Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present a legislative statement on the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

I move, That the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Members will understand that the Minister of Transport would normally be here to deliver this address to this second reading of this bill, but he’s locked down in Auckland, and so it falls to me, in his stead, to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and to thank them for their time and contribution to the development of this bill. I understand that eight written submissions were received on the bill, and oral evidence was heard from two submitters. I’d also like to thank submitters for their informative views on aspects of this bill.

I understand that the select committee has no issues regarding the legislation’s design to bring to the attention of the House and that they have proposed only minor and technical amendments to the bill. These changes include amending two of the definitions in the bill to better differentiate between ballast water and sediment, and to replace an incorrect cross-reference. I’m pleased to note that the committee recommends that the bill be passed as amended.

As Mr McKelvie just recently, in a contribution on the prior bill, noted, shipping is, of course, of fundamental importance to New Zealand’s trade. None the less, it’s also true that shipping is a major contributor of noxious emissions to the atmosphere, particularly sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, which affect both human health and the environment. Passing this bill will enable us to reduce these emissions and implement greenhouse gas emission reduction measures by aligning our domestic legislation under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships—or MARPOL—Annex VI.

Again, I thank all of those who submitted on the bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We will be supporting this bill as well. It’s a bill that is very short in nature and, as the Minister has just said, probably has as its most creative part the use of fuel and the direction around that for shipping in New Zealand, especially of coastal shipping. That will have an impact on the cost, no doubt, of shipping, and so that needs to be taken into account, because all environmental changes do have some consequence and some action that has to be taken, and this will be no different. We look forward to that being done in a constructive way—that is, done in a manner which enables coastal and other shipping to perform its activities in New Zealand which are vital for our economy.

I just want to take a moment to really focus on that. As the Minister said in his contribution, shipping is crucial for New Zealand, and never before have we seen how crucial that is than in a time when our export industries have been the mainstay of the economy at a very difficult point in our country’s current state in dealing with a pandemic and needing the export earnings to be able to function as a country. So any legislation that has to do with shipping has actual vital importance for the New Zealand economy at this time.

I note also that in select committee we are also—and I see the chair of the committee here, Greg O’Connor, and just acknowledging the committee members and submitters. I was not part of the committee for those submissions, but I understand that Christopher Luxon was our member that was dealing with it at that time and that the submissions were done in a constructive way between all the parties. But in the select committee at the moment, we are looking at coastal shipping, we are looking at the shipping industry as it comes to New Zealand, and we are looking at our supply lines. They are vital for this country going forward, and there’s some really crucial questions around that that we as a country need to face.

I know when we were in Government a few years ago, those same issues were arising at that time, and they are to do with which ports should be the main ports for New Zealand entry and exit of exports and imports, how we should regulate, and how we should look at our coastal shipping industry, how we should look at the opportunities that are being presented and some of the challenges that come from shipping lines desiring that certain ships of certain size are coming to port in New Zealand. All those things come together and are really important for New Zealand as an exporting, food-producing country, and also as an importing country of a lot of the commodities that we use and our consumer goods. So anything in regard to maritime transport is vital for our country at this time.

It’s been interesting that the Government hasn’t taken on board this challenge, though. We’ve seen in healthcare the willingness for the Government to take the challenge on, you can say, and try and reform the governance of our health institutions. We’ve seen it in education, where the Government has tried to reform the polytech sector. We’ve seen it in local government, in water, that they’ve tried to come and change that, but, strangely, they have done nothing in the shipping sector. One of the most vital sectors for New Zealand, and the Government has not said a word.

They’ll come and say that, in the last Budget, they gave—what is it?—$30 million to coastal shipping, which is going to make no difference, in effect, to what’s actually happening and what New Zealand needs to do to go ahead. And all the time, we are seeing more investment by many regions in their coastal ports. At the same time, we are getting a very big change in the way that the shipping industry operates around the world. We just have to look at that and we see, as we’ve seen in select committee, the big shipping lines are now looking at bigger and bigger ships that will only go to one or two ports in New Zealand. That’s going to be a crucial decision New Zealand has to make going forward.

