Maritime Transport Amendment Bill

Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, while I do not have the same long association with you, can I just echo the comments of the previous speaker, Mr Muller. I think this is probably going to be the last speech that I am able to give in this House, and, as the newest member of the House, can I just note that I have appreciated the guidance and encouragement that you have given me, as you give to many members of this House, in your role as Assistant Speaker and sometimes as the Chairperson. I really do wish you the very, very best in the next challenges that you will no doubt embark upon. Thank you.

We come now to the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. This is a bill that the Labour Party has considered based on the evidence that was presented to us at the select committee stage. In the first reading of this bill the Labour Party was prepared to support the passage of the bill through to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so that we could really hear what the maritime transport community had to say about the provisions within it. There are a number of quite distinct provisions, and we thought there was enough in there that we needed to get those submissions so that we could come to a fully informed view on the matter. Having worked through that process, it is the view of the Labour Party that we cannot support the further passage of this bill.

The bill has a number of key provisions—three key provisions, effectively. The first is around managing the risk of alcohol and drug impairment in the commercial maritime sector. We think that is a good goal—I am going to talk about this in a bit more detail later on—but, fundamentally, we think that the provisions in the bill, especially in respect of mandatory drug and alcohol testing, are not justified and will not necessarily deliver to us the benefits that we would all want to be delivered.

The second significant part of the bill relates to international compensation arrangements for maritime incidents. That part of the bill is one that we think the Government has pretty much got right. There is no doubt that we need to strengthen the requirements in that area because of the significant commercial and environmental risks that are posed in the event of a maritime incident.

The third major area in the bill relates to, effectively, the deregulation of shipping services to the Chatham Islands. Again, based on the submissions that we have heard at the select committee, we have real concerns that there might in fact be some perverse outcomes arising out of what is proposed in the bill in that area. So, basically, there are two crosses out of three for us in terms of the main provisions of the bill, and on that basis we are not prepared to see it proceed.

What I might say before I go into more detail on each of those aspects is that the Labour Party really, really strongly supports a more integrated national transport system and far greater onus being placed on the maritime transport sector, and particularly coastal shipping. This is a sector that has actually been really, really neglected for quite a long time. In 2008 the Labour Party, when we were last in Government, launched the Sea Change strategy, which was about really energising and investing in the coastal shipping sector. Why is that? Because the potential of moving freight efficiently and in significant volumes around our country on the blue highway of the open seas is there for a small island nation like ours, and the more freight that we can move around by coastal shipping, the more that we get off our congested and very busy regional roads. So we really support the sector—I think probably everyone in this House does—and we want to see some good rules to support that sector, but, as I say, we do have real concerns about two of the aspects of this bill.

Let me start by talking about aspect No. 1, which is the shift towards a mandatory system of random drug and alcohol testing within the maritime transport sector. We have got a real concern about this, because every single submission, virtually, that we heard on this aspect was opposed—from the workforce, as represented by the various unions in the sector, but also from the employers, in fact. There was not really any significant support from submitters for what was being proposed at the select committee. It was actually really difficult for us to understand what the driver for this particular change is. Was there any systemic evidence of a massive problem that will be solved by the particular policy that is being proposed here—mandatory random testing? There was no real rationale that was set out.

Actually, one of the in principle concerns I have got is that it is my view that we should have, as far as possible, a level of consistency of law across important areas. In this area only 2 or 3 years ago the House passed a major piece of legislation to reform health and safety law in our country, the Health and Safety at Work Act, which, of course, came in the wake of the Pike River tragedy. It had wide support across this House. It set out a modernised and revised legislative framework for how we manage health and safety risks in the whole range of workplaces across New Zealand. It is a risk-based framework, where in every single workplace you have to assess the risks, you have to work out how you are going to deal with those risks—whether you are going to eliminate them or whether you can minimise them—and you have to set out plans for doing so. It puts responsibility on the employer, in particular, for ensuring that those plans are put in place, and there are real penalties that come in behind that.

I suppose in respect of this area my question is: why would we not simply be using that framework to govern the real risks that we all recognise of people being impaired by drugs and alcohol in this particular workplace? There is actually no piece of evidence before us that that is not an appropriate framework. Instead, we are picking out this particular sector and saying we are going to have mandatory drug and alcohol testing on the employees in that sector. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why that is, and, actually, on this side of the House we think there is a level of injustice in picking out one particular group of workers for what is, effectively, quite an invasive and virtually compulsory testing regime.

One of the concerns I have got is that I think we are a little bit mealy-mouthed in terms of the compulsion that is involved here in the bill. The bill sort of suggests that employees can choose not to proceed with the random drug and alcohol testing, but in reality we know what happens if the employees do not consent to that. Effectively, it is a compulsory regime, and I think when you are putting in place a compulsory and invasive regime like that, where someone’s employment is, effectively, on the line, there should be some very, very strong policy reasons and an evidential basis sitting behind that. Once again, we simply did not hear that at the select committee stage, and so we strongly reject that part of the bill.

