Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill

Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill Second Reading Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (16:49): I move, That the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill be now read a second time. This bill is looking to save an average of 10 lives per year, with a 60 percent reduction in small recreational craft drownings through wearing life jackets that are, mostly, already on board. The problem we are trying to solve is the 115 fatalities in the past decade on all recreational vessels for people who capsized or fell overboard and weren’t wearing a life jacket, and subsequently drowned. In this reading, I want to start by thanking the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for improving this bill, including by having the wisdom to take it back to the Business Committee for a scope change. Cameron Brewer brought this bill to first reading, and through the first select committee process, there were 158 unique submitters. Two-thirds of submitters requested that the scope of the bill be changed from under-15-year-olds to all ages, on the basis that the average age of death in recreational boating incidents is actually more towards the age of 50 than 15. This was evidenced in the past decade, with eight fatalities in children under 15, compared to 161 fatalities in those aged over 15. In light of this, the select committee received approval from the Business Committee to change the scope of the bill to encompass all ages and to commence a second submission process. This was where the bill was passed into my name. In the second select committee process, there were 128 unique submitters. The select committee heard that in the past decade, across all size of recreational craft, the vast majority of fatalities on recreational craft were on small vessels of less than 6 metres. The vast majority of fatalities were while the vessel was under way. The vast majority of fatalities were on recreational craft that did carry life jackets. However, despite a relatively high carriage rate for life jackets, 60 percent of fatalities were not wearing them and may have been saved if they were. In summary, officials told us that 60 percent of fatal drownings could be prevented by wearing life jackets on small recreational craft, as this bill recommends, and this would be around 10 people per year. The select committee heard that recreational craft fatalities on vessels under 6 metres without life jackets accounted for 50 percent of all drownings last year. However, I am informed that, unfortunately, this year is already tracking above that average, with seven deaths already on recreational craft of less than 6 metres where life jackets were not worn. The select committee has taken this into account with its timeliness of progress that brings us here today in order to have these benefits in place for the upcoming summer season. At an international level, our current position on life jackets is out of step with many jurisdictions, such as Australia. We heard that Tasmania introduced similar legislation 25 years ago, with an immediate 50 percent reduction in small craft fatalities in the first year. We also want that benefit. Domestically, the Waikato Regional Council introduced this policy 13 years ago, with significant, ongoing improvements in life jacket - wearing compliance and an apparent reduction in fatalities, albeit on small numbers, of nearly 50 percent from before and after. One of the important issues reported to the select committee was the range of life jacket by-laws across the country, from life jackets having to be worn or having to be worn while under way, to having a skipper’s discretion for them to be worn at all or having a discretion for life jackets depending on the region that the by-laws are encompassing. Harmonising these confusing approaches has been requested for many years and it is considered important for saving lives. This bill achieves this. The select committee considered all submissions when working its way diligently through the issues, with amendments that were then unanimously accepted as 12 recommendations. It was agreed that 6 metres was the correct vessel length, and it is a common cut-off point in maritime legislation, where commercial requirements of over 6 metres include annual surveys, and bilge pump and firefighting equipment requirements. Six metres is also consistent with many current regional by-laws in international jurisdictions. The recommendations include, as number one, that the age be amended to all ages on the basis that the vast majority—indeed, nearly all—recreational craft fatalities are over the age of 15. Recommendation two is that the title of the bill be changed to the “Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill”. Recommendation three is that existing requirements for all recreational craft greater than 6 metres to carry life jackets and for people to wear them at times of heightened risk are retained. Recommendation four was to change the term “waterline length” to “length overall”, which is better understood by the public and is consistent with the existing legislation in Part 91 of the Maritime Rules. Recommendation five is to amend the wearing of life jackets “while underway”, instead of “at the time of use”. Officials advise that “underway” is more appropriate as it is already used in current by-laws and, again, in international jurisdictions. It was noted that of the 88 fatalities since 2015 where