Williams Andrew: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Andrew: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13871. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the legislation before us the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. We will be supporting this legislation through its third reading. The New Zealand First Party does see merit in many aspects of the legislation but as other speakers have said today we are somewhat disappointed that it has taken this amount of time to come to this point of the third reading. One does wonder whether if this had been enacted a number of years ago if the safeguards and the penalties and the legislative requirements laid down in this legislation had been in place before theRena disaster took place we would still be looking at a wreck on the reef off Tauranga.This legislation basically tidies up a lot of areas and moves things in the Maritime Transport Act across to the Environmental Protection Authority now that we have the exclusive economic zone—the 200-mile zone off our shores. So it does move legislation around to fall under different places of authority that are more appropriate for the administering of the zone. It moves some of these matters from the Local Government Act to the Maritime Transport Act in order for ports harbours and general maritime safety to be administered under the Maritime Transport Act rather than that being the domain of local government in many areas where local government is perhaps not the appropriate authority to have the overall national authority over the legislation in relation to particularly maritime safety and ports.It also doubles the penalties in other areas which is a good thing. It is sending the very strong message in doubling those penalties that New Zealand is going to seek serious consequences for and compensation from those who would come with vessels with ships or with any other craft and potentially cause damage to our environment. It allows the Government to intervene through various agencies on the high seas in the case of harmful substances other than oil being discharged. Again where there is a situation of leaks or discharges or of a vessel carrying containers or a cargo that has potentially toxic substances that may come adrift the Government has the legislation in place under these bills to intervene. The legislation will also increase the penalties on shipowners and also on the ships themselves in terms of bunker discharge. Again that is a good thing because there is a huge risk. Many of these vessels carry very large volumes of bunker oil and again this country missed out on a great deal of compensation over theRena disaster because this level of penalty was not in place.In terms of moving over to the Environmental Protection Authority which is now in place there is merit in much of that in that when it comes to areas such as the discharging of harmful substances such as radioactive waste it prohibits the dumping of toxic or hazardous waste and it restricts the dumping of any other sort of waste or the incineration at sea of waste or any other matter. That therefore does very much now come under the Environmental Protection Authority under the exclusive economic zone. We are looking at something like the fifth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world and our continental shelf goes out a great distance. Therefore the Environmental Protection Authority will be charged with ensuring that any such hazardous waste will certainly be covered under this legislation.It is again disappointing that we have to relook at the exclusive economic zone legislation. I sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee which looked at it less than a year ago. It went through a very very extensive submission process in terms of the importance of the 200-mile limit from all sectors within New Zealand from all over New Zealand. So it is somewhat disappointing again that the Government has dropped the ball on this in not picking up some of these aspects in the first place when that very very weighty piece of legislation was first brought through the House and through the select committee. However it is better late than never. We do see thatthere are still areas here that must be well scrutinised. We are living in a situation now where there is great risk to our environment in terms of our harbours our ports and our shipping movements around the country and in terms of general marine activities on such a large coastline. So it is important that this legislation is well monitored and that those who are given the authority as a result of passing this legislation in this third reading do very much respond to what will be provided to them in terms of the tools and the tool box to ensure that New Zealand’s environment and coast are protected.Also in terms of maritime safety there are many aspects in this bill that improve aspects in maritime safety including offences where seafarers may be caught intoxicated when in charge of vessels on the coast. Again that is a very very dangerous situation like any public transport situation. But in terms of a large vessel where there is found to be intoxication they can be fined up to $10000 or 12 months’ imprisonment. Again it sends a strong message that it will not be tolerated—intoxicated seafarers being masters or indeed in charge of vessels. So New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation and we commend it to the House.