There are some that argue that we leave it up to the market and that the market will determine where that goes. There’ll be some that say that we need to actually make a strategy around how and what ports are the identifiable ones for New Zealand going forward, and there’ll be some that want a mix of that to take into account that Governments of the day can’t always project what will happen in the future.

So those are all the elements but the Government has stayed away from that. They haven’t taken up that challenge, when I know, years ago, when we were in Government, they harped on about coastal shipping and they harped on about having a strategy around coastal shipping, and yet they haven’t done anything in the time that they’ve been there. I just wonder if there’s some other reason that we don’t know about, the reason that the Government hasn’t undertaken that approach.

Now, when we look at the shipping industry, and one of the key things has always got to be the Port of Auckland. The Port of Auckland is crucial for New Zealand and our shipping sector. And we wish that we could have those issues sorted that we’ve seen up there, and that really has—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I’m just going to ask the member to return to the bill at hand. The member’s been canvassing issues around the wider shipping industry, but, in fact, this bill is around emissions and I’d ask him to come back to the bill.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. But it is partly around emissions, but it is also partly around the large structure that we as a country have signed up to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member’s not arguing with the Chair—the member is not arguing with the Speaker. I invite the member to resume his speech.

OK. So we do support this bill, but this bill is part of an international arrangement around shipping and it is part of how New Zealand operates in that shipping environment, and that is the whole point of it. It’s an international bill that is being approved in New Zealand and has some impacts on the New Zealand shipping industry, especially in the coastal shipping area, with many of those environmental aspects, as has been mentioned.

We also need to look at the difficulties we’re seeing in shipping as well with the Australian ports now looking at industrial action. That will have a major impact on New Zealand as well and that will mean that there’ll be less ships coming to this country. And it is vital that we do have a strong shipping industry, when we consider that the Minister of trade, for example, is just going overseas again to try and reassert a trade agreement with the UK, which, obviously, failed in his last attempt. The importance of actually having that ability to transfer those products is crucial, and if we get the Minister to do his job and actually sort out that agreement, that would be helpful for our shipping industry going forward.

So this is a bill that National will support. It is a small bill and it has got that environmental context, but the shipping sector is something that is vital to the New Zealand economy at this time. Supply lines are crucial in New Zealand at this very time and it would be great to see the Government actually take some leadership in that area and actually ensure that New Zealand producers can guarantee their products get to market and that New Zealand consumers know that the imports that they will be purchasing will actually come through.

This is another reflection on how the Government hasn’t acted when it should have acted in the best interests of the New Zealand economy. It’s been focused on other issues and hasn’t been focused on the real issues that drive an economy, and that’s making sure that our shipping lines, our supply lines, are effective, they’re world class, and they’re keeping up with the pace of change that we’re seeing in the shipping industry.

So we support this bill, but we also seek that this Government actually takes some action in this sector where they haven’t done in the past.

One would hope that one day that member David Bennett will bring the bill he’s supposed to be speaking on to the House, not come laden with a load of grudges which he seems incapable of getting away from when he stands on his feet.

This is a relatively simple bill and, funnily enough, it is something that has been some time in coming before this House, because what it does do is actually bring New Zealand in line with world standards around emissions. The bill will align New Zealand legislation with Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships—the MARPOL.

I was fortunate enough to be the chair of the select committee which actually considered this bill, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and we had a number of submitters who were actually, invariably, very positive about it. There was a matter brought, particularly, that’s been mentioned by Minister Parker, around what was ballast water and what was sediment. And, of course, this was important to be worked out, because, without going into too much detail, these ships will be carrying things called scrubbers, which they will actually put the emissions through. As a result, there will be sediment, there will be materials that do need to be dealt with when they come into New Zealand ports. That was why we did require to make that change that has been previously mentioned—because each of the ports will be required to actually have the ability to deal with this material.

It is a very good bill, something that will bring us into line with the world, and it will only go some way towards improving our connectivity with the rest of the world. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand tonight and speak to this Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill in the second reading. I do remember speaking on a previous reading. I wasn’t in the select committee when this went through. It is a very important bill. It is important because New Zealand getting involved now with this MARPOL Annex will strengthen New Zealand’s ability to play a credible role in negotiations in the International Maritime Organization and to push for global ambition and to improve New Zealand’s ability to protect its trade and economic interests.

