Maritime Transport Amendment Bill

I rise to speak briefly in support of this bill, the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. It is about maritime safety issues, and it deals specifically with the alcohol and drug use issue in our maritime commercial sector. Just recently it was reported that a ship’s captain was found more than five times over the legal alcohol limit while he was trying to bring his logging ship to dock in Northland. It highlights the issue of alcohol in our commercial maritime sector. Consuming alcohol and also using illegal drugs could adversely affect people’s behaviour and performance. It was reported a few years ago that nine of our 17 deceased commercial fishermen returned a positive result for drugs and alcohol. That, again, highlights the issue of the problems in our maritime commercial sector.

This bill will strengthen our drug and alcohol management regime in the commercial maritime sector. Commercial maritime operators will be asked to conduct random testing of their staff carrying out safety-sensitive activities, and these specific requirements will make sure that our operators will make every effort to make sure that the operations are safe. This in turn will strengthen the safety culture in our maritime sector. This is the importance of the bill.

Then the importance of the safety issue in the commercial maritime sector is that—a few years ago we experienced the Rena oil spill incident. That was one of the most significant environmental disasters in New Zealand waters. New Zealand is well known for its clean environment, and this clean environment reputation has added much value to our various industries, including tourism, the food industry, and even international education. We have vast coastlines and also exclusive economic zones. It is particularly important for us to make sure that we have really genuine safety in our maritime commercial sector.

On the other hand, shipping is a particularly dangerous industry, and that is widely recognised, but we are able to make measures to reduce the risks and also to make sure that all the operators behave in a responsible way. So this bill will ensure that our maritime commercial sector will operate in a safer way, and that is why I will support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. Gareth Hughes—5 minutes.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I rise, first of all, to acknowledge you in the Chair and your years of service to this Parliament and the country.

I rise to oppose this legislation, the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. It was a tough choice for the Green Party to oppose it. I remember standing on those Tauranga beaches when the Rena hit the Astrolabe Reef and the heavy fuel oil hit those beaches. I remember seeing those people in the HAZMAT suits. Actually, I remember, early on, those people picking up the oil blobs themselves because there was no official response. There were not, in those initial days, the people in the HAZMAT suits organising the clean-up. Good old Kiwis just went on and did it themselves, picking up those oily blobs.

I remember the anger at the time that the taxpayer was going to have to pick up the tab for a company and a ship that had despoiled one of the most beautiful parts of the country, a place that was called the “kai moana supermarket” for Te Whānau-a-Apanui and other iwi and hapū in the region, who had their kai moana taken away from them. There was the environmental, the spiritual, the social, and the economic dislocation, but it was doubly galling that the taxpayer had to pick up the tab.

I think it is quite a fair principle, which everyone in this House can agree with: if you make a mess, you clean it up. What happened in this case was that because the Government had not signed up to these international maritime liability agreements—the 2003 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage had not been acceded to—we were not able to access the full amount of money there would have been otherwise. The taxpayer spent more than $100 million cleaning up a mess that it could have got the company to pay for.

It was triply galling when our out-of-date Resource Management Act had a $10,000 maximum daily penalty. For the worst environmental disaster we had seen, a $10,000 penalty was simply laughable when the taxpayer was forced to pick up the tab of $100 million. It is good that we are finally signing up to this agreement. I wish we could also be modernising our resource management legislation at the same time. I also wish we could be beefing up our oil spill response capability, which was seen to be so woefully unprepared. So that is the good; the bad, however, is the outcry from the experts regarding the compulsory drug testing in the shipping industry and the potential damage to the Chatham Islands shipping service.

We have heard a debate about evidence. The Government often talks about evidence. What we heard from the experts and the submitters—the actual evidence—was that these drug tests were not necessary, they were not helpful, and they were not there to improve safety in the sector. So we are going to listen to the experts; we are going to listen to those involved in the industry. And that is why we are opposing it. For a small island with a population of only a matter of hundreds, it is important that they have an affordable and reliable service to the mainland. Opening this up to unflagged ships is risking that affordable, reliable service that they aspire to. Those are the two reasons that outweigh the positives of this legislation, and that is why the Green Party is opposed. Kia ora koutou.

I stand to take a brief call on the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. For the first part of the previous speaker Gareth Hughes’ speech, I totally agreed with him—the second part not so much, but I did agree with him in the fact that, you know, if somebody makes a mess in our waters then they should be made to clean it up and we should be able to get compensation. I am pleased that this is what this bill is amending the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to do.

The second part of the bill addresses the alcohol and drug use in the commercial maritime sector. A few years ago, I used to work in the seafood industry, on the training side of things, and I met a number of fishermen. Yes, they like to have their drink and things like that, but one of the training providers actually introduced alcohol and drug testing among some of their students. Whilst it was all up in the air and he was told that you should never do that, and all of those things against testing people on some of those fishing boats, what it did was it actually increased safety on those boats for the workers, because working on a fishing boat in a fishing factory can be quite dangerous, especially in seas that are tossing.

