Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 16, “Amendments to Maritime Transport Act 1994”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I didn’t sit on the select committee that considered this legislation, so I’m coming to this with a view of a layperson. Some of the terms in the legislation are a bit perplexing, and I’m hoping that the Minister will be able to offer some advice about, for instance, the terminology in Part 1, clause 4(1), which refers to “fuel oil” at the bottom there. It means “any fuel delivered to and intended for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship, including gas, distillate, [or] residual fuels”, and what I’d like to know is: how was that definition arrived at and is it extensive enough? For instance, does it include futureproofing fuel sources? So does it, for instance, include the prospect of hydrogen fuel cell propulsion, and what about the potential for some vessels—I understand that Wellington is soon to have an electric tugboat in place. So I’m keen to know about what those various types of fuel might mean.

Now there is a further section: the amendment to section 222(1)(b)(i) in clause 4(2) refers to dumping, but immediately above that it refers to discharge, and I’m wondering why the rather more pejorative term “dumping” is used rather than “discharge” and why there isn’t some kind of consistency in terms of the vocabulary around those matters. I’m hoping the Minister may be able to give some clarity on those. I’ve got some other questions later.

In terms of laypeople, it’s the member and myself both. So my suggestion in that particular instance—and while I’m waiting for my officials to come in—would be that maybe the member could put those questions in writing, and I’m sure that the Minister in charge of the bill would be more than happy to give an answer to him.

Well, thank you, Minister, for the kind invitation, but that’s not the purpose of the committee of the whole House stage. The purpose of this stage is for the Minister to reply to questions from members in this committee, and I would have thought that the member would be on top of this legislation. I understand that she’s sitting in for the Minister whose bill this name is in, but that doesn’t absolve her from the responsibility to be able to answer what I think are some reasonably basic questions—and it may be that with the arrival of the official, we may be able to get some answers. So I will give the Minister an opportunity for a brief consultation with officials, and then I have other questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps while the Minister is getting that advice, I could put some further questions forward. As my colleague just talked about earlier, this import of low-sulphur fuel is going to be required, and I wonder if the Minister could tell us about any modelling that has been done in terms of the potential cost to domestic operators and also a time line for implementation. Given that there is going to be this additional cost for domestic operators, I’m sure they will be wanting to know a little bit more detail about time frames and when they need to be budgeting for this. Thank you.

Implementing Annex VI requires expansion to a number of Maritime New Zealand and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) functions. Additional operational funding is needed to achieve this. We expect the cost of implementing Annex VI obligations to be approximately $1.9 million per year for Maritime New Zealand and $1,078,427 per year for MBIE. We expect the cost of the regime to be borne by the shipping and fuel industries through the maritime and fuel levies. This would be subject to further analysis and consultation as part of the funding review. However, in March 2020, the ad hoc Cabinet committee on COVID-19 response suspended all funding reviews across border and aviation agencies for 12 months.

I wondered if I could come back to the use of vocabulary. So in clause 4(2)(a) and (b), relating to “discharge”, there are sort of nice words about including the “release, disposal, spilling, leaking, pumping, emitting, or emptying;”, but then paragraph (b) goes on to say, “does not include—(i) dumping”, and I’m intrigued to know why there can’t be some consistency of vocabulary. “Dumping” is a pejorative word, whereas “release, disposal, spilling, leaking,” is a much kinder use of the English language. It seems to me that there is a specific exclusion in the legislation that precludes the evil dumping but that allows for the inclusion of disposal, spilling, leaking, pumping, emitting, or emptying.

Given the situation that we find ourselves in at the moment with supply chain delays and particular issues around shipping and delay of goods and services both in and out of the country, can the Minister give us an assurance that this has been considered in the time line and time frame for implementation to ensure that even greater shortages of goods and services don’t occur with a further breakdown of the supply chain?