The last speaker, Greg O’Connor, was talking about the difference—and I heard Minister Parker speaking about the difference—between the ballast water and the sediment. As someone who is not totally au fait with some of the terminology of shipping, “ballast” is like a heavy material—just for the audience listening: it’s a gravel sand or iron or it’s placed in the bilge of a ship to ensure its stability. So if you think about that and you think about the water that surrounds that and sediment, I can understand that there’s, obviously, quite a bit of discussion around how those things are defined. It is important, as ships are travelling around the world, to make sure we get this right, because, as we’ve heard tonight, shipping is extremely important to us.

We know that over this COVID period, we have really struggled to get some items into New Zealand. I was very pleased to be at one of our local fertiliser companies on Friday, where they said to me, “We’re not going over into that area of the plant, because we’ve just had a ship come in and it’s brought in potash fertiliser.”, and I know that is something that has been very difficult to get for various reasons—not just shipping—in the world over recent times.

The key message, really, around this bill is that it is relatively minor and yet it is a positive step for the shipping sector towards a cleaner and healthier sector for people and our environment. What is really rather interesting for me in debating this bill, having been through a whole range of other things, particularly in the energy space and the agricultural space, is that we are kind of late to the piece in this one. With so many other things that the current Government is trying to lead the world on—New Zealand first signed up to MARPOL in 1998, which was some time ago. So 94 other countries are party to Annex VI, representing 97 percent of the world’s shipping tonnage. So we are rather late to this, albeit that this particular piece of legislation, which we are happy to support, is in the process of making a difference to the environment and to climate change around the world. It is really important because it takes into account the human environment around courts, it takes into account climate change and ozone layer - depletion both through air-quality regulations and energy-efficiency measures.

While we haven’t had so many planes going off the ground over recent times like we used to—apart from the occasional huge ship which gets stuck due to its size—and while the canals have largely been doing their thing, we have to always remember that we are a very small country right at the bottom of the world, and if there is any other reason to be economic and go somewhere else rather than come down to New Zealand, I’m sure people will choose that, which is why our trade agreements and our relationships with other countries is so important. That relates to the conversations we’ve just had prior to starting on this bill tonight.

MARPOL might seem like a funny word, but it is really just the “mar” and the “pol” out of marine pollution. It was developed by the International Maritime Organization, which actually first signed it in 1973. So this is going back a while, and, in terms of climate change and environmental things, it was probably quite early in the piece.

What Annex VI does is it limits the amount of sulphur content in all ships’ fuel to half a percent. It requires certain diesel engines to comply with certain emission standards. It requires certain ship board incinerators to meet performance standards. It is about banning the incineration of certain substances. It is also about ensuring that ships with a mass of 400 gigatonnes or more meet energy-efficiency requirements. So there is a lot going on here on the ship, but also ensuring that the port facilities are capable of dealing with the residues and the waste that these ships need to come off.

I think, waste, really, if you think about the shipping industry, a bit like any travel industry, there is quite a—not just the waste that we were talking about before in terms of the ballast and the sediment but, obviously, people live on these ships, so there is a lot of food that goes around the world, and food waste and those sorts of things need to be taken care of, restocked, and waste going off at ports. So there is a lot that is taken into.

One of the places I live is on the coast not that far from the New Plymouth port. We assume that these ships are moving often, but, actually, they all have to wait their turn to come into port, even in a small port like New Plymouth. So sometimes they are sitting out on the sea for quite some time—so just thinking about the operations that actually have to happen during that time, as well.

In dealing with the second reading of this bill tonight, it is worth noting that New Zealand is one of six OECD countries that are currently not party to Annex VI; the others are Austria, Columbia, Hungary, Israel, and Mexico.

