Street Maryan: Marine Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Marine Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13617. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to Part 1 of the Marine Legislation Bill currently under discussion. Previous speakers on this side of the Chamber have traversed some of the issues that have exercised me about this particular part namely the delay in this bill coming to the House so I will not traverse that again unduly. But similarly my colleague Moana Mackey also raised the issue about the bunker convention and the protocol surrounding that and why that had not been pursued with more rapidity by this Government. Other colleagues have talked about the completely indefensible difference around blood-alcohol limits for those in charge ofvessels at sea vis-à-vis people in charge of a motor vehicle on land so I do not need to go over those things again.But there are two things I want to talk about. One is clause 62 inserting new Part 26A “Civil liability for pollution of marine environment from marine structures”. The other thing I wish to talk about is the reference in the national interest analysis to the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil—and this is the intervention protocol. This is included in the material that is in front of us today for consideration. One of the things that has emerged from the dreadful incident that was the wrecking of theRena—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Whoever has the radio on it is not permitted. [Interruption] Well it is no different from the telephone. If it is in the Chamber it should be switched off. This is a debating chamber.Hon MARYAN STREET: Before I was rudely interrupted I was talking about the intervention protocol. The thing that is emerging from the wreck of theRena on the Astrolabe Reef off Tauranga is that although the oil was the thing that was immediately obvious and did immediate damage to the environment and there was a great deal of effort put into the cleaning up of the oil discharge from the vessel into the water what is emerging now is that there is ongoing environmental damage from substances other than oil and from structures—marine structures which are defined in the bill. It appears that the cargo on board theRena and various containers full of material are still leaking into the water around the Astrolabe Reef and that the vessel itself the bit that is remaining of the vessel itself is a hazard. There is damage that is being done to the environment by things other than the oil that originally came out of that tragedy. So I am pleased to see belated though it may be that there is some consideration of civil liability for pollution of the marine environment from marine structures which means “an offshore installation a pipeline … [a] facility site structure or thing used to transfer a harmful substance to or from a ship or an offshore installation”. That is going to be covered and the civil liability for pollution from those things is to be covered under this bill.I want to go in particular to the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil which is the intervention protocol. As I understand it and somebody could correct me if I am wrong about this this was one of the things that were considered by the former Labour Government in its preparation of a number of conventions that needed updating and ratification in this area and it was included in the select committee material that has resulted in this piece of legislation—well the legislation that was debated at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The select committee report at that time in 2008 as we know did recommend that the Government take action and ratify these various protocols.As my colleague Moana Mackey did I would like to draw attention to the national interest analysis which talks about the advantages and disadvantages of engaging in such treaty action. Again it is a call to the Government about why it did not see fit to exercise its Government privilege in respect of this matter before now. Why did it take so long? Under “Advantages of treaty action” in respect of the intervention protocol it says in this analysis: “The Intervention Protocol is an important element in the IMO marine protection regime of which New Zealand is a committed supporter. The advantages to New Zealand of ratifying the Protocol are: [it] affirms New Zealand’s right to take such measures on the high seas as may be necessary to prevent mitigate or eliminate danger to its coastline or related interests from HNS pollution following a maritime casualty; and ratifying [it] would maintain New Zealand’s good international standing and interests as a member of the IMO council.” It then goes on to talk about the disadvantages of treaty action and says that there are not any. But it goes furtherthan that and says that these are the disadvantages of not taking treaty action: “Given [our] role as a member of the IMO a decision not to ratify the Protocol may undermine New Zealand’s stated intention to be a good international citizen.”There is no excuse for the delay in this legislation. The fact that the Government has been catapulted into action by a disaster only serves to underscore the fact that it has been lacking in conscientiousness about our duties and about the protection of the Crown by making sure civil liability provisions are in place and by protecting the environment around New Zealand. That delay is inexplicable indefensible and is right in everybody’s face in the wake of this disaster. Thank you.