Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill

I move, That Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I have abbreviated my commentary here, just now, to accommodate the outcome I believe we are all hopeful of, and so I will be brief. Media have reported that this bill represents the biggest drowning prevention opportunity in a generation. It is also reported that New Zealand is on track for the deadliest year in the water in almost 25 years; Water Safety New Zealand is predicting more than 100 deaths in 2026, with 57 down and already counting.

This, then, is the problem to solve and the opportunity we have tonight to solve a part of that problem. If we could, we would want to look back at the tenfold increase in the chances of survival for 10-year-old Ryder Ferregel and his mother Gemma who, in 2022, were not wearing life jackets when their boat capsized in the Manakau Harbour. We would wish that what we look to do tonight had been in place. Two years ago, the coroner to that inquiry called for a single, nationally-consistent rule for people to wear life jackets in small boats. However, over those two years, many without life jackets have continued to drown, such as the 42-year-old man on 14 March, just this year, who fell overboard without a life jacket and drowned in Lake Manapōuri.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee heard that 15 percent of all drownings last year were on small recreational craft without life jackets. This bill is looking to save an average of 10 lives per year, with a 60 percent reduction in small recreational craft drownings through wearing life jackets—not just carrying them, not at skipper discretion, and not varied across regional councils.

Should this bill be agreed tonight, I want to start by thanking the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and all parties for progressing this bill. This bill benefited from the select committee having members who are kayakers and previous local government leaders. Tangi Utikere commented in the second reading on the collaboration as he and I studied images he had hand drawn around water length versus boat length, and I want to thank the member. His effort was not wasted; I understand the Tate gallery are interested in his drawings! I also want to acknowledge the history of this bill, which actually starts with Sam Lotu-Iiga on 26 September 2013. I connected with Sam today and thanked him, and he was ecstatic. From then to now is 4,724 days. If we progress well tonight, this will be the seventh member’s bill in this Parliament to complete a third reading.

We know what we do today aligns with international best practice. We want the same benefits that Tasmania had when they introduced exactly this policy 25 years ago, which had an immediate 50 percent reduction in small craft fatalities in just the first year. Progress tonight formally gives organisations the ability to align with educational opportunities at our upcoming summer events, including Water Safety Week in late October, and summer boat shows.

We all understand the somewhat self-evident international experience that education is the first and most important activity to get under way for life jacket wearing, and the progress of this bill finally enables that. At the same time, a formal infringement regime will need to be developed. Officials tell me that they will look to have this operationally in place during 2027.

In conclusion, I want to thank all the submitters, as well as Maritime New Zealand, Water Safety New Zealand, Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, harbourmasters, and water sport and safety organisations. There is a poignancy for me personally as I speak here tonight at the last members’ day of this 54th Parliament. At the very last members’ day of the 53rd Parliament—in the very last part of that members’ day—I was progressing the first reading of my member’s bill to increase the breast cancer screening age and save lives. Here we are today—the very last members’ day of this Parliament—also progressing a member’s bill in my name to save lives. There’s probably a theme there somewhere.

I thank, again, all parties for their contribution to this bill, and I wish New Zealanders a water safe future.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure on behalf of the Labour Party to rise in support of this very important bill. Can I acknowledge, firstly, all of the members who have been involved in shepherding this bill through to this point in the Parliament. In particular, can I acknowledge the Hon Dr Shane Reti for being the person who has worked up this bill into the position that it is today. I know that he can take much satisfaction and credit for a bill that will absolutely save lives, as we head into the summer season. Can I also just acknowledge his apt appreciation for my artistic sketching skills, as well.

This is a bill that we have supported at first reading, at second reading, through the committee stage, and now at the third reading. This is a bill that has come back to the Parliament with a changed title, and that’s not something that often happens in this House. There are usually changes in other parts of the bill, but the fact that this is a bill that has a brand new title is an absolute reflection of the significance of change that this bill underwent through the select committee process. I want to acknowledge Dr Reti for his leadership in that space, but also fellow members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who took time and did so on the basis of understanding the feedback from submitters.