I just really want to hammer home this point. This was not just the self-interested position from employees in the sector. It was the employers, as well, who were very strong in this area. What they said to the select committee was that they were already working on this in a very proactive way. They said that they had already got plans in place, that they had got significant education being rolled out across their workforce, and that it was in everyone’s interests—the employer and the employees—to work collaboratively on this. As soon as you start setting up compulsory testing regimes like this, you create a divide in the workplace between the employer and employee. We have real concerns that that might, in fact, be quite counter-productive.

The second real area of concern that we have is the opening up of the Chatham Islands shipping route to foreign-flag vessels. Again, this is one where the people themselves who are most affected spoke to us at the select committee stage. Every single submission that the select committee heard coming from people and organisations on the Chatham Islands said that they did not support this. To me it really feels like there is just a bit of ideology at work here, because what we heard from submitters is that people on the Chatham Islands currently have a very good service, and, of course, it is an important service. The Chatham Islands is extremely isolated and it relies on a maritime service to get goods to and from the island. It is extremely important for lifestyle reasons, for health and safety reasons, for just being able to live on that island. But, of course, there are only 600 people who live on the Chatham Islands. If Annette King were in the seat here she would be able to tell us a whole lot more information about the Chatham Islands, for which she is the very proud member. But only 600 people live there. I think there might be something like 400 people working in this entire complex. So the population of the Chatham Islands is not that much bigger than all the people who work in the parliamentary complex.

So you have got to ask yourself: could that small population possibly sustain multiple operators? It does not take very long to come to the conclusion that it probably cannot. So the real fear that the people of the Chatham Islands have is that if we open it up to foreign-flag competition, that will have operators coming in who potentially run knock-down prices to begin with to get market share, getting rid of the existing operator that people have relied on for a long time. They are very happy with the service they currently have, and it just does not seem like there is any particular rhyme or reason, or evidence that this is going to benefit anyone whatsoever. So we stand with the people of the Chatham Islands who have said: “Just leave us alone. We have got a good service. We know how this works. Keep out of it, Mainlanders, and leave us with the service we have at the moment. We don’t need foreign-flag vessels here.”

I am coming to the end of my time, but I think I have covered off the two major concerns that the Labour Party has about this bill, and the reasons why we will be voting against it at further stages. I am not sure what progress we are going to make in terms of getting towards the end of the bill before the end of this parliamentary sessions, but I beseech other members of the House to consider those concerns that have come through at the select committee and vote against this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. Mr Assistant Speaker Lindsay Tisch, can I, as other previous speakers have done, acknowledge your incredible service to this Parliament and to this nation. We will miss you. Thank you very much for your very good guidance as you have presided over this House, and for the fact that you have not interrupted us too much but you have kept us on the straight and narrow—not like some other members who take that seat.

Thank you very much to the previous speaker, Michael Wood, for your comments. This bill went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee probably prior to your entrance to Parliament, so there may have been some background—which I think you have alluded to—that you were not sure of.

Can I say that our officials did say to us that the whole area of drug and alcohol testing is not just in regard to the safety of people on vessels. The maritime industry has a health and safety system called the maritime operator safety system, which operates alongside the Health and Safety at Work Act but is a little bit distinct and different because of the issues it faces, particularly on the high seas. So there is a matter there of actually looking at two regimes of health and safety, which we did find very interesting.

But our officials talked to us also about the tragedy that happened in Carterton back in 2012 with the hot air balloon that struck the power lines. As they investigated, toxicology analysis determined that the pilot was under the influence of cannabis at the time—THC was found in his system—and surmised that that could have led to an error of judgment. They made a recommendation to the Government to enact stricter measures in regard to drug and alcohol use in the aviation, marine, and rail industries. So that was part of the background of this as well, though that was not a marine environment. We are concerned about the safety of passengers as well as people who are in the commercial space. So it was reasonably broad ranging in that regard.

Also, we understand that there are measures that the member said that Labour can support, which are around the provisions enabling New Zealand to exercise its right, as a party to the protocol of 1996 to amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Marine Claims, to make reservations that exclude limitation of liability for three different categories of maritime claim, those being wreck removal, cargo removal, and damage caused by hazardous and noxious substances. It is quite clear and obvious that New Zealand has a very strong coastal environment in which there are many hazards. Much of our coastline is hit by quite strong storms, and we want to protect our environment, and we also want to have the ability to be able to claim costs so that if there is an incident, we do have provision to ensure that we can capably do the work to mitigate any environmental impact on that environment. So I am very pleased that the member opposite said Labour could support this part of the bill.

