Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill in its second reading. I was part of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that heard many of the submissions on this particular bill. I want to start by speaking to one in particular. One of those submissions was of course from the people of the Chatham Islands. It was quite interesting because I recall after their having explained the shipping arrangement that they do have that they once had and that they actually aspire to I was very very confused. There were different shipping organisations mentioned there was a lack of service there were issues with fuel and there were issues with a constant and regular sustainable supply of good shipping for the people of the Chatham Islands. I recall after their submissions that as a committee we asked for some further information simply just to seek clarification around the arrangement that they had.I recall that once that clarification came through from the offices and we sat there and deliberated—I deliberated with my colleagues Mr Iain Lees-Galloway and Sue Moroney—we were really concerned with the provisions of this particular bill. In particular we thought that the people of the Chatham Islands were actually saying to us that there was an insufficient freight volume to the Chatham Islands to make sure that more than one service was economically viable. That became quite clear. And opening up the possibility to foreign-flag vessels to run a service was a big challenge to that financial viability. While I have never been to the Chatham Islands sadly—I hope to go some time in the future—it was quite clear that the arrangement that they had at the time had to be better supported not just by this Government but I think by the industry as a whole.There are other issues in their submission that spoke about the poor infrastructure that they have actually coped with for some time and how only a certain sized vessel could service the people of the Chatham Islands economically. My colleagues on this side of the House have all expressed the concerns that we have about this particular issue around the profitable economical sustainability or viability of a service to the Chatham Islands and the fact that if it is opened up of course we run the risk of I guess endangering a good supply of freight services to the people of the Chatham Islands. It was clear from them that they were not keen on that particular part. We heard those submissions and certainly hear their pleas. They are one of the reasons why sadly we will not be supporting this bill.I pick up on the point made by the Green member about the Mōtītī Islands where the Rena wreck destroyed a lot of what they call kāpata kai or food stores or food cupboards or—as I mentioned in one of the bills earlier today—mātaitai where they are able to harvest seafood. I think the provision in this particular bill which is why it is with a heavy heart that we will not be supporting it is one of those better steps in the right direction about making sure that those who do use shipping who ship freight across or around the country on a network actually must pay. They should be held culpable for any accident or any maritime disaster because of either a bit of negligence or just unfortunate circumstances which saw the Rena disaster that affected the people of Tauranga and wider actually. I read one report when we were considering this bill that stated that the effects of the Rena disaster have actually spread right down the East Coast.More importantly I think one of the bigger issues was actually the effect that that had on the land dwellers. It was made quite clear the environmental impact but what happened was just the divisions it caused amongst the people not just Māoridom but local authorities. There was a heck of a lot of finger-pointing and in the end I think still to this day many of those people are rather upset at the outcome. But one of the provisions in this bill was certainly I think a step in the right direction and it picks up on a point that my colleague here Mr Stuart Nash always makes that they might be subtle changes in bills but they actually mean a heck of a lot. So this particular bill replaces shall pay" with "must pay" so that you are held culpable for any kind of maritime disaster that you might actually have had a hand in and it forces you to actually pay—not a "shall pay" but a "you must pay." They sound small but they make a big difference in the scheme of things.The other issue was around drug and alcohol management plans and testing to make sure that those who are in charge of a vessel any vessel really are able to carry out their duties properly and without being impaired. The random drug-testing part was probably one of the bigger issues. I recall reading the departmental report and of course discussing it with the advisers around the random drug-testing aspect of it and how it would impact on some of the rights but also how with controls such as these the compliance costs—and it is one of those points that I raised regularly on the bills that came through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is fine to put compliance on particular issues or businesses or ventures but it is important to make sure that the Government and the Government services actually have the infrastructure and capacity to enforce them. Otherwise what is the point?So those were other issues that were raised. We also spoke about the lack of information or the lack of any evidence of a systemic problem with drug and alcohol impairment in the maritime sector in New Zealand. Sure we want to make sure that those who are in charge of vessels are actually capable of doing so but we only heard a heck of a lot of anecdotal evidence about how widespread the problem might be in the particular industry and that is hardly the kind of evidence that we feel is able to I guess force us into making legislative changes. We want to make sure that the proper evidence is there and the need for it is there otherwise we are changing law just simply for the sake of changing law instead of actually making a positive impact on not just this particular sector but on all New Zealanders.I heard one of the earlier speakers on this particular bill mention a particular incident on a different bill but through the same select committee—they spoke about a particular operator of a hot-air balloon it was in this particular incident who was impaired by drugs. It was harrowing to hear the evidence and the submissions from the families who were affected by that particular incident which was the hot-air balloon incident where sadly and tragically so many people lost their lives. To hear those particular submissions—one of the problems that was identified was that the person operating the hot-air balloon was impaired due to drug use. The evidence was quite clear on that one and this one is really to reiterate my point about the fact that we need evidence to make sure that we are able to understand the full scale of the problem across the maritime sector.I think one of the undertones of all of the submissions that came into the select committee on this particular bill was just simply the lack of infrastructure in the maritime industry both on land and out at sea. There were undertones in the submissions about the lack of infrastructure that would allow a more sustainable a more economical and certainly a more efficient maritime sea freight business and industry in Aotearoa New Zealand and one of the problems is that it is due to a lack of funding.Anyway like I have said we will not be supporting this bill sadly and we hope that in the future we can change it again more meaningfully."