Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill

Kāti rā, tēnā rā tātou katoa. The House is resumed for the extended sitting. Members, last evening, we were debating the third reading of the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill. We’d just completed call No. 7, so it’s call No. 8.

Te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā rawa atu ki a koe.

[To the Speaker, warm greetings.]

Mōrena to the House, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak briefly this morning on a piece of work that our Transport and Infrastructure Committee has been working on, the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill. It’s taken a little while to get through the House, and, as I heard the number of speeches late last night, every party acknowledged the time that it’s taken to get this quite minor piece of work into legislation, to have it updated. I was pipped at the post, I think, late last night by the ACT Party member who attempted to blast this side of the House and then went on to support the bill. So I’ll put it down to lateness in the House, my friend, but good on you.

This particular bill is really about supporting the work of this Government. We know, particularly as Aucklanders, that transport makes up 47 percent of emissions into our climate, and, as we continue to work hard to create the change that we want to see, we need to break down each part of our transport sector. So, today, this bill is about reducing the adverse public health effects of marine air pollution on communities close to ports and harbours, and I look to the Waitematā in Auckland, a local Auckland port, and this is the type of work that we need to continue to proceed with. The need for change is now. So, without further ado, it’s an easier round for us this morning, and I commend this bill to the House.

Members, this is a split call. I call Chris Penk—five minutes.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill—just pausing on the “annex VI”, getting my Roman numerals correct there. It’s interesting and enjoyable to be back in the House. I won’t stray far from the bill, but I am wearing blue and white today, a little bit of a coincidence in terms of being a parochial Aucklander! I’m delighted, none the less, to be in Wellington for this particular purpose.

So the maritime transport area, in general, is extremely important to New Zealand and, indeed, the world. Our place in the world is oftentimes defined by our isolation, in geographical terms, from the rest of that. That would be to place a negative construction on what is also a great opportunity in the sense that we are insulated from some of the worst effects of some of the environmental and other challenges of the world. But we also have a great opportunity as a small land nation but a large maritime nation.

Maritime transport is hugely important to us, and should be hugely important to us. It’s largely been the subject of bipartisan consensus to legislate in these matters. I note that what we’re doing today is having the Parliament agree with the Government, in that we’re passing domestic law to give effect to international obligations. So the Government of the day, the executive thereof, has signed up New Zealand—over the course of a number of years, I should emphasise—to protocols, conventions indeed, in this space. So it’s appropriate that the Parliament provides some means by which that law, that obligation that we have on the international stage, can be effective and effected here in New Zealand. Of course, by “New Zealand” I mean not only the territorial landmass of New Zealand, if you’ll excuse the tautology, but New Zealand as a whole, more generally, including, of course, its territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and, arguably, New Zealand flagged ships further afield.

So the bill itself, as others have canvassed, does a number of things that give effect to those maritime protection rules—maritime protection, of course, being reduced to the portmanteau word “MARPOL”, as it’s known in international legal terms. This is the ability to conduct inspections and audits to ensure compliance with those requirements. If we didn’t give explicit authority in our law to allow inspections and so forth, we’d have difficulty with more general prohibitions on search and seizure, or intrusion more generally. That would be problematic. So it’s appropriate for the Parliament to turn its mind to how we can legitimate activities that we do want to take place in order to meet various aims.

The aims include the protection of trade, economic interests, and also the environment. So I don’t think it’s problematic to view the legislation as doing a number of different things, not necessarily in conflict—although I would, of course, acknowledge that any time there are extra regulations or rules that apply to any sector, then, of course, there is a burden of compliance for that. That’s not a reason, in balance, to reject the legislation or to reject the idea of oversight and compliance in this space, but I do note it and say that it’s fair to acknowledge that, for those who are most directly affected by it, including that requirement to use low-sulphur fuels, it is a major change being introduced across the globe.

I note that the impetus for the bill includes not only the environment, in the sense of the ecology of that magnificent place that is the ocean and ocean-adjacent environments, but also in relation to human health. So we’ve talked previously, and no doubt the select committee spoke, notwithstanding that I wasn’t there, but I understand they discussed the importance of a clean-air environment, such that negative health effects aren’t caused unduly by emissions and other difficulties that are caused when we have, obviously, vessels being powered in the way that they generally are, albeit that there’s new technology coming on and available.