the phase of voyage was recorded, 77 of the 88 occurred while under way. Recommendation six is to take the opportunity to embed the soon-to-expire 2022 exemption for stand-up paddleboards in order to bring the exemptions all into one place. Recommendation seven is to use the term “life jacket” as being better understood by the public than the term “personal floatation device” to clarify that life jackets also include other types of buoyancy aids. Recommendation eight is to develop an infringement regime. Recommendation nine is that if an existing by-law has a different standard, then the national rule will take precedence. Recommendation 10 of 12 is to change the timing for the bill to come into force from the date of Royal assent to 28 days after Royal assent in order to allow education campaign preparations that would position the benefits to be in place for the upcoming summer season. The final two recommendations look to make implementation easier for local authorities who already have existing by-laws, and I thank the obvious local government expertise on the select committee for addressing this. Recommendation 11, then, is that local authorities review their by-laws in order to be consistent with the national rule, with a five-year transition period, and recommendation 12 is to achieve this by-law harmonisation so that local authorities need not undertake onerous public consultation to align with the national rule. The committee also explored mechanisms to bring this policy into effect in as timely a manner as possible, including through regulatory review. However, recommendations 11 and 12 subsequently involve primary legislation and not just regulations, and so the current process is the most appropriate. The select committee also considered potential unexpected consequences—for example, the transition period between being on an eligible recreational vessel under way, and jumping into water for water activities such as swimming. It was recognised by the committee that it would be impossible to legislatively cover all transition scenarios, and harbour masters and officials did not indicate that this was an issue, anyway. I spoke with the Waikato Regional Council, who have had this policy domestically for 13 years, and they have had no significant issues. I also spoke with recreational boating safety officers in Hobart, Tasmania, who have had this policy for 25 years, and they have had no significant issues. So this appears to be less of an issue than envisaged. All of this notwithstanding, the committee felt that it was important to provide clarity to monitors around these potential transition activities, and so the committee agreed to the equivalent of having a removal of doubt clause by way of example. This is recommended as new rule 91.4(1B) in clause 8(3). We also discussed life jacket types, and I was encouraged by experts, who said that this is best undertaken by education from domain specialists, such as Maritime New Zealand, Water Safety New Zealand, and others, including those in the retail and recreational craft environment. They will provide advice on the best of fit for purpose life jackets for each scenario, underpinned—importantly—by the philosophy that any life jacket is better than no life jacket. In conclusion, this coming Saturday, 25 July, is World Drowning Prevention Day, and this year New Zealand is already batting against the drowning average. Let’s do what we can today and work with Water Safety New Zealand, Maritime New Zealand, harbour masters, and recreational water sports to have this policy in place for summer 2026-27 and for the Water Safety New Zealand education campaign in late October. To that effect, I would like to again thank the committee for their timeliness and diligence in progressing this policy, which was unanimously agreed to at select committee, and we all look forward to the lives that may be saved as we look towards the upcoming summer season. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That was a very buoyant presentation, Dr Reti. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (16:57): Kia orana, Madam Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Labour Party to support the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill. As the member responsible for this bill has indicated, if the Transport and Infrastructure Committee’s recommendations are adopted, the title will change to reflect the changes that have been suggested. Can I acknowledge the Hon Dr Shane Reti, who is the current sponsor of this bill. I also acknowledge the Hon Cameron Brewer, who initially held the bill before his accession, but I want to acknowledge Dr Reti’s constructive way in which he has engaged with committee members, including myself, to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the changes that needed to be made and the basis on which those changes have been advanced. I think that it’s important to acknowledge his cooperation in that space. As Dr Reti has indicated, the select committee had two bites at this particular bill. For round one, as we might call it, we went out, and, as a result of submissions and also the departmental advice that was received by the committee, it was very clear that children are not the main victims of drownings from sailing in small recreational craft. As a result, many submitters asked for the age band to be one of universalism in order to indicate the focus in that. The committee sought the permission of the Business Committee to expand the scope. That was