine Legislation Bill. It is a piece of legislation we support. It has made some progress over recent times, but the question that is on the lips of every single member on this side of the Chamber is why it took so long. What on earth has this Government been doing? How does it see its priorities? And where is its vision for the country? None of it is evident in either the words the Government members speak or the contributions they make.

One of the better ones came from Chris Auchinvole, the member of Parliament who lives on the West Coast. I just want to pick up on a very good point that he made, in commending the Lyttelton Port Co. That port company happens to be in my electorate. It is at the centre of my electorate.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Oh!

It should not come as a surprise to the honourable member for Wigram, because she is right next door and gains a lot of the benefits from our port. I just want to say that the workforce in the port company, the management, and all those who are involved through contracting at the port company have been through a really, really hard 3 years. They have had a hard time in their work environment. The wharves are extraordinarily badly damaged in Lyttelton. The home of the Lyttelton Port Co. itself has recently been red-stickered, so all the workers had to move out into the city into temporary accommodation in Woolston, which is another fine suburb right alongside Lyttelton. The workforce is now separated. Some of them are on the port and some of them are at the city depot in Woolston, and it is pretty hard on them.

Of course, in addition to that, many of those people who work on the wharf and those in senior management positions have had big impacts on their homes. They have had their homes damaged or destroyed. Many of them have children who are attending schools that are now going to be merged or closed. In the middle of all that, the port company has not only kept operating but improved its efficiency, its productivity, and, actually, its profit. So I think that is a real commendation to the workers there.

Lyttelton Port is very fortunate in that we have not had the sort of shipping disaster that landed us in the difficulty that the Government saw after the Rena disaster. We are very fortunate not to have had that incident, the Rena disaster, in our own port in Canterbury.

If the Government had taken the international conventions that this legislation ratifies, if the Government had listened to the words of the previous Labour Government when we went out in 2008, and had listened to the recommendation of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from towards the end of 2008, the Government would have realised that this bill was urgent and needed passing with some urgency. I do not know who the Minister of Transport was. It might have been the Hon Steven Joyce, the person who features as the key character in that very, very common hash tag now “Come home, Steven.” Since the Minister arrived in San Francisco, we have not seen one victory for Emirates Team New Zealand. It is an amazing coincidence. So, everyone, use that hash tag “Come home, Steven”. We are all very keen on him getting home.

The Hon Steven Joyce was the Minister in charge of transport at the time, and seemed to think this was not a big deal at all. He just put it on the back-burner. It was a very critical issue for us to progress. It had been recommended by a select committee—unanimously, I think—and had been the intention of the Labour Government. I think the Hon Phil Goff actually had a bill that dealt with this very issue when he was a Minister. Had he stayed a Minister, it would have been dealt with promptly and rigorously—I know that for sure. But it was not. It got put on the back-burner.

Then we ended up with the Rena disaster. People might be asking what the connection is between this legislation and the Rena. Well, the connection is that under our previous legislation there was nobody responsible for paying the bill incurred by the Rena, and that bill was significant. That was a very, very big bill for a huge amount of damage incurred as a result of that ship crashing and sinking. The Government went into negotiations with the owners of the Rena and has come up with quite a lot of money, prised out of them, as a result. But hours and hours and hours—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The Hon Ruth Dyson.

As I did with your predecessor in the Chair may I commend you for the talent you have exhibited in your choice of speaker on this legislation. The Government put in a lot of effort and a lot of energy, which cost us a lot of money because we were paying for very competent negotiators to try to get some money out of the owners of the Rena. It is a good thing that it did that, but had this legislation been passed, we would not have needed to go through that negotiation process. We would have saved the taxpayer a lot of money because the liability would have been obvious in the law. Instead, we end up short-changed because the negotiations, competent though they were, certainly did not get all the money that should have been paid by the owners of the Rena. Secondly, the taxpayer had to fork out a whole lot of money and instead spend our Parliament’s money, if you like, on the negotiators—money that we would have preferred to put into the failing health or education systems. It is solely due to the fact that the Minister—“Come home, Steven.”—did not consider this a priority. Well, frankly, I think the Minister got it wrong. Unfortunately, the taxpayers of New Zealand have paid big time as a result. When the Rena first crashed, the liability was just over $11 million only—clearly, a drop in the harbour compared with what the actual liability was. The Government managed to get just over $27.5 million out of the owners, but still nowhere near the contribution that should have been made.

The final point I want to make is that this bill is amending, once again, the Government’s very weak exclusive economic zone legislation.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Part 2.

That legislation was meant to be set up to protect the environment. There are many qualified people, both inside and outside the House, who have said that it does very little to amend that legislation at all. I know that the member is keen to take another call on this part, but he should just restrain himself. I know that this Marine Legislation Bill is very interesting, but he has got plenty of opportunity to take a call.

As I said at the beginning, Labour supports this legislation. It does make progress, but it is a huge puzzle as to why—despite the recommendation of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the then Labour-led Government of 2008 to progress this with some urgency—this matter was put on the back-burner and, as a result, the taxpayer has to pay. That is the responsibility or irresponsibility of the Minister of Transport, and the Minister for the Environment should have had a say as well. I think it is a shame that we have ended up in this situation as a result.

I will take just a very short call on Part 1 of the Marine Legislation Bill, which amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994. As has been echoed throughout the Chamber, the initial stages of its progress through the House—indeed, the progress of the whole bill—have not been too controversial. There was unanimous support at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the bill was reported with no dissent from the recommendation that the bill be passed with amendments.

But since then the Minister in charge, the Minister of Transport, has seen fit to bring in further amendments, and the amendments affecting this Part 1 are contained on Supplementary Order Paper 360. Some of those amendments are quite detailed and quite technical, comprising some 10 pages of changes. The date on that Supplementary Order Paper is today’s date—Tuesday, 24 September 2013. It amazes me that once again this Government expects that these changes can be adequately scrutinised in the course of a few short hours. The changes on Supplementary Order Paper 360 that give me cause to worry are those that relate to the ownership of ships and the clauses that relate to the bunker oil certificates of insurance. I would like to hear from the Minister on the late changes.

As we all know, if this had been legislated for a while before now, the disastrous impact of the Rena and its financial costs could have been averted. Now we are in the ridiculous situation where a small hapū—and there are something like only 50 people of that hapū living on Mōtītī Island—are now fighting for justice, and fighting for a promise that this Government made about removing the Rena and cleaning up the oil. Here they are, a small hapū, fighting for all of New Zealand—through the courts, now—against an outfit, the owners of the Rena, who are international polluters and who have resources of over $2.4 billion. And who but the small hapū on Mōtītī Island is fighting for New Zealand?

I would say to all New Zealanders: remember the vacant promises of this National Government when it said, even a week before the election, that all the oil had been cleaned up. It was front-page news. There it was saying that it had all been cleaned up. On the weekend I managed to get out for a surf and I saw surfers still coming in with splotches of oil on their surfboards. You know, some things are just not good enough. Vacant promises made by that Government are certainly not serving New Zealand.

I just want to say that I support this bill. It should have been done a long time ago, and I will not spend any more time on it. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 360 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012