Lees-Galloway Iain: Marine Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Marine Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8744. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Marine Legislation Bill which is a largely technical omnibus bill that is probably worthy of the level of passion we saw from the Minister of Justice in her contribution. It was a very accurate representation of the legislation and of the select committee process. It was perhaps not an entirely accurate representation of some of the issues behind the bill of course and I will get to those later on in my contribution. I would like to thank the officials for their diligent work in assisting the select committee in what was a very technical piece of legislation that required a lot of technical advice and I would also like to thank my new colleagues—[ 
Interruption 
] No I was not there but I am still going to thank them; that is the kind of guy I am. I did make some brief visits to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and now I have the pleasure of being a permanent member of that committee so I would like to thank my new colleagues on that committee for the good work that they put into this piece of legislation as well. 
This Marine Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill of two parts. Part 1 seeks to amend the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and Part 2 seeks to amend the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 which of course was passed through this Parliament merely weeks before this piece of legislation was introduced to make amendments to that piece of legislation. I do not know whether that is a reflection of the shambolic approach that this Government takes to making laws—that merely weeks later it needed to fix up something that it had only just passed—but them’s the facts and we worked hard to try to tidy up some of the Government’s shoddy work. This bill amends the Maritime Transport Act “to provide for local regulation of maritime safety and maritime-related activities by regional councils; to regulate alcohol consumption by seafarers; to implement four international maritime conventions; to create offences and prescribe penalties for the improper operation of ships; and to make other miscellaneous changes.” It amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act “to make new provisions in relation to discharges and dumping and to ensure that New Zealand continues to act consistently with two international conventions to which it is party;”. 
The bill implements a number of conventions. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims is currently only partially applied in New Zealand meaning maritime liability is half what it could be for loss of life injury property damage or other damage or loss. This bill enacts the convention fully and gives it the full force of law. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 is fully implemented in this bill as well. It sets up a separate liability regime for fuel oil pollution meaning claims would not be limited by the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969 has a protocol that includes substances beyond those that New Zealand law currently applies to so the bill extends coverage to the substances in the protocol. 
The bill also introduces a 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres of blood-alcohol limit on all seafarers and this is perhaps one of the more curious aspects of this piece of legislation. Although the Government has accepted an international convention that states 0.05 is an appropriate and acceptable alcohol limit for seafarers the Government has continued to abjectly refuse the concept that that is an appropriate limit for car drivers. It seems odd that when only 80 vessels will be affected by this change and it is estimated that there are just 10 incidents a year that will be affected by this new regulation the Government is so quick to move on this change to blood-alcohol limits when it is not prepared to act on the 34 percent of fatal car accidents that have been linked to alcohol. It is utterly inconsistent from this Government to acknowledge that 0.05 is an appropriate blood-alcohol limit for operating a vessel and yet it refuses to act on something that has got the potential to save far more lives and do far more good than simply implementing this for seafarers alone. But that is not the most curious aspect of this legislation. 
The most curious part is that it took so long for the Government to actually implement the conventions that this legislation allows us to sign up to. In particular the one that most New Zealanders will be mindful of is the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage or the bunker convention as it is more common known. There was a discussion document all the way back in 2007. Regional councils received a discussion document from the then Labour Government about implementing that convention. But after this Government came into power everything went silent. In the briefing to the incoming Minister in 2008 there was a recommendation that he implement and sign up to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage and to a number of changes to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. Legislation was prepared and ready to go by 2009 but that bill sat on the Minister’s desk. In fact it was lucky if it was sitting on the Minister’s desk—it disappeared to some distant filing cabinet never to be thought of again. So while Steven Joyce was planning his uneconomic unaffordable roads of national significance a little bill waited. While Steven Joyce was running focus groups and running scared from doing the right thing by lowering the legal blood-alcohol level for drivers a little bill waited. [ 
Interruption 
] They have woken up. And while Steven Joyce was busy fixing up the mistakes of his colleagues in this shambles of a Government a little bill waited and hoped that one day somebody somewhere in the Government would actually pay attention to it and introduce it to the House. 
Well that day finally came. The day when somebody in the Government actually thought: “Gosh! We really ought to progress this Marine Legislation Bill.” That day came on Wednesday 5 October 2011 to be precise at around about 2.20 a.m. That is when the  
Rena 
 ran aground on the Astrolabe Reef. The ship was carrying 1368 containers eight of which contained hazardous materials as well as 1700 tonnes of heavy fuel and 200 tonnes of marine diesel oil. All of a sudden the Marine Legislation Bill became very important. But it was all too late. How late? About $50 million late. We needed this bill passed before the  
Rena 
 ran aground not afterwards. If National had managed to carry out that simple task the New Zealand taxpayer would not have been left in the position of having to fork out the lion’s share of $50 million to pay for the clean-up of the  
Rena 
 grounding. 
When the New Zealand Shipping Federation came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it approached the bill thus. The federation expressed its concern regarding the haste with which the bill was being progressed. It understood the reason which was that the Government was attempting to quickly close the door after the horse had bolted but it said: “This merely serves to compound our frustration as it demonstrates that the maritime sector is regarded as a low-priority sector within official circles.” 
The haste with which the bill is being progressed as far as the New Zealand Shipping Federation was concerned was quite understandable because there was in fact a time limit which was 1 January 2013. In order to meet our convention requirements regarding alcohol limits we were supposed to have had this legislation passed by 1 January 2013. I do not know whether it is a continuation of the shambles of this Government or whether it is the walking shambles that is David Bennett but somehow or another the Government has failed again to meet its international obligations by failing to get this legislation passed in time. Mercifully I do not think we will suffer any penalty as a result. But this bill is a good bill. It is a technical bill but one that is very important for protecting our coastline and our environment. It is just a pity the Government could not get off its chuff and do this sooner.