granted, and so the committee went out for round two. I want to acknowledge that that is a collegial thing for a committee to do—to go back out for a full process of public consultation and to hear what the community might say on this change—and I want to acknowledge the 286 submitters who submitted through that process. The Labour Party supports the justification for this change because when we look at the stats, since 2015, there have been eight fatalities for children when it comes to recreational craft. When you look at those who are aged over 15, that number is 161. The average age of fatalities related to recreational craft is 50 years of age, and so this change that has been promoted and accepted by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is one that, actually, will really tackle those 94 percent of craft-related drownings in 2024 for where there were no life jackets actually used. The advice that’s been received is that a significant number of that percentage would still be with us here today if they were, in fact, using a life jacket. This requires the person who’s in charge of the recreational craft of six metres or less—and I want to acknowledge the collegiality of Dr Reti, because when I showed him my little drawing of a recreational craft, he gave me some feedback on that, but we were looking at the six sort of metre and where that would fall. But the responsibility is there nonetheless so that those who are going to be on that craft whilst the craft is underway—and that is a term that is accepted and well known within marine maritime circles—they would be responsible for ensuring that all of those people, regardless of age, who are on their craft actually have a life jacket. I want to acknowledge the officials, in particular Maritime New Zealand, who came and gave a little bit of a practical exercise to the committee about the range of personal flotation devices that are actually out there and that would kind of lend its favour to a whole range of different individuals. The other sort of issue that Dr Reti has touched on is where the measurements would be taken. Would it be on the overall sort of dimension of the craft or would it be the water line? The select committee and the Labour Party agrees with this that, actually, the overall sort of dimension is far more easier to monitor, and so we support that change. This is a bill that we believe will make a huge difference. We believe that it will provide some consistency around the country as well, as regional councils at the moment set their own rules around this. In particular, where Kiwi families might be moving about the country in some or other parts and wanting to utilise recreational craft and realising that, at the moment, there are different rules for different places, this will provide some consistency. Finally, I’m delighted, as I’m sure my other colleagues on the committee are, to ensure that there has been some change in the kind of quick fashion that local councils would be able to make this change without having to go out to a full public consultation process. One of the beauties of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is that it has a couple of former mayors and one deputy mayor on it, and so all of those members are in the House this afternoon. We were all very keen to ensure that, actually, changes like this are not held up as a result of the full sort of consultation that needs to follow in some particular areas. This is a good bill. We support it. We support the timeliness of it. It should be enacted just in time for summer. That will make a real difference and ensure that lives are saved as a result. I commend this bill to the House. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (17:03): I rise on behalf of the Green Party, but also as a kayaker, to absolutely support this bill. It was a really good process, both from Mr Reti and also from Mr Brewer, who originally brought it to us. They were open to the fact that this was a member’s bill that had actually had a longer history, but that this was what they thought should come forward, but they were not dogmatic about the details. That was extremely helpful for the full select committee process to be able to be applied in the way that I understand it should be. This process would improve much other legislation, to be honest, if it was followed in the same way, if Government bills, when they were introduced, focused more on how you could solve the problem than taking the idea of the solution and never moving even six metres from the proposed solution. I think there is more to this bill and its likely agreement across the House than only the issue of life jackets on recreational vessels. We did learn a fair amount about terminology and differences between a ship, a boat, a vessel, and what we were going to call it. It was really interesting to hear from so many harbourmasters, Water Safety New Zealand, and other people. Often those submissions are pretty moving because they talked about people who had lost their lives, they talked about family members that had drowned, and often the situation was not, “Yes, they went into these raging storm of 40 knots and they couldn’t manage it.” No, they went out and the conditions changed, or there was a rogue wave, or there was a bar, or they didn’t realise how windy it could get on a lake. Those are all common situations that sometimes the most inexperienced are more likely to be caught out in those situations. As my colleagues have mentioned, we heard submissions