When we start to look at this particular bill and the drug and alcohol testing, I am actually all for it. I think we need to make sure that the people who are operating these big vessels—and they are huge vessels. I have had a go—I went on a simulator while I was working for the seafood industry, and I can tell you it was really quite difficult on a simulator. It was a container ship, and, yes, it was the cliffs of Dover that I was trying to manoeuvre this big ship through, and it is quite difficult. When you start to add alcohol and drugs to the staff, the captains, and skippers who are actually in charge of these boats, it can be quite difficult. So I totally support drug and alcohol testing, and maybe not just as a drug and alcohol test every now and then; maybe make it a little bit more compulsory as people go on duty. I mean, they have gone through most of the alcohol and drug testing for a number of our industries that deal with people and with product, and I do not see why this cannot be part and parcel of this regime as well.

So, without any further ado, I have stood to say my piece on this bill, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill in its second reading. I was part of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that heard many of the submissions on this particular bill. I want to start by speaking to one in particular. One of those submissions was, of course, from the people of the Chatham Islands. It was quite interesting because I recall, after their having explained the shipping arrangement that they do have, that they once had, and that they actually aspire to, I was very, very confused. There were different shipping organisations mentioned, there was a lack of service, there were issues with fuel, and there were issues with a constant and regular sustainable supply of good shipping for the people of the Chatham Islands. I recall after their submissions that as a committee we asked for some further information, simply just to seek clarification around the arrangement that they had.

I recall that once that clarification came through from the offices and we sat there and deliberated—I deliberated with my colleagues Mr Iain Lees-Galloway and Sue Moroney—we were really concerned with the provisions of this particular bill. In particular, we thought that the people of the Chatham Islands were actually saying to us that there was an insufficient freight volume to the Chatham Islands to make sure that more than one service was economically viable. That became quite clear. And opening up the possibility to foreign-flag vessels to run a service was a big challenge to that financial viability. While I have never been to the Chatham Islands, sadly—I hope to go some time in the future—it was quite clear that the arrangement that they had at the time had to be better supported, not just by this Government, but I think by the industry as a whole.

There are other issues in their submission that spoke about the poor infrastructure that they have actually coped with for some time, and how only a certain sized vessel could service the people of the Chatham Islands economically. My colleagues on this side of the House have all expressed the concerns that we have about this particular issue around the profitable, economical sustainability or viability of a service to the Chatham Islands, and the fact that if it is opened up, of course we run the risk of, I guess, endangering a good supply of freight services to the people of the Chatham Islands. It was clear from them that they were not keen on that particular part. We heard those submissions and certainly hear their pleas. They are one of the reasons why, sadly, we will not be supporting this bill.

I pick up on the point made by the Green member about the Mōtītī Islands, where the Rena wreck destroyed a lot of what they call kāpata kai or food stores or food cupboards or—as I mentioned in one of the bills earlier today—mātaitai where they are able to harvest seafood. I think the provision in this particular bill, which is why it is with a heavy heart that we will not be supporting it, is one of those better steps in the right direction about making sure that those who do use shipping, who ship freight across or around the country on a network, actually must pay. They should be held culpable for any accident or any maritime disaster, because of either a bit of negligence or just unfortunate circumstances, which saw the Rena disaster that affected the people of Tauranga, and wider, actually. I read one report, when we were considering this bill, that stated that the effects of the Rena disaster have actually spread right down the East Coast.

More importantly, I think one of the bigger issues was actually the effect that that had on the land dwellers. It was made quite clear, the environmental impact, but what happened was just the divisions it caused amongst the people, not just Māoridom but local authorities. There was a heck of a lot of finger-pointing, and in the end, I think, still, to this day, many of those people are rather upset at the outcome. But one of the provisions in this bill was certainly, I think, a step in the right direction, and it picks up on a point that my colleague here Mr Stuart Nash always makes, that they might be subtle changes in bills but they actually mean a heck of a lot. So this particular bill replaces “shall pay” with “must pay”, so that you are held culpable for any kind of maritime disaster that you might actually have had a hand in, and it forces you to actually pay—not a “shall pay” but a “you must pay.” They sound small, but they make a big difference in the scheme of things.

The other issue was around drug and alcohol management plans and testing, to make sure that those who are in charge of a vessel, any vessel really, are able to carry out their duties properly and without being impaired. The random drug-testing part was probably one of the bigger issues. I recall reading the departmental report and, of course, discussing it with the advisers around the random drug-testing aspect of it and how it would impact on some of the rights, but also how, with controls such as these, the compliance costs—and it is one of those points that I raised regularly on the bills that came through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is fine to put compliance on particular issues or businesses or ventures, but it is important to make sure that the Government and the Government services actually have the infrastructure and capacity to enforce them. Otherwise what is the point?

So those were other issues that were raised. We also spoke about the lack of information, or the lack of any evidence of a systemic problem with drug and alcohol impairment in the maritime sector in New Zealand. Sure, we want to make sure that those who are in charge of vessels are actually capable of doing so, but we only heard a heck of a lot of anecdotal evidence about how widespread the problem might be in the particular industry, and that is hardly the kind of evidence that we feel is able to, I guess, force us into making legislative changes. We want to make sure that the proper evidence is there and the need for it is there, otherwise we are changing law just simply for the sake of changing law instead of actually making a positive impact on not just this particular sector but on all New Zealanders.