As we come to the end of this 51st Parliament, we will, hopefully, be able to get this bill through, which is why I am going to keep my contribution short. But I just wanted to give a little bit of background to that, and thank Labour for the fact that it can support the second part of that. I do commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I appreciate the enthusiasm that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chair, Jonathan Young, has for passing this piece of legislation before the election. But unless the Leader of the House is planning to take us into urgency, I do not think that is going to happen, but never mind. As my colleague Michael Wood said, Labour is opposing this legislation with a heavy heart. There are aspects of this legislation that we absolutely do support, but then there are other aspects of it that are fatally flawed in our opinion, and that leads us, unfortunately, to having to vote against the whole bill.

Just to reiterate, we do support the bill allowing New Zealand to increase the level of compensation available to meet the claims for oil pollution damage. I think we are all acutely aware of the incident with the Rena and are acutely aware of the fact that because New Zealand had not acted quickly enough in terms of international treaties and the passing of legislation through this House to ratify those treaties or enact those treaties in New Zealand, we actually left ourselves in a vulnerable position in relation to the Rena, and the taxpayer ended up wearing more of the cost than was necessary. So it is good—we certainly support that aspect of the legislation.

But as other members have pointed out, at the select committee we heard repeated messages from both operators and employee groups, including unions, that requiring operators to carry out random drug- and alcohol-testing regimes is unnecessarily onerous and does not actually address the issue of drug and alcohol impairment. I suppose an important distinction to make is the distinction between drug and alcohol use and drug and alcohol impairment. Many tests for various drugs do detect low levels of drugs in people’s systems. That does not necessarily mean that they are impaired. Unfortunately a lot of these tests are very blunt instruments and it is difficult to detect the difference between impairment and use.

With alcohol it is fairly straightforward. We have an alcohol limit. We can be tested in our vehicles, on ships, at work, and we can generally tell whether someone is impaired or not. With cannabis it is a little bit more difficult. In fact, because of the fact that cannabis stays in people’s systems, that actually often drives people to use higher-class, more potent drugs that move through the system more quickly, and are out of the system, despite the fact that they have a more detrimental effect in the short term and the long term, and can have a more detrimental effect on their ability to work. People can be impaired, but those drugs might not be detectable in their system.

This is a tricky area to get the law right, and it is a tricky area to get testing right as well. Often the detection of drugs can be used against workers, even when they are not impaired. So this is an area where I think we have to be fairly nuanced in our approach, and we do not need to be unnecessarily heavy-handed in our regulations. From a Government that likes to tell us about how it does not like to put unnecessary and onerous red tape on employers, this is one where we heard from both employers and employees that the regime that was being suggested was (a) not going to address the problem that has been identified, and (b) was unnecessarily onerous. So it is on those grounds that we in the Labour Party have chosen to oppose this legislation, and also because of the concerns around opening up the routes to the Chatham Islands to foreign-flag vessels.

The people who came and spoke on behalf of the Chatham Islands industry made a very good case that that industry needs some protection and that it is simply not economic to expect multiple operators to be able to operate in that space, and that, ultimately, what then happens is that large operators can simply push out the domestic operator. That just does not seem to have any obvious benefit to domestic operators, especially Chatham Island operators, and it actually does not seem to have any obvious benefit to New Zealand as a whole. We appreciate those submissions that were made by the Chatham Islands operators, and we support them.

What could have been a good bill—had the Government members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee been prepared to actually work with members of the Opposition and to make some amendments that would have satisfied the concerns raised by submitters—unfortunately has been slightly let down by these aspects of it. There is still the Committee of the whole House, and we will have an opportunity to traverse those issues again.

I am sure members from the Labour Party and the Green Party will take the opportunity to offer up Supplementary Order Papers if we address the bill at the Committee of the whole House before the adjournment for the election. If we are dealing with it after the election, well, then things might look very different, and we might be able to sort the bill out and we might be able to pass a good piece of legislation. From this side of the House, we are looking forward to that prospect, but for the time being, sadly, it is our duty to oppose the bill at second reading.

I too, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, would like to acknowledge you this afternoon. I am assuming you are sitting, not on your feet—yes, you are. So I will carry on, thank you.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s an oldie but a goody.

Well, he mentioned it in his valedictory, so I thought I would make the most of it.

The last speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, was not very convincing, was he? He was not very convincing when he talked about his opposition to random testing of drugs. He talked about the difficulty in measuring the drugs, but then he gave the example of alcohol where it is quite clear and transparent, and where we are able to measure and quantify the amount of alcohol—for example, in the bloodstream of a driver. Whether one is impaired or not is not that relevant. The point is that we can measure it and we can set limits, and we can decide whether or not that person is able to operate a piece of machinery, for example, on a boat and whether, therefore, he or she is able to or not able to operate it. It is the same for THC, the same for methamphetamine, the same for a number of drugs one can measure independently.