and thought, actually, there’s some quite big changes that we want to make here. Those changes were not consulted on in the first place, and we did the correct and democratic and inclusive thing of saying, well, let’s go out and see people who are quite happy with 15 and younger—because that’s the skippering age—would they be quite happy with everything? Oh, and going to all adults as well. I’m pleased, for the safety of our 50-year-old males, that people were generally supportive of those changes and the change, obviously, to the title that will be a consequence of this. I’d like to thank the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee who helped make it a collegial process. We could drill into the issues that mattered, and probably there are some issues that we’ll get teased out about how effective our definitions of “underway” are, but I just want to be clear on this for anyone that may be listening and have some concerns about recreational boating—if you are at anchor, you don’t need a life jacket. However, if you are using one of the technological ways of anchoring without a physical anchor, that can actually be quite rough, quite exciting, and quite lively, even if you are not physically moving from the GPS spot that you are fishing at or whatever else you might. For me, it’s probably taking eye naturalist pictures of dolphins, but whatever you’re doing, sometimes when you’ve stopped, just being stopped is not that much safer. I am pleased with the definitions that have come about in that bill. Personal flotation device is something that’s a familiar term to me. It’s one of our wonderful three letter acronyms in this country—PFD—and it is a different term from life jacket, but life jacket is what people understand. So I think we moved around a word. We’re going to call it PFD. We were going to call it life jackets, and we didn’t come up, thank goodness, with the new term for it all, but we explained the inclusive nature of life jackets. I would like to also say that there are many, many times when regional differences are important, whether it’s soil types, whether it’s housing density, whether it’s ecological variation. Those are valid reasons for different regions to have different rules, to have them locally set, and so forth. Drowning is universal, so I really appreciate the way that we will have one set of rules. It wasn’t just to make it happen quicker that we decided we would be able to allow bylaws to be superseded. It was also one of those rare moments where we collectively agreed to help local government. I really support this bill. Thank you. SIMON COURT (ACT) (17:09): Madam Speaker, wonderful to see you in the Speaker’s chair again. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Wonderful to see you, too. SIMON COURT: The starting point of this bill: the evidence that we were presented with the original proposal—the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill—was insufficient to progress the bill in that form. What we learned is that it would be a very rare occasion where the provisions of the original bill were actually going to save the lives of children and young people. What became very clear from the evidence the Transport and Infrastructure Committee heard was that, in fact, it was adults, and typically men of about my age, going out on small craft with the hero cape on feeling invincible, or simply not being prepared for when the conditions changed and they needed to take action to make sure that themselves or their passengers were safe. What became very clear from the evidence the select committee heard was that, in fact, it is adults—typically men of about my age—going out in small craft with the hero cape on, feeling invincible, or simply not being prepared for when the conditions changed and they needed to take action to make sure that themselves or their passengers were safe. Now, ACT listens to evidence, so we supported the change in scope to include the wearing of life jackets for all people on vessels under 6 metres. But we also support recreational boaties to make good decisions about the safety of their vessel, to understand the conditions they’re operating in, and how their passengers need to be protected. But a lot of that comes down to personal responsibility, and it will continue to. Because despite changing a law, which is what this bill proposes, in the end, every skipper will continue to be responsible for the safety of their passengers, as they are under the law right now. They will need to make good judgment calls and make sure that their passengers wear life jackets where appropriate and where required. Now, ACT also believes that there needs to be a reasonable approach to enforcing the wearing of life jackets. We advocated very strongly for that reasonable approach to be written into law. Because if you go out on a small boat and you’re out for the day, you may or may not have a marine toilet, you may or may not be in a depth where you can safely anchor. But on a flat, calm day—say if you’re boating off the Bay of Plenty, like my good friend and colleague Cameron Luxton often does, and you want to have a swim off the boat or you want to have a bit of a play in the water, as he often does, he tells me, you’re not likely to be wearing a life jacket to get in and out of the water, so you technically comply with wearing a life jacket on the vessel at all times. So ACT advocated very strongly for a test of reasonableness so that if a harbour master or anyone else enforcing a law in the future came across a boatie and some passengers who weren’t wearing life jackets, or one of them for some reason, they could say, “Oh, actually, we understand the law provides for a reasonable reason where you might not be wearing it.” In the legislation, we managed to get some way. The legislation as returned to the House says that if you’re going for a swim, then you don’t have to wear your life jacket. Well, who knew? Because who on earth in New Zealand swims with a life jacket, apart from babies and people learning to swim? But the intention in the bill is still not conveyed in sufficient detail, and we’d like to see further improvements, and we hope the member responsible will take those. While going for a swim might make sense, actually, there are other reasons why you might not be wearing a life jacket at a certain time. You might be taking a raincoat on or off. You might be donning warmer clothing. You might be going to use the boat’s head. So, for that reason, ACT supports the bill as reported back to the House, but we’d also like to see further changes to make it very clear that there must be a reasonable level of responsibility applied to the skipper, so that they can use their judgment at times when that’s appropriate. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (17:13): I’m delighted to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and also as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which considered this—well, I’m not sure whether I call it the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill or the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill, because that’s the new name that we have suggested that it has. Look, it’s a delight to actually be able to have a 10-minute call, knowing that I’m not going to have members of my good friends over there in the National Party going to give me grief about how long I’m going to be speaking for and tell me it’s only going to stick with 10 seconds. [Interruption] See, now they’re on to it already. They cannot help themselves! When we have a message to say—we are New Zealand First, and we will have a New Zealand First message to say on any piece of legislation, and we will have to say that because that’s important that we make it our space. While the Opposition are being so supportive of those kinds of message as well, if we were going to be more efficient in this House, both sides of the House need to look at the behaviour, depending on whether it is a Government bill time, when it’s the Opposition who are filibustering, or whether it’s a member’s day, when it’s the National Party who are filibustering. Anyway, it’s a great pleasure to have a 10-minute call on this piece of legislation. I wanted to start off just by thanking the Hon Shane Reti, but also before him the Hon Cameron Brewer for the work that they have done in shepherding this bill through the process. I wanted to thank the select committee, who, as always, were really, really collegial and worked very collaboratively together through a really, really good process—so thank you very much for that. You were thoughtful, you listened well to everybody, and I think we’ve made some really good changes—well, a lot of good and substantial changes to the bill—because it’s quite a different bill to what it started out as. I also wanted to thank the advisers and the officers of Parliament who supported us. But I also wanted specifically to thank the submitters, because the submitters here were people who, in many cases, were actively involved in water safety. So whether it was the coastguards, Water Safety New Zealand, and so on, these are organisations and these are people who have dedicated a lot of their lives to saving other people’s lives on the water. They gave us a lot of really, really good advice. When we went through the process, this bill started off as being targeted at under-15s. These organisations and a lot of our submitters were very, very strong in saying, “Actually, the problem is not under-15s—that is a problem—but the main problem is actually adults.” The data there is absolutely crystal clear, as we’ve already heard. Since the beginning of 2015, eight children lost their lives as a result of drowning off recreational boating craft—eight children. That’s far too many—that’s eight too many—but 180 adults lost their lives in that same time. So it made it very, very clear that children are a problem, but the biggest problem there is actually adults. We had some really, I thought, terrible stories that we heard. You can just imagine the scarring for life which would occur here, where we had children in a boat, wearing life jackets, parents in a boat not wearing life jackets; they got into trouble and the children watched their parents drown. Can you imagine what that does to those children for the rest of their lives? That was avoidable. Those are the things that this legislation is trying to avoid. If we can save those 10 lives a year which the estimate is, that’s worth doing. Now, I kind of heard from ACT a little bit about personal responsibility there. This is a place where the Crown is stepping in to say, “Actually, we want to mandate that you do wear life jackets in these circumstances”, and I’ll come to those circumstances in a moment. But I want you to think about another area where we also mandate that you are required to wear a safety device, and we do that to save people’s lives and to stop them getting injured, and it is a safety belt. We require people to wear safety belts. We don’t say it’