So a number of different things to like about the legislation; certainly very necessary in this space for international reasons and on the domestic stage. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill makes sense. It’s got broad support across the House, and I don’t see any reason to delay its passing. I commend it to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege and an honour to take a call in the House today on this maritime bill, as the member for Ōtaki and also as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Not only have we heard our Prime Minister talk about the fact that we are in a climate crisis but she’s also about “Let’s do something about it.”, and that is what this bill does. We know we need to act now. It is our responsibility to be kaitiaki to Papatūānuku, to te ao—the world, the planet—and to make sure that we leave this world in the best place possible for our tamariki, our mokopuna, and our mokopuna to come, and that is what this bill does. This bill looks to reduce the carbon emissions, which, like my colleague Mr Halbert said, 47 percent of transportation carbon emissions are made up of.

We also know that shipping contributes to these emissions, putting out pollution such as sulphur and nitrogen. This isn’t just bad for our environment; this is also bad for the health of people, especially those that live near the harbour—our communities. This Government is committed to climate change. We’re not just committed; we’re actually putting it into action. That is what this bill is: this is part of our mahi to make sure we look after our planet, look after our people, and for that I commend this bill to the House.

💬 Andrew Bayly: One minute 40!

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, that last speech was—I think I heard Mr Bayly say—one minute 48. That was actually almost a record for what I’ve heard from the other speakers from Labour this morning. So I just wanted to start off on this Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill by saying that the member Shanan Halbert said before that the ACT MP stood up last night, supported the bill, and then blasted the other side of the House. I would suggest—

💬 Shanan Halbert: Other way round.

No, it was that way around. So, now, Mr Halbert, you might want to check what you said. Look, I have every reason why the ACT member would want to blast the other side of the House, and we’re supporting the bill this morning. I also have a few points to make to the other side of the House.

While Mr Halbert was speaking, he actually made a point in his speech of saying, on this bill, that “It’s an easy round for us this morning”. I would actually contest that a party who stood up in this House and decided to declare a climate emergency, paying lip-service to something that is around improving the climate and the environment is quite a disgrace. So it’s easy to say one thing and do something else.

It’s also quite interesting when you look through this bill that we’re looking at a Labour Government over there who not only declared a climate emergency but will tell you on various occasions that they’re focused on the ocean and they’re focused on everything being better. Where’s the Kermadec bill to follow this one? That would be a really nice bill to put up, Mr Halbert, if you really are concerned about the oceans.

But, anyway, back to this bill. So National does support this bill. It represents a relatively minor, yet positive, step forward towards a shipping sector that’s cleaner and healthier for people and the environment. And, of course, we on the National side of the House realise that New Zealand needs to play its part in the mitigation of climate change—play our part, right? I’m not a fan, and neither is the National caucus, of the over-commitments that this Government is currently making for our country.

I wonder what’s actually going to happen, now that they’ve passed this very clean Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill, to the coal that they’re bringing into the country on ships, to support our energy environment, because they have no transition. It’s not a just transition. It’s not a transition at all. It’s just a mishmash of ideas. So these ships are now currently actually bringing more coal into New Zealand in 2021, in three months, than what they brought into New Zealand in the whole of 2016 and 2017. That is a Government that has all the words to support their view on climate change, but no action.

So this bill is a continuation of the work of successive Governments since New Zealand first signed up to MARPOL in 1998. A majority of stakeholders supported the bill and New Zealand acceding to Annex VI. However, there is a recognition that there will be economic implications and effect on businesses, particularly domestic shipping operators, who will be affected by this requirement to use the low-sulphur fuels. So every time we make a decision: on one hand there’s the environment, on the other hand there’s the economics, and then there’s the social factors that go with everything. Sometimes I don’t think the Government gets this energy trilemma right in any shape or form.

There is one thing that’s been noticeable in the long length of time since this bill has been in process: the cruise ship industry, due to COVID, has had a very—well, there’s been a real damper put on cruise ships. So when I look at some of the other annexes that have been supported by this, there’s Annex V, which talks about garbage. I would say that for cruise ships, despite the fact that people can have lovely holidays on them, there is actually quite a lot of garbage that’s actually associated with those cruise ships, and quite a lot of waste comes off them. So it was good to see that clause that’s in there to ensure that that’s actually handled correctly, because we have a problem in New Zealand with landfills, and I don’t think the Government’s got its mind clearly around that. There’s a lot that we could do around waste-to-energy, while we’re on the topic of climate change.

