Lees-Galloway Iain: Marine Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Marine Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13614. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Part 1 of the Marine Legislation Bill makes a number of amendments to the Maritime Transport Act 1994. It 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.”The bill does indeed implement a number of conventions—four conventions in fact. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims is currently only partially applied in New Zealand meaning that 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 OilPollution 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.These are all good important moves that we have been waiting waiting waiting for the Government to pay attention to. I take the point that the Green member Gareth Hughes made that Labour was certainly in Government when these conventions were brought before New Zealand and were considered by the New Zealand Parliament but the select committee that considered them and the select committee that was tasked with making recommendations to the Government came back to the Government of the day in mid-2008. Shortly after that we had an election. Unfortunately Labour was no longer in Government after that election but the recommendation was there. All the work had been done. It was simply for the incoming National Government to pick up all the work that had been done by the previous Labour Government and the parliamentary select committee and implement it. It was as simple as that. That is all it needed to do.Gerry Brownlee Leader of the House simply had to say: “This is a priority for our Government and we will push this legislation through.” and it could have been done. It would have been done a long time before 2.20 a.m. on Wednesday 5 October 2011 when theRena ran aground on to the Astrolabe Reef carrying 1368 containers eight of which contained hazardous material as well as 1700 tonnes of heavy fuel and 200 tonnes of marine diesel fuel. That was the moment when suddenly this bill became of interest to the National Government.It could have seen to it before then. It could have saved this country millions of dollars—millions of dollars—that could have been spent on far more important things. It could have been spent on schools. It could have been spent on feeding kids. It could have been spent on health care. It could have been spent on all number of things. Maybe a few projects to get New Zealanders into work—that might have been a good use of those millions of dollars. But no it was spent cleaning up a mess that was really of the Government’s own making. I am not saying that those members drove theRena on to the Astrolabe Reef but they were negligent in their—Darien Fenton: It had a little bit to do with their deregulation of coastal shipping though didn’t it?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry?Darien Fenton: It had a little bit to do with their deregulation of coastal shipping.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It did have a bit to do with the Government’s deregulation of coastal shipping as Darien Fenton points out but what it specifically has to do with is the fact that it did not make adopting those conventions a priority when all the work had been done. The Government simply needed to pass the legislation and it just was not important to those members. It just was not important to them. They have got no forethought whatsoever. They could not see the possibility of a disaster like theRena occurring.The other thing that Part 1 deals with is of course the breath- and blood-alcohol limit for seafarers. What it does is it adopts the international best practice of having a blood-alcohol limit of 0.05 or 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The legislation adopts that number—the 0.05 number—because that is what all the international evidence tells us is the right level below which people are able to operate machinery or ships or motor vehicles and above which is inappropriate for people to be operating machinery or a seagoing vessel or indeed a motor vehicle.It is curious—at the very least it is curious—that the Government is happy to adopt the 0.05 limit at sea but it is not prepared to adopt the 0.05 limit for road-going vehicles. I heard an interjection from Mike Sabin who said: “Oh if you got run into by an oil tanker that would be a lot worse than getting run into by a car.” Well I say this to MikeSabin who is a former police officer and who I am sure has attended as a former police officer a number of road incidents where there have been deaths and injuries. I am sure that that member has seen firsthand the results of people being involved in motor vehicle accidents where alcohol has been involved. I refer him to this: as of today 24 September to date this year 184 people have died on our roads in 173 incidents. The fact that it has happened slowly one day after the next in 173 separate incidents does not make it any less of a tragedy than if it had happened in one incident involving a seagoing vessel.But do you know what—and the member opposite might want to consider this—Mike Sabin: Apples and oranges Mr Lees-Galloway.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No it is not apples and oranges Mike Sabin. That is exactly the point because actually—do members want to know what the officials think to do—Mike Sabin: So being behind the wheel of an oil tanker is the same as being behind the wheel of a Suzuki Swift is it?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No Mike Sabin just wants to be quiet for a second and listen to the official advice about this. Mike Sabin should know that the official estimate is that 80 vessels will be affected by this change and that on average there are around 10 incidents a year where this law change will be effective—10 incidents a year where at sea seafarers have been found to be over the limit and an incident has resulted. I compare that with the 173 incidents so far on our roads this year—we are in only September. So the member might want to think about that. He is someone who has seen firsthand what happens when someone gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car. He should think about why his party the party he is a member of refuses to do not only what the evidence tells us is the right thing to do but also what the public is telling us is the right thing to do which is to reduce the alcohol limit.Mike Sabin: How many people between 0.05 and 0.08 Mr Lees-Galloway?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Mike Sabin raises an interesting point. This is the red herring. Mike Sabin asks how many people were between levels 0.05 and 0.08 but he knows because I bet he has read the literature on this that reducing the blood-alcohol limit actually reduces the number of incidents of people who are heavily intoxicated getting behind the wheel. That is a fact. That is a scientifically proven evidence-based fact. Mike Sabin knows it and yet he continues to pursue the red herring of asking: “Oh how many people between 0.05 and 0.08?”. Reducing the blood-alcohol limit for driving would reduce the number of seriously intoxicated people getting behind the wheel. So that—Mike Sabin: Tell us what the member thinks about drugs and driving. What does the member think about drugs and driving?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: He wants to know what I think about drugs and driving. You should not use drugs and get behind the wheel of a car and if you do the penalties should be heavy and the law should come—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —and if someone does get behind the wheel of a car under the influence of any substance the penalties should be severe for that person. Mr Sabin knows that and he is being disingenuous.This legislation is not only late it is not only behind—way way way behind—schedule and it has not only wasted this country millions of dollars but it shows up this Government’s hypocrisy.