I heard one of the earlier speakers on this particular bill mention a particular incident, on a different bill but through the same select committee—they spoke about a particular operator of a hot-air balloon, it was, in this particular incident, who was impaired by drugs. It was harrowing to hear the evidence and the submissions from the families who were affected by that particular incident, which was the hot-air balloon incident where, sadly and tragically, so many people lost their lives.

To hear those particular submissions—one of the problems that was identified was that the person operating the hot-air balloon was impaired due to drug use. The evidence was quite clear on that one, and this one is really to reiterate my point about the fact that we need evidence to make sure that we are able to understand the full scale of the problem across the maritime sector.

I think one of the undertones of all of the submissions that came into the select committee on this particular bill was just simply the lack of infrastructure in the maritime industry, both on land and out at sea. There were undertones in the submissions about the lack of infrastructure that would allow a more sustainable, a more economical, and certainly a more efficient maritime sea freight business and industry in Aotearoa New Zealand, and one of the problems is that it is due to a lack of funding.

Anyway, like I have said, we will not be supporting this bill, sadly, and we hope that in the future we can change it again more meaningfully.

I am pleased to take a call on the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill in its second reading. I had a little bit to do with this very early on, but have since left the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am pleased to see it progressing through the House and to particularly acknowledge the Minister of Transport, Simon Bridges, who is seeing this through, and the work of the select committee. I know that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee works incredibly hard on bills like this.

I do have to take umbrage, though, with my colleague who has just resumed his seat, Peeni Henare. He has suggested that there has been a lack of funding for infrastructure, particularly in the Chatham Islands. It may come as news to the member that we are investing something like $55 million into the Chathams at the moment to replace its wharf. I know, and not because he is sitting in the House, that the list member resident in Rongotai, the Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Finlayson QC—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Name-dropper.

Yes, you have got to get all the post-nominals in as well—QC, MP. He has been actually very, very keen on this sort of investment—again, $55 million into a new wharf there—and that does not take away from the advocacy, either, for a new wharf that has been put in place on Pitt Island. For those in the House who do not know, the Pitt Islands are about 20 kilometres south of the Chathams. I am reliably informed by Chris Finlayson—in that marginal seat of Rongotai—that, actually, the investment is in play and there are dynamics, if you will, between the shipping player, or players, and the Chatham Islands. I know that he and others, certainly on the Government side, are keeping a close eye on that.

Look, I am conscious that this is the last speech on this bill, so I do not want to prolong it too much. It is always great to get the support of the entire House on these matters. The bill is doing a couple of very basic but rather important things. One has been well traversed—around the whole element of alcohol and drug testing. That can be done at the moment, somewhat on an ad hoc basis. This provides a legal framework to it and, really, it is analogous to the likes of what we do on the roads with the police. This provides a legal framework to work and support that. I think, actually, the previous speaker and others before him have acknowledged there have been a number of incidents involving drugs or alcohol in transport environments that we need to address. And perhaps, through this bill, there are some wider ones to look at.

The Government has been very aware for a long time now of the importance around health and safety. Speaking as the chair of the Health Committee, I say that one of the greatest impairments to one’s health and to one’s safety is the use of alcohol and drugs, which always puts an interesting question to certain parties who are advocating more drugs in society. We will not quite get into that tonight. So it is good to see that this framework is in place.

The other has been a response to the Rena incident off Mount Maunganui a few years back. This bill in effect allows the Government to get more compensation. Its primary mechanism is to exclude certain costs, such as wreck removal, cargo removal, and other remediating damage. As I understand things, at the moment there is, effectively, a cap and those liable can reduce that cost, or how much they actually have to pay out in cash, by saying that they spent this much money on the cargo removal, this much money on wreck removal, and so forth. We are saying now through this piece of legislation that we can still claim X amount of dollars and a hefty fee at that, but we will also charge you for the removal of the wreck and so forth.

So I think this bill is in a good space. I note that the select committee has made a number of recommendations. I think that is fairly normal for a select committee—not unusual. It is a robust part of the dynamic of this Parliament. Reading my very quick notes here, because I did not sit through the whole time, I see we have had about 25 people come and submit—I think that is particularly helpful—and 11 of those were in person. So that gives a little bit of context to the changes that the select committee has made.

One particularly of note is the amendment of clause 28, which is now amending the new schedule 1AA. It is specifying commencement dates for drug and alcohol testing and around the oil pollution compensation amendments. The long and the short—the two provisions now have to come into force on different dates because of the later transition period required. Put another way, it is just an appreciation, through the work of the select committee, that, putting these two elements in place around compensation and around testing, they are not going to be able to come into effect on the same day. So it is just a bit of a change there.

Look, I said I would not go on for too long—I probably have—but I just want to acknowledge all those who are working on this bill and those who are supporting it. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to.