So 94 other countries are party to Annex VI, and that represents 97 percent of world shipping tonnage. So this is one area where the world’s, in a climate change and environmental space, largely on the same page. That’s a good thing. We know there’s a talkfest going on at the moment in Glasgow, and while we’re all interested in making a difference to climate change, we can’t see some of the shallow promises that are going on around the world making a big difference. We have to get some real wins on the board. But in this case, 94 other countries are already party to it. That must be really disappointing for a Government that seems to contend that they lead the world on everything. They lead the world on COVID, until they don’t.

In terms of—

💬 Shanan Halbert: Go back to MARPOL.

—net zero readiness—this is about the climate, Mr Halbert; this is about why we’re doing this in these ships, OK? This is about the climate. On the Net Zero Readiness Index, New Zealand, in the KPMG report that came out last week or the week before, was ranked ninth. So we do have some work to do, and this bill—the MARPOL bill, Mr Halbert—is a very small part of actually keeping up our place. But I will notice in that report that our agricultural industries featured at No. 1 for net zero readiness compared to other countries in the world. I think if the Prime Minister and the Government want to stand up and display our first-in-the-world, perhaps the Prime Minister would like to stand up and announce that one.

So Annex VI, given that the Government decided this was an easy round and they weren’t going to do any work on it this morning, just as it’s the third reading of the bill, and I suspect that the last speaker, who will also come from the Government, will decide that this is an easy round, talking on the MARPOL bill—it’s so important to them, marine pollution, that they can’t actually give it any time in the House this morning—I just would like to remind the public, at the end of this bill, that Annex VI requires signatory countries to meet a number of obligations, including: limiting the amount of sulphur content in all ship fuel to 0.5 percent, requiring certain diesel engines to comply with nitrous oxide emission standards, requiring certain ship board incinerators to meet performance standards, banning the incineration of certain substances, ensuring that all ships with a mass of 400 gigatonnes or more meet energy-efficiency requirements, and ensuring port reception facilities for residues and waste are available.

So the New Zealand Shipping Federation has noticed that there will be a likely higher impact on fuel prices and difficulty of sourcing supply. I would also note that, in the time that this bill has been taking to go round and round and come back to here, the proposal to turn Marsden Point from a refinery into a terminal is not going to help our energy security in this country, and I’ve seen no other proposals from this Government around what they might like to do with Marsden Point at the point that it becomes a terminal.

We’re sitting down here—not only do we already have ships bringing fuel into the country but we have a range of products that come in here—we know we’re a little country at the bottom of the world, and what I would like to make special mention of this morning is Kotahi. That was an arrangement that was put together between Fonterra and Silver Fern Farms back in 2010, and I would note that if that arrangement hadn’t been in place, we would have struggled a lot more around COVID in terms of getting our trade out, and we know that trade is the thing that’s keeping this country going at the moment. It’s either the trade that we’re putting out of this country from agriculture and horticulture, or the other part of it is the amount of money that the Government’s decided to borrow and spend on stupid things. So, with that, I’m going to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Mōrena. It’s lovely to be here from Auckland. I’m going to take an Auckland perspective on this bill because I am based in a city that has a port and it’s going to make a very big difference to it.

So, in this situation, we’re really talking about air pollution, and this bill will contribute to the reduction of that. What that actually means for people is significant in a city like mine, because it’s people who live in the city—and increasingly we’ve got apartments in the city with a range of people and incomes in the city—who are actually the people who breathe in the pollution that is caused by the sulphur that will now be treated and actually banned. So we’re going to have a situation where we’re cleaning up our air in our biggest city, and we’re going to have a situation where we clean it up in particular places, like Picton, which actually catch that air just because of their geography.

It’s going to make a huge difference to things like asthma and lung conditions. It’s going to help our disabled; it’s going to help our vulnerable. It’s going to help people like pregnant women. That’s an incredibly important thing to do. I’m not surprised that everybody in this House understands that and has prioritised it over the cost of introducing such a system, because, quite frankly, this should have happened a very long time ago. So I am absolutely thrilled to be here, representing our biggest city, knowing it will make a difference.

I just want to spend the last few minutes—seconds actually—talking about the issue of the marine itself, because we live on this beautiful harbour in Auckland, and that harbour will also be protected by this. It will be a system which means that the boats that come in are actually having their waste captured and it won’t be going into our harbour. So it’s not just us; it’s also the environment that we are actually in. It’s our actual marine environment, and that is the second real benefactor of this bill. So I congratulate the select committee for doing its job admirably, and I congratulate the House for all agreeing that this is an important piece of legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.