Of course, random testing is necessary and there should be no concern about having random testing, because the Opposition should be concerned about the safety of those people in the boat or in the balloon or in the car or in whatever vehicle—particularly marine vehicles, which we are talking about here today. They should be concerned about the state of the operator. Random testing is nothing new. We are able to do that in the workplace; why should we not be able to do it on a boat? Why should we not be able to do it on a boat to ensure that those who are using heavy machinery, particularly, are safe to do so, for the benefit of themselves and for the benefit of those travelling in that vehicle? So I just do not get the logic of the previous speaker, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, opposing the bill.

The most striking—this is in the report—information was the lack of evidence of a systematic problem with drug and alcohol impairment in the marine sector. So what? So what if there is no evidence? The point is we should be able to test and be able to be sure that there is none. That is the point. We should be able to test and be sure that there is none, and random testing enables that to occur to a high level of satisfaction and confidence by those who matter—that is, the employers and the employees and the passengers in the vehicle.

For that reason I am looking forward to more debate with the Opposition members and I hope, at some point, they support this bill, as we do on this side.

Well, that was an amazing quote from National Party member and backbencher Alastair Scott: “So what? So what if there is no evidence?”. I think that pretty much summarises the entire National Party’s approach to governing. It does not care about evidence. It is totally driven by what benefits its constituents. In this case, it is very clear to see what the link is: National is, basically, generating business for the companies that are doing random drug- and alcohol-testing. That is what this is about.

We heard comprehensively at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from a wide range of stakeholders and submitters an excellent case for why the random drug- and alcohol-testing regime that it was proposing was not necessary, was not going to be helpful, and was not actually going to improve the safety and well-being of people in the maritime sector, in part because they already have an approach within the maritime sector. If you actually wanted to make a difference, in terms of ensuring there was not impairment out on the seas, it would apply to recreational boaties, not the commercial sector, which already has its own approach. We heard comprehensive evidence, and I would welcome people watching at home—I am pretty sure that the submission from the Council of Trade Unions would be public. It was excellent, it was very well substantiated, it was to a much higher standard than anything we heard from the Ministry of Transport officials, who were shockingly—shockingly—unable to answer our questions in the select committee.

The actual financial impact of the random drug-and alcohol-testing regime that is being put forward in this bill was not included in the regulatory impact statement. When we asked the officials to try to quantify the impact, they were unable to do so. But we did hear from the Rail and Maritime Transport Union, the Council of Trade Unions, the New Zealand Maritime Transport Association, and a number of tourism operators that the new requirement for random drug-testing was not necessary or the best way to ensure safety and reduce the risk of impairment in the commercial maritime sector. So the Green Party is going to oppose this bill.

Initially, we thought that elements of the bill were strongly aligned with Green Party policy and enable the Government to request more compensation if there is a maritime oil spill. We still agree with that, but the rest of the bill—the substantive part of the bill—is about the random drug-testing of staff, which is not substantiated by any evidence. The member Alastair Scott himself told us that National does not care if there is no evidence; it will just do it anyway.

This bill enables flagged foreign vessels to run services to the Chatham Islands even though the only affected party that showed up and submitted to the select committee told us that they opposed this particular change in the legislation. The officials were unable to tell us why the change was proposed. There was a comprehensive argument set out as to why it was not a helpful change. Frankly, one thing I can say is that we have got to change this Government, because these people are asleep at the wheel. God knows what they are on about, but the officials were unable to provide any logical, coherent argument in favour of the majority of the substantive changes in this bill, and the Green Party is, therefore, going to oppose it.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak very briefly to the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. I am speaking on behalf of Denis O’Rourke. Although there are quite a few things within this bill that make sense and are logical and that New Zealand First would support, we will not be supporting it through this reading. That is for a very important reason. It is that New Zealand First is a party that listens to our people in our regions, and you cannot get more regional than the Chatham Islands.

I think it has been mentioned before that, while I was not sitting on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at the time, every single submission that came through on this bill opposed the provision in the legislation that states that foreign-flagged ships would be able to go to ports like the Chatham Islands. Specifically, the people from the Chatham Islands and organisations from the Chatham Islands and representatives of those organisations came in, and they actually gave quite a compelling submission.

It has been covered before—and previous members have stood up and spoken on it—the fact that the size of the Chatham Islands, the population of the Chatham Islands, and the very nature of the island itself would not be able to sustain the multiple ship routes going to their port. The amount of investment that the organisations and the people of the Chatham Islands have actually put into their shipping company and the surrounding organisations—

I do apologise for interrupting the member’s contribution, but in accordance with Standing Order 360(3), I call on Dr Kennedy Graham to make his valedictory statement.

Debate interrupted.