So it is a pleasure to stand here tonight and have the National Party support this bill, because I sincerely believe that this bill will help with our climate emissions. I have to be honest and say that I can’t stand here and say that a lot about a lot of the bills that the current Government is introducing. But, I guess, the length of time this bill has been around gives me a lot more confidence that it has been well-thought-out, it has been well tested around the world, and the changes that are being made have been well proven over time. So it’s not just some idea that was thought up on the steps of Parliament and the next thing you know there is a piece of legislation for it; it’s a global piece of legislation that we’re following here. It’s a pleasure to support the bill tonight. So with that, Madam Speaker, I’d just like to say thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it’s good to be back in the House and be given the opportunity to speak. Can I acknowledge the previous speaker, Barbara Kuriger. I thought for a minute she was going to break out into a rap song with a bit of m-a-r and a p-o-l, but we got there, and now we all know the history of this very important bill.

Can I just acknowledge her final words around the support, because this does fit with our Government priorities to tackle climate change. Transport emissions do make up 40 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions, and this will go a long way to helping those fall, and they need to fall really quickly.

I just want to finish and be short in this call by saying we do need to make the changes to the Maritime Transport Act 1994, and then those rule-making and enforcement provisions will enable the Act and give that full authority required. Can I acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that I sit on for the hard work. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Green Party very much supports this bill. MARPOL Annex VI, as other speakers have mentioned, is the primary international regulatory mechanism for addressing the climate change impacts from shipping.

Of course, when it initially came into force, Annex VI, in May 2005, it was regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships. Now, it seeks to address the impacts from shipping emissions not only on climate but on human health and environments in and around port communities by regulating emissions of harmful pollutants from ships, and it addresses the climate change and ozone layer - depletion through both air-quality regulations and energy-efficiency measures.

I think what’s most interesting about this debate tonight is that the National Party is supporting the bill. That’s great. I’ve heard some supportive comments about coastal shipping from the National Party and for this particular bill. It’s really interesting the reason why something that came into force in 2005, New Zealand is only acceding to now through these legislative changes, because a long time ago, in 2010, when I came in, before I was elected to Parliament, and I joined the Green Party’s research unit as a transport advisor, in Parliament, there was great concern amongst some of the people who were working on international shipping that the Government had no interest, at that time, in 2010—this was the National Government—in acceding to MARPOL Annex VI. Indeed, that’s why nothing happened until 2018 when the coalition Government came in.

I think the previous Labour Government, in 2005-2008, had been doing the work to get it going, but, obviously, when the Government changed, nothing happened. If you look back at records, the United States was signing up to this with the Environmental Protection Agency implementation in 2011. So the reason why this took so long is because the previous National Government did nothing about it for the entire time it was in Government. Of course, when we came in in 2018, these UN conventions, bringing them in and making them part of law in order to accede requires a whole set of Government processes, which had been engaged in prior to this bill actually coming to select committee and then second reading in this House.

We had public consultation on accession that started in 2018 and went to 2019. The Environment Committee did consultation of the parliamentary treaty examination. Then we had to have informal engagement on implementation, which took us up until now. So it is really important that these international agreements which we engage in in order to protect our environment, to protect our climate, and to protect our human health, they do require a process that takes quite a bit of time. And the momentum in New Zealand signing up to this, it can all be lost simply in a change of Government and it not being a priority for a particular Government.

So I’m really happy to see that the National Party has now changed its tune, now that it’s no longer in Government, that it is supporting this bill, that we are finally acceding to Annex VI of MARPOL—thank God!—because we practically could not be any later than right now.

The Green Party is happy to support the bill and will continue to advocate for intelligent Government regulation and intelligent global agreements that help us tackle our collective challenges, which include pollution of our marine environment, catastrophic climate change, and things that affect not only our medium- and long-term wellbeing but also our immediate human health, because the truth is air quality is not very good around our ports because we haven’t signed up to this in time.

Xiexie ni, yizhang furen. Dajia hao. Da ga hou. Nimen hao, tongshi. That’s the last thing I’ll say. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on this bill at the second reading. ACT advocates for a rules-based international order and, specifically, a level playing field in the sector. This is quite important, as this agreement—almost 100 countries have signed up to this, covering 97 percent of global freight capacity.

Regardless of our international obligations, we’re satisfied that reducing the sulphur limit to 0.5 percent is the right thing to do and practical enough, given the availability of low-sulphur fuel or, alternatively, as has been talked about, the scrubbing systems or exhaust cleaning systems. The select committee process clarified section 444A, which, while technical and small, we were happy to see because it has implications for the ports.