I actually think, when we look back at the life of this particular Parliament, this is a particular bill that could be seen as an exemplar in terms of how the select committee process ideally could and should work. It was a bill that went out, it heard from submitters, and submitters overwhelmingly indicated that, actually, this is not an issue that should just be for children and young people. This is an issue that the stats themselves indicate is actually far different from children and young people who die as a result of incidents in water and not having a life jacket or a personal flotation device. The select committee worked extremely hard and collegially and had a unanimous report back, to the point where we have this bill that’s in front of us today.

I also want to acknowledge all of those submitters, all of those organisations, who worked alongside the committee to get this bill into a position where it is going to no doubt make a huge difference. It’s interesting that Dr Reti talked about those who are on the committee and some do have local government experience. I think that in some way also acknowledges the workability aspects of this particular bill, to ensure that, actually, when it goes back to councils, regional councils, and territorial authorities, you don’t have to go through a whole kind of suite of hoops in order to initiate the change or to reflect the position that this bill will effectively deliver on. I want to acknowledge colleagues on the committee that we’re able to help in that particular space.

This bill is one that is driven by evidence. The evidence basically indicates that there have been 161 fatalities of people who are aged over 15 and that the average age of someone who dies in a recreational boating accident is 50 years of age. This is a bill that, while it has taken some time to work through the Parliament, I think is a good move, because we’ve got it into a position where it is effectively going to save lives. Yes, we can talk about the changes around—the length has stayed the same, as 6 metres, but whether it’s the overall sort of length, which my sketch alluded to, or whether it’s the waterline length, when we stand back and have a look at what this bill will seek to achieve and what I believe it will achieve, it is going to be something that I think all members of this House, in supporting this, can be very, very proud of indeed.

Can I also acknowledge the officials who supported the select committee, who allowed for a little bit of—I wouldn’t call them props—hands-on experience as to what some of these devices look like and how they can effectively be operational on a recreational craft, and that has been extremely helpful. We have supported this bill; we will continue to support it. This law will change lives. It is going to be a small move but will make a huge, lasting impact and difference. I think, in particular, the committee and parliamentarians have been keen to ensure that this is a bill that is in place for summer, and the intention of our side is that that happens this evening.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just say that this is the first bill I’ve presided over that’s had a name change, despite some of the rubbish titles that I’ve heard when I’ve sat in the committee chair in this term of Parliament.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise to support the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill. First of all, I’d just like to acknowledge not just all of those who have drowned in our seas, rivers, and lakes, but also the very brave men and women who go out and rescue people—sometimes too late. We heard from people who had been quite traumatised by the number of drownings that they had had to attend. I really thank them for bringing their experience into the select committee room.

Some of those submitters had to come in twice, because, as previous speakers have mentioned, we changed the age range, but we also made some other modest changes as well. Those of us who are kayakers and have—and this is like one of those Venn diagrams: who’s in local government, and who’s also a kayaker? Well, I think there’s at least two of us in this Chamber tonight. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—and be more positive about this than in the last bill—who was actually very constructive and enabled us to really tease out all those definitions: is it a ship? Is it a vessel? Is it a boat? What’s the right way to describe it? Is it a personal flotation device? Is it a lifejacket? What are the different names that we ought to be using here? Most of all, what is going to be clear to the general public, because it’s the passage of this bill in a comprehensible form that will form the basis of safety and education going forward?

Thanks to Water Safety, the regional harbour masters, the water safety organisations, coastguards, and individuals who came and sometimes challenged a detail of it. We had a big discussion about what “underway” might mean, and I still have visions of certain members of that committee jumping overboard from yachts and whether they should wear lifejackets or not. I really think we probably needed a site visit to elucidate what that might look like, but we didn’t have one. But we did really consider what “underway” did or didn’t mean, whether having an electronic anchor would mean that you weren’t “underway”, but we decided that because it’s keeping you in the same spot but potentially against quite a strong current, that was potentially a risky situation.