I just wanted to go back to the previous member’s question about dumping, because I know that that’s twice that he’s asked it, so it’s obviously very important. It’s because it is consistent with the Maritime Transport Act as it stands at the moment. It deals with different provisions. The word “dumping” is in the Act, in four different provisions, and so it is consistent with what has already been in the in the main Act. So it is consistent with the legislation as it stands at the moment. It’s not pejorative; it is just around the fact of consistency and getting consistency within our legislation.

That is my very point. So in the sentence in the clause immediately above, it refers to “discharge”. So why in that sentence are nice words like “release, disposal, spilling, leaking, pumping, emitting, or emptying;” used, but the word “dumping” isn’t used? I would have thought that a polite way of using the language was actually to say what is meant, and if dumping is what is meant, then the word “dumping” should be used throughout the legislation, rather than just in a way that is selective and not consistent.

So just to confirm that we’re talking about two different parts of the Act. We’ve got dumping and discharge used in different parts of the Act dealing with completely different provisions, so to make that distinction, we’ve got the different language that’s being used in that particular point because we’re dealing with completely different provisions. It could be something that eventually, down the track—when we’re looking at the Plain Language Bill for example—could be tidied up for that purpose, but at the moment, that’s how it stands.

So what, then, was the policy initiative behind not taking this opportunity to tidy up the vocabulary to actually bring consistency across the two regulatory statutes? It strikes me that that would have been an obvious and simple thing to do. The Minister in the chair has available to her an army of officials to bring logic and sense to legislative changes of this sort.

But while the Minister is consulting with the officials on that matter, there is a further matter I want to raise, and that relates, again, to clause 4(2)(b)(ii), and it provides the statutory exclusion for “the release of harmful substances for the purposes of legitimate scientific research”. I’m keen to know what the parameters of the disposal and/or dumping may be of harmful substances could be for the purposes of legitimate scientific research. In what quantum would be permissible scientific research to pollute, to dump, and to give waste to toxic materials in the name of science? How would that be quantified, when would it be justified, and who would make those decisions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. If we could return to the issue of supply chain disruption, can the Minister assure us that there will be low-sulphur fuel available for domestic operators, and has that been factored into the time line for implementation? And is she able to give us an assurance that there will not be further delays to our supply chain by the implementation of this Annex VI?

Just following on from that question, it is actually quite similar. So in clause 4(3)(b), it talks about “anything that comprises, or is intended to comprise, any part of a ship, offshore installation, or pipeline, … that is or … intended to be installed on or fitted or supplied to a ship,”, so we are, again, talking about marine protection. This bill was done in a global context, and we are looking for new fuels. So, in terms of anything being installed on a ship in the future, does that include any new plant or any new pipes or anything that might be used to use a new fuel that’s going to go through that ship so everything will be caught in the intent of this bill? That is my question. Thank you.

I just wanted to take a very quick call around the supply chain issue. I have been assured that where—I can give assurance around the supply chain in that particular point in time. There is a bit of a side issue, of course, with the closure of Marsden Point, but I have been told that we’re OK.

Just wanted to remind the Minister in the chair, Jan Tinetti, I’m still waiting for an answer to my questions around the release of harmful toxic substances for “legitimate scientific research” in terms of quantum, who makes the decision, and what possible examples might the Minister have for that.

But while the Minister is consulting with officials on that one, I’m keen to go on to clause 4(4), which repeals the definition of “reception facility”. In the spirit of plain English, I would’ve thought that as a layperson, most New Zealanders would consider a reception facility to be a wedding venue, possibly one that required the deposit be paid. But here we have it in this piece of legislation; a reception facility is nothing further from a wedding venue than could possibly be imagined. It seems that a reception facility is to now include “a facility for the reception of—(a) harmful substances from ships … (b) sediment (as defined in section 444A(3)” and “ballast water from ships” has been removed. But I’m intrigued to know again, given the clarion cry for plain English, why the term “reception facility” is being used when the popular context for reception facility bears no relevance at all to this piece of legislation. I wondered whether officials might assist with that and whether a deposit had been paid on the reception facility.

I just wanted to go back to the question around exemptions. This would be used very rarely and would be decided upon by the Director of Maritime New Zealand and would be carried out in times when there was research into areas such as emissions reduction, which are very important areas. So, as I say, it has to be put into there because it’s very rare that it would be used in New Zealand waters, but when we’re talking about research of that nature around emissions reduction, it’s really important that we give the Director of Maritime New Zealand that ability to be able to do that, to be able to make those exemptions.

Surely, that can’t be. I can’t imagine a situation where, in the name of climate change and emissions reductions, there would be a need for the release of harmful substances. What kinds of harmful substances does the Minister have in mind? What possible situation could arise where that could occur? I know that the limits of science are forever expanding, but this strikes me as literally a statutory exemption to pollute, which is exactly the opposite of the intent of this piece of legislation. It seems to me to be quite illogical that on the one hand, we are trying in this bill to provide for shipping that is cleaner and greener and more environmentally friendly, and yet we have a statutory exclusion that allows for the dumping of harmful substances—toxic substances, probably—all in the name of what we’re told is emissions reduction.

Now, I and, I think, some of my colleagues—Stuart Smith, who is our spokesperson on climate change, looks as perplexed as I feel about this issue. Again, it seems to me that there is an inconsistency here that hasn’t adequately been explained, and just using emissions reduction seems to me to be nothing short of a mere convenience to try and justify a statutory exclusion for the dumping of toxic waste by parties unknown in quantities unknown in circumstances unknown for purposes unknown. The Minister can surely give us some insight into what limitations might be provided and what protections there could be for our beautiful natural marine environment against this statutory exclusion.

This is a provision that has to be there as part of Annex VI. It is part of the trials for ship emission reduction and control technology research. It is something that there is no choice around; it has to be there. As I’ve said, it’ll be used very rarely in the New Zealand context. That is why it has been given to the highest authority in the Director of Maritime New Zealand to be able to make that exception.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve come very late to this debate, but I’m coming representing the wonderful port of Picton. We have significant issues with emissions, and MARPOL VI can’t come quick enough for the people in Picton. The latest airshed readings from the ferry terminal in Picton, in particular, are quite worrying. In fact, this has come quite late and I’m very concerned about the health of the people of Picton due to the air quality issues. I know, in particular, the soot that comes out in small flakes and contaminates washing on the line, for example, in less than favourable conditions.

So MARPOL VI, I know, decreases the emissions from ships in general, but Picton has greater issues with emissions than Tauranga does, which has a hundred times the number of ship movements that Picton does, and it’s related to the geography in that port. So does this bill in any way take any account of the particular circumstances in particular ports that will exacerbate the issues that otherwise might be fine in places like Tauranga or Auckland’s port or Lyttelton rather than a small port with particular geographical issues, with hills around it and the comings and goings of ferries in particular, rather than the giant ships that are coming and going—container ships, particularly—in Tauranga or Auckland or other ports around the country?

It’s a very confined space. It is subject to a lot of wind, but some days there isn’t any and that’s the days when we have issues, and I know that some of those ships are not emitting in large quantities as they would be in the case of those aforementioned large ports. So my question is: is there any account of that in the bill, and, if so, can the Minister please explain how that would work?

The answer to my previous question about the availability of the low-sulphur fuel was “We’re OK.”, and I don’t think that’s a terribly technical explanation of really what amount of low-sulphur fuel is available for domestic operators. Is there sufficient low-sulphur fuel available, and over what time frame will it then enable implementation of Annex VI?

Thank you, Madam Chair. While the Minister’s seeking an answer to my colleague Penny Simmonds’ very good question, clause 4 of the bill relates to an amendment to differentiate between the terms “ballast water” and “sediment”, and my simple question is: what does the Minister understand to be the distinction between ballast water and sediment?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to add to that, I’d like to know what assurances the Minister can give that any requirement for reception facilities may be negotiated to the satisfaction of the port operator to avoid any unnecessary costs.

The question is that Part 1 stand part.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I have started. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Maritime Transport (Marine Protection Conventions) Order 1999