Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is positive that 44 of the 49 submitters agreed with this bill this Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill to prevent air pollution from ships. It's good to reduce the amount of sulphur emitted into the atmosphere nitrogen oxides but one of the concerns raised by submitters is not that the time taken to get this legislation over the line has taken too long; it's 1996 it's 2005 it's taken too long but actually in order to convert New Zealand's ships to a low-sulphur fuel—and we're talking about the two dozen or so coastal ships those ones so dear to the hearts of my comrades on the other side of the House so passionate about coastal shipping who want to stand up for their shipmates and the sailors' welfare. We know all about the welfare of seamen; it's been discussed in this House a number of times. But what I'm concerned about is how quickly this bill rushes New Zealand shippers to a place that is a very high cost and very difficult to comply with.I'll give you an example. In addition to the low-sulphur requirements the bill also requires that ports provide facilities to treat ballast water. Now we know how harmful ballast water can be to marine biodiversity. Ballast water sometimes can be on the larger ships up to a hundred million litres or 50 percent of the weight of cargo carried by those ships as they come into a port like Auckland or Northport. When those ships take on freight like logs for example or our dairy products they have to discharge that ballast water into the harbours so that the ships stay on an even keel and that ballast water can contain marine bio-organisms and other contaminants. Now what this bill proposes to do is to require ports to provide facilities to receive that ballast water. You might say Well that's a good idea because we don't want those harmful marine pests contaminating our marine ecosystems. So that's what we should do." But in fact I've visited Ports of Auckland recently. I've had a look at their operation. They've made extensive investments of space and infrastructure to provide for cement siloes to provide for storage of all kinds of bulk products motor vehicles plant and equipment sensitive products and materials that need to be protected in big warehouses and so on. I would find it very difficult to locate anything like the size of water treatment plant needed to treat a hundred million litres of ballast water from a single ship.So despite the best intentions like so many of this Government's policies where they fail is in the execution and delivery actually understanding what it is that businesses like major ports need to do to operate successfully how constrained they already are by failed legislation decades-old failed legislation—Hon David Parker: You won't learn from that Auckland.SIMON COURT: —like that Minister Parker's failed Resource Management Act that he has failed to bring to the House and offer a solution to New Zealand's developers and infrastructure operators. And this bill does nothing to actually resolve the issues. All it does is create another imposition on these ports which in many cases are locally owned by local councils. They have a severe lack of capital. They're artificially constrained in how they might operate efficiently and safely and meet environmental obligations by the extremely poor environmental and planning rules that already govern their operations. So to impose this additional requirement on them to provide ballast water treatment facilities seems entirely unreasonable impractical unworkable no expense spared.It was very disappointing also to hear some of my colleagues on this side of the House describe this legislation as simply a box-ticking exercise and really describe a confidence in Government that the ACT Party feels is absolutely misplaced. This is not a box-ticking exercise. This is material to the performance of our coastal shipping fleet—that shipping fleet so dear to the heart of our comrades—and it actually underpins our infrastructure delivery. So I'm talking about the Aotearoa Chief that bulk cement carrier operating out of Golden Bay and Northport. I'm talking about the Spirit of Canterbury Silver Fern Shipping Matuku the StraitNZ Bluebridge Cook Strait ferries Straitsman and Strait Feronia. All of these ships rely on having access to good-quality fuels but they also need time to achieve compliance. It's not correct that New Zealand is the last on the list. There are many other shipping hubs in the world struggling to supply sufficient quantities of low-sulphur fuel to their shipping fleets and New Zealand with 5 million customers at the bottom of the ocean is not a high priority for them. The other issue that's being canvassed is: where will we get the low-sulphur fuel from? So if it's a refinery in Singapore that may well be the case. We know the New Zealand refining company is exploring options to a transition—an unjust transition no doubt—from a refining operation with the loss of hundreds of high-paid jobs to simply a storage tank facility. And I'm sure that our comrades on the other side of the House would be happy to go and have a conversation a conversation with the workers in Northland those highly paid workers who are facing the loss of their jobs and being nothing more but pump operators at an onshore storage facility not to mention the lack of economic resilience that that induces. So if we are going to transition to low-sulphur fuels for marine use the New Zealand Government has a potential role to play in evaluating what volume that is if there's a public good the balance of public versus private good and why this entire cost should be imposed on an industry that internationally has demonstrated they're very successfully migrating to a low-sulphur fuel for marine use. Around 10 percent of the world's fleet remains stuck with low-sulphur fuels. A large proportion of them operate in countries that are still not signatories. There are 99 signatories out of all the world's countries. So New Zealand is actually blessed that many of the ships and shipping companies already coming to New Zealand comply with these rules but they're not getting their fuel in New Zealand. They're coming here bunkered up; they're not buying fuel in New Zealand. So the issue really affects most severely our own coastal shipping fleet. And it's for that reason when we look at the submissions the majority of submitters recognised the need to address climate change risk. They agree that meeting the conditions of the treaty will benefit New Zealand's international reputation. However they are extremely concerned about the time frames and the cost of getting hold of this fuel and what kind of port facilities will be required to receive waste residues from the low-sulphur fuel management systems that might be required on ships as well as the ballast waters. They're also concerned as to what kind of regulations might apply if they were to use say what they call a wet open loop scrubber that actually discharges the sulphur into the ocean which is permitted under international maritime rules. So whether those types of systems would be permitted by New Zealand's harsh and onerous environmental regulations irrespective of the costs or benefits to the environment we don't know. It's not mentioned here. So public consultation was in 2018. There's been a number of things that have affected the world economy in shipping since then. We all know about COVID and the effect that that's had on supply chains not to mention other issues affecting our port operations in Auckland its automation; places like Timaru its failing infrastructure and having wooden bollards rip out of the docks; and CentrePort in Wellington falling into the sea following an earthquake. So there's a whole lot of issues affecting our port infrastructure that need to be looked at in the context of a transition to low-sulphur fuels a national strategy for storage to meet the International Energy Agency's requirement to hold 90 days of fuel in New Zealand. Without a refinery New Zealand has nothing but an IOU to call on if we run low on fuel. We can't guarantee 90 days. We don't meet the International Energy Agency's requirements. So while the ACT Party will support this bill at the first reading we have serious reservations. This is not a box-ticking exercise like some of our colleagues on this side of the House have suggested. I can't imagine that the port operators around New Zealand would be happy to hear that's how other parties feel about it. The ACT Party will support it to first reading but we'll be asking very hard questions of the Minister and officials. Thank you very much."