Statutes Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 26. This is the debate on clauses 103 and 104, “Amendment to Maritime Transport Act 1994”. The question is that Part 26 stand part.

Thanks, Mr Chair. This is about maritime insurance, which is a matter close to my heart. I can see what’s going on here, but it strikes me there’s a bit of a slip, and so I want to draw it to the Minister’s attention. Under section 363, ships have to have certificates of insurance—that’s all good—and the Director of Maritime New Zealand can demand, through their agents, to see those certificates of insurance. All well and good so far. Then, in 2014, there was a new section inserted, which was section 363A, “Certain ships to have bunker oil certificates of insurance”. This is ships which have fuel tanks of a certain size—I think that’s the case—1,000 gross tonnage or more, and because that bunk oil is actually an environmental hazard, they need to be properly insured.

Then section 364 was about regulated offshore installations that had to have certificates of insurance. I think they were like oil wells. Now, this provision that we’ve got in front of us—wherever it is—deletes section 364. It says, in respect here—I’m just trying to find it. [Camilla Belich hands a copy of the bill to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb] Here it is, thanks. Sorry. It says, “delete ‘or section 364’ ”, which is the right thing to do. But the problem is this: that was done in 2013, and, in fact, section 363A was added in 2014, so you’re getting rid of a redundant section, but you’re not enabling the new section, section 363A. No longer does the Chief Executive, or the Director, of Maritime New Zealand have the ability to see certificates of insurance in respect of bunker oil.

It’s actually quite a gap, because that’s as important as certificates of insurance for other vessels as well, and, arguably, more important, because there’s no greater environmental hazard than bunker oil in ships. So I’m wondering whether that’s a bit of a slip. In fact, if you were going to catch all the slips—yes, you get rid of the redundant reference to section 364, but, in fact, you should have included section 363A as a new reference in that clause.

The only slip that I see is where a member with a law degree says that he doesn’t understand why we are removing a section that has already been repealed, because this is a technical amendment that is referring to removing something that’s actually not there. It’s as simple as that.

Part 26 agreed to.

Part 27 Amendments to Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003