We do have some minor but lingering concerns based on our interactions with stakeholders. One of those concerns is around ports being required to provide reception or storage facilities for hazardous materials. And we certainly hope that the Government works closely with the ports and the sector at large to ensure that costs are manageable and infrastructure investments are achievable in the expected time frames. We don’t want this to have a significant economic impact on ports, especially. We understand the need for audits, inspections, and even the ability to detain ships that are in gross violation of the standards, though we hope that detainment is something that is seldom used or needed. Given these powers of enforcement, we need to ensure that the lines of communication with shipping companies are solid as well.

We’re happy enough with this bill. New Zealand has to play its part and we want a seat at the table when these international agreements are hashed out. So I won’t use up any more time, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the member of Tukituki, from a port region of Hawke’s Bay. Napier Port has set an ambitious goal of reaching net emissions by 2050, considering this a top priority. It’s leadership like this, backed behind with the bill that we are talking on supporting today, that is going to see New Zealand lead the way in joining emissions-free exporting. The Napier Port has considered a whole-of-port climate change risk assessment and also established an emissions inventory with ongoing monitoring and reporting on these. It’s work in progress, which is being acknowledged, and including looking at decarbonising the port’s entire footprint. This work in progress shows an export-leading region of Hawke’s Bay leading the way. We must work towards a cleaner, healthier environment; an export story that goes forward. This is why I commend this bill to the House.

Penny Simmonds—five-minute call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—I’ll be mindful of that split call. I’m very pleased to rise and speak in support of the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill. This bill, of course, brings our domestic legislation into line with our obligations under Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. I’m interested that this was developed nearly 50 years ago, and, certainly, there’ll be a few members here—I was going to say that wouldn’t be out of their nappies, but, actually, they wouldn’t even have got that far. So it’s something that’s been around for some time.

It’s interesting that we have so far accepted four of the six annexes—Annexes I, II, III, and V, on oil and oily water, noxious substances, harmful substances, and garbage. But, at this time, we are looking at Annex VI, which is around limiting air pollution from ships around ports and harbours. It aims to address the impact of shipping emissions on, particularly, the human environment in and around ports.

I always think, when there’s a bill like this, that it’s really important to try and relate it back to your own electorate, because that makes it much more real. So I look to South Port, our wonderful South Port, in that fabulous port settlement of Bluff. If ever you needed a reason for why we should be careful of the impact of shipping emissions on the human environment in and around ports, then Bluff would be it, because, of course, Bluff has a number of amazing things, not the least being the oyster, the Bluff oyster, and the oyster beds that are out in the strait not far from the port there. So, certainly, that’s a very good reason to ensure that there’s protection from pollution of shipping.

Bluff also has a number of other important aspects to it, like the wonderful network of walking tracks around it with abundant native birdlife and flora—again, well worth wanting to protect—and lots of human activity, of course, around in Bluff: our famous Bluff oyster festival, and also the Burt Munro Bluff Hill Climb. So, again, having an environment where not only people can live in a healthy environment but activities and events can take place and native birdlife and flora can exist is incredibly important.

I’d have to say that our South Port is a very, very successful port, and it enables the greater Southland to be a very successful province where we punch well above our weight, with around 16 percent of New Zealand’s GDP coming out of Southland, with only 2 percent of the population. Of course, it’s no use producing wonderful things in Southland, like primary produce and logs and aluminium, if you can’t ship it out of there. So South Port does a wonderful job for the province of Southland, enabling our produce to be shipped all around the world. I want to acknowledge the board of South Port, ably chaired by Rex Chapman, and also the management of South Port, ably managed by the chief executive, Nigel Gear, and all his staff there. It is the successful management of South Port that allows us in Southland to be so successful for New Zealand in what we produce and earn as export income for New Zealand.

So it’s balancing those two tensions that can arise, being able to produce and export but also ensuring that the environment of our ports is kept in a pristine condition for the wildlife, for the population of the settlement of Bluff, and for the activities that we want to carry out there. So I’m very pleased to be rising and adding our support to this bill. Thank you.

Dr Duncan Webb—five-minute call.