I just wish there were more members’ bills that had got through. There are a lot of bills on different things that we actually agree on across the House, and sometimes you spend more time throwing shade than we do in actually serving the public with things that just ought to be updated. We’ve got some mechanisms by which we can do that that are just not being taken advantage of in this term. Thank you to my colleagues. I look forward to KayakSafe events around the country and also just to people taking the educational steps that this bill enables. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. This is one of the best outcomes I’ve seen this entire term from this Parliament, and I just want to congratulate everyone who was involved. There has been a really big campaign for a more sensible evidence-based national approach to rules around lifejackets for quite a long time, but it rarely got political priority because it’s such a risk when it’s so easy to attack something that’s perceived to be an annoying rule, even if it is going to save lives. I don’t know that we would have got this awesome outcome if it weren’t for the chair, Andy Foster, being really, really open minded and for the whole select committee and the Minister being quite open minded to change the scope of the bill and to get a really fantastic outcome. I would love to see Parliament do more of this. If only we could come together more and do something sensible and evidence based that would save lives, let’s do that. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill. As one of a number of members in this House, I represent an electorate that is surrounded by quite a large chunk of water, and a significant number of people in my community spend a lot of time on the water for enjoyment purposes, for recreational purposes, and also for their work. Many people are out there fishing regularly and undertaking other activity on the water. So it’s a huge part of the world that we live in in Nelson.

I wanted to make a few comments around the changes that have gone through with this bill, because this bill is one of those examples where it’s gone into the tin and come back here to the House in a much better state. It makes a significant change for safety for people who operate on the water, and that is a good thing. The bill has gone through a very robust process to get to that point.

Earlier on in that process, when discussions were happening about the possibility of changing the scope of the bill, I had a conversation with one of our harbourmasters about his views and what he thought would be helpful. At that point the bill still had a focus on children, on those aged 15 and under. The comment he made to me that is quite pertinent to my region, and to other parts of the country, was that having inconsistent bylaws between regions where people would often be operating a vessel, a craft of some kind, and potentially at multiple times during the day, made life difficult in terms of education and enforcement. So it’s a good example. You’ll get people who may enter the water in their vessel in Motueka, which sits under the Tasman district bylaw, and then carry on through the harbour and then come through to Nelson port and Nelson marina. At that point they’ve entered the Nelson area and there were slightly different rules around life jacket use between the two regions.

What Stuart said to me was that the most useful thing that the Parliament could do was to have some consistency across the country, particularly when you have regions that are so close and connected but have different rules. It makes it incredibly difficult to teach people what the rules are if they enter the water under one rule and go through another part of the water with a different rule and then come out the other part with another rule.

In Nelson, for example, there are bylaws that require adults to wear life jackets. The bill won’t necessarily change the actual rules for Nelson. What it will mean is that we’ve got consistency of rules across all of Aotearoa in terms of life jacket use, and that is a good thing.

As colleagues have mentioned, this is actually about culture change, and we can see from the statistics that while the bill was very well intentioned around protecting young people—something that I think all members of this House believe is important, or should believe is important—what the evidence and statistics showed was that this issue affects older people. It’s people who probably have a bit of that Kiwi, “She’ll be right” attitude—“I’m a strong swimmer. I’ve been operating a vessel for a very long period of time. I know what I’m doing. I know how to use the weather reports.” Unfortunately, a lot of the people who pass away, we hear stories about how experienced they were on the water, about how much they understood it, how much they knew it, how much time they spent on the water. Yet, the decision to not wear a lifejacket has actually been a large contributing factor to the fact that they didn’t survive some type of incident. We have that Kiwi “she’ll be right” attitude; we talk about it, we kind of joke about it, but this is one of those instances where, actually, it’s not funny. You know, people lose their lives on the water; they don’t go home to their families.

I do just want to finish by acknowledging Nelson Coastguard, who do a remarkable job rescuing people—have won awards for rescuing people. In Nelson, we have an annual blessing of the fleet and a seafarers memorial. The reason we do that is, actually, to acknowledge those who have been lost on the water. We lay wreaths and we put flowers into the water every year. It’s one of the most significant events that occurs in Nelson every year. And we remember all those people who were lost. We often get to speak to their families and see the grief from people who have been lost at sea.

It’s a serious matter. It’s an excellent bill. I congratulate the member on getting it to this point tonight—well done. And on that note, I commend this bill to the House.