Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 17 and 18, “Amendments to Maritime Transport (Marine Protection Conventions) Order 1999”. The question is—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): —that Part 2 stand part.

💬 Hon Member: He’s very quick.

Goodness me! It’s the quick and the dead today. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. When we were debating Part 1 of this legislation, I asked some questions about the exclusion that allowed for the dumping of harmful substances for scientific research, and the answer that was given was “Well, it’s part of the annex. It’s part of what we’re doing.”, and there was sort of no answer given to it.

So what I would like to know in Part 2 is it says that “This Part amends the Maritime Transport (Marine Protection Conventions) Order 1999.”, and then clause 3 of the order is amended by clause 18 so that certain international conventions are declared to be marine protection conventions: “After clause 3(b), insert: (ba) Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,”. So my question to the Minister is: what would be the implications and why can’t this Parliament, as a sovereign Parliament, make an exclusion to prevent the dumping of toxic waste in the name of science when, in fact, this is a piece of legislation that is going through the Parliament of New Zealand?

I would have thought that we didn’t need to simply adopt holus-bolus what is being thrust upon us from another jurisdiction in another part of the world, and when we are going to adopt clause 18, why can’t we carve out an exclusion that would make this piece of legislation uniquely Kiwi in much the same way that we did with banning—

Order! Order! The member is to refer to measures that are contained in the bill, not matters that he thinks should be contained in the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Also to the Minister: have they considered what liability may be incurred by ports which are required to accept sediments from visiting ships, and what support does the Government think is appropriate to ensure that the environmental costs and risks are not left with ports?

I’d just like the Minister to clarify, because it’s my understanding, as we debate this committee of the whole House on this bill, that we are one of the last two countries to sign up to this convention. So if the Minister could just clarify that for the committee, please. Thank you.

My understanding is also that we are in the final 3 percent of countries to join in implementing MARPOL Annex VI, and given that we have waited this long, it would be useful to know a little bit more about the time frame for implementation. Clearly, it hasn’t been something we’ve wanted to rush into, and so we would hope that the implementation isn’t going to impact unduly on the domestic operators and, therefore, our supply chain—so if we could get a little more information about the implementation timing, given that we are at the very end of countries adopting this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Cabinet was advised in 2019 when agreement was sought from New Zealand to accede to MARPOL Annex VI that November 2021 would be a realistic time frame for New Zealand to accede. This provided a reasonable balance between competing stakeholder views, some of which asked for earlier accession; some later. It was also thought that accession at the time would insulate New Zealand ships from any initial price spikes that were expected.

In January 2020, when new low-sulphur fuel requirements came into force internationally, COVID-19 initially dampened fuel demand, allowing more time for switching to low-sulphur fuels, but demand is now growing. Cabinet’s decision to accede was subject to parliamentary treaty examination, which was completed in June 2020.

Since September 2020, the Ministry of Transport and Maritime New Zealand have been engaging with industry stakeholders to build awareness of the forthcoming requirements and to develop an understanding of the impacts and how specific aspects of MARPOL Annex VI can be implemented. Parliamentary Counsel Office started drafting the bill in January 2020, a process that takes approximately three months. The bill was then introduced in May 2020.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for that additional information. Given the changes that have occurred in the last few months, particularly around supply chains and delays, does the Minister still believe that the time frames and time lines originally looked at are reasonable for domestic operators?

Yes.

💬 Dr James McDowall: Madam Chair.

Before I take the member, if members want to take a call in a committee stage, they’ve got to get up and take a call. Otherwise, I will close the debate. However, we have Dr James McDowall.

I was just going to say, “Point of order.”, but I’ll sit back down. My apologies.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Members, we come now to—

💬 Hon Members: Dinner.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. Members, when I feel I need assistance when I’m ruling, I’ll certainly let you know. But in the meantime, the Chair is going to leave the Chair for the dinner break, and we’ll see you all at 7.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Clauses 1 and 2