Kia ora and thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m just rising in light of the fact that the Māori Party hasn’t taken the call here, but I must say I particularly enjoyed Barbara Kuriger’s speech, when she went through the legislation, right through to spelling out what MARPOL was for us—I think we can now call her “Mrs MARPOL”!

This is a piece of legislation which, in fact, went through the last Parliament under treaty examination, and I was on the committee that did that. It’s very straightforward, but very timely, because one of the difficulties was that we were, essentially, becoming a dumping ground for poor-quality fuel, the highest sulphur, cheapest, and most polluting fuel, and we absolutely needed to stop that, and this is how we do it. We simply have legislation which prevents the import and use in our shipping fleet, coastal or otherwise, of this extremely low fuel which pollutes the air with sulphur and has a negative impact on human health. It’s as simple as that. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call in support of this amendment bill, the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Bill. I too enjoyed Barbara Kuriger’s speech, where she gave a bit of a rundown of the history of the origins of this bill and what “MARPOL” stood for.

I’m not a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, but I have found the reading around it quite interesting. I didn’t realise quite how much pollution ships coming into our ports put out for us, and I think that the fact that this is going to make improvements for human health is vitally important. I think about the Port of Timaru, where I often see young people down there with their fishing lines, and it horrifies me to think that people could be breathing in these really toxic fumes from the fuels and from the emissions that these ships put out there.

So I’m really pleased to see this piece of legislation before the House, really pleased to see that it has all cross-party support, because the health of our people is paramount. Working towards reducing our emissions and looking after our climate environment is hugely important as well. So I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a delight and a pleasure it is at this late hour to be addressing the second reading of the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill. I’m not going to use the time of the House to pick up where my very good and capable colleague Barbara Kuriger left off in terms of explaining the name and the categorisation of the actual annex or, indeed, the term “MARPOL”, because she’s done that in a very thorough, diligent, and appropriate and parliamentary way.

I didn’t sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, but I’m pleased to have read the report of the select committee. It’s not a long report, but it’s quite detailed, and it’s a report that indicates to me that the select committee did their job diligently, that they paid careful attention to the legislation, and that they were dutiful in terms of listening to the submitters that took the time and trouble to make submissions. There were only eight submissions made on the bill and there were just two that were heard, but the general consensus from those handful of submitters that were heard and that presented was that there was broad support for this legislation. So I’m delighted and pleased that tonight it appears that there is unanimity across the House for a small but very significant piece of environmental legislation that is actually a good piece of legislation in terms of providing credibility to the brand of “New Zealand Incorporated” in terms of the role we play in international transport affairs.

One of the great challenges over the history of these islands has been our position on the globe. We are literally surrounded by the largest moat in the world, and for much of our nation’s history, that has been an impediment. It’s been something that has been a hindrance to the growth and prosperity and ability of New Zealand producers and exporters to get product to market. Similarly, for those that want to import product, there are only two ways of getting things and people to and from these islands, and that is either by air or by sea. So our shipping networks are incredibly important. They always have been, right from the very early days of European settlement here in New Zealand. But, of course, our tradition comes from the first people here. The tangata whenua arrived by sea, navigating—as they did—vast ocean tracts.

These days, of course, we don’t rely on waka, we don’t rely on sailing vessels, and we don’t rely on steam; we rely very heavily in terms of shipping on, usually, dirty diesel freight ships—large dirty diesel freight ships—and much of the fuel that they are burning is full of toxins. It’s bad for the environment. It has all kinds of nasty levels of sulphur, nitrous oxide, and a whole range of other substances that would be neither good for our marine environment, our atmospheric environment, nor, indeed, for human living conditions. So it’s appropriate that after what probably is too long a period, New Zealand is going to finally get around to ratifying and taking our responsibilities seriously under the MARPOL Annex VI agreements and conventions that will prevent pollution from international shipping. So I think this is a good move, and I’m delighted on behalf of the National Party and my colleagues to support this legislation.

Others have gone to some lengths to explain what it means in practical terms for their regions. I particularly want to acknowledge the very good contribution of my colleague Penny Simmonds and the appropriate way in which she acknowledged the good work done by people in her part of Southland—particularly around the port of Southland. But that is reflected and replicated in other ports around New Zealand, and as much as I acknowledge the very good work that happens in your area, Ms Simmonds, the situation in other ports in other parts of the country is exactly the same.

Anyone that has had an opportunity to spend any time on a maritime vessel—and I haven’t had much time on one, but I do remember a visit not so many years ago, in Auckland, to the Ports of Auckland and having a look at a container vessel. What surprised me was not only the remarkable efficiency of containerised shipping, which has largely transformed international shipping in my lifetime, but that the efficiency that comes with containerised shipping, frankly, wasn’t being matched by the propulsion methods of the vessels that are carrying these containers around the world. In many respects, much of what has occurred for far too many years in terms of the propulsion fuel used to fuel shipping all around the globe has been less than adequate. It’s not been a best practice by any manner or means, and it’s something that, I think, collectively, as not only New Zealanders but citizens of the world, we can probably hang our heads in shame about and say that these are matters that should have been addressed many years ago.

So now, at second reading, it’s not an opportunity to critique and go into any detail, particularly about why it’s taken so long. Let’s just be grateful and thankful tonight that, finally, steps are being taken and that at this second reading, this piece of legislation will progress through the House. It won’t be too long, I hope, on the Government’s agenda before they bring it back for a committee stage where there will be further analysis of the relatively short number of clauses in the bill, but also then to have a third reading and then, finally, to get it passed so that the Minister can then use the powers that the legislation will provide the Minister with to ensure that the fuels that are used in New Zealand and on New Zealand ships coming to and from our ports is actually going to be better for our atmosphere, better for the marine environment, and better for human health.

I’m reminded of the former chief executive, or it may have been executive director, of the Shipping Federation—a former member of this House—Annabel Young, who for many years has been in her role. She’s no longer in that role, but I can remember her making representations passionately and vigorously and repeatedly to me and my colleagues about MARPOL. I have to say that we found, initially, some concern because there was an initial sort of almost disbelief that we could be going on in this way and that, actually, things could be as bad as they were. But, actually, they were bad and they are bad still today, and we’ve got a lot of potential for improving the fuel sources being used.

There were a couple of other provisions in this piece of legislation that will give the Minister some extra powers that are worthy. They’re credible, and on this side of the House, we do support them. But I do want to, again, just acknowledge Annabel Young for the work that she did in terms of advocacy on behalf of her then employer, on behalf of the organisation that she represented, to ensure that, actually, we were doing the right thing for our environment. I know that this matter to many people, and there will be people who will be sitting at home, watching on television or, as the former member—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: They’ve turned off now.

—of this House—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: You just about had them—just about had them. They’ve gone.

I can remember there was a—Andrew Little will remember a former member in this House. His name was John Banks, and he used to give speeches at this time of the night and talk about people at home listening on their crystal sets, and I’m sure that around the country, there are probably—it could be John Banks himself listening on his crystal set. Who knows—who knows? But here we are in the Parliament, getting on towards half past 9 at night, in a COVID world, discussing and passing, hopefully, at its second reading, a piece of legislation that I think will provide some real, tangible benefit to New Zealand’s shipping operations and that will stand us in good stead for years to come.

I’m very pleased, on behalf of my colleagues in the National Party, to support this piece of legislation at second reading. I hope that it traverses well through the committee stage of the House into third reading and is passed forthwith.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and dajia hao. I’ve stood in this House on a number of occasions and sung the praises of the electorate that I am very fortunate to represent, the beautiful Banks Peninsula. Lyttleton is the centrepiece of this electorate. It’s a beautiful harbour, Whakaraupō, and home to a thriving community. So it’s a privilege to take a short call on this bill, which seeks to mitigate the impact of shipping emissions on ports like Lyttleton—ports which are so important to New Zealand, with almost all of our trade by weight shipped by sea.

This bill is important to our trade aspirations. It’s important to our economy, to our climate change response, and, ultimately, to our communities. And it’s vitally important that New Zealand be meeting its international obligations to limit greenhouse gases and other pollutants emitted by ships. I have no doubt that the good people of Lyttleton will also welcome the greater environmental protections provided for by this bill. So I welcome the continued safe passage, so to speak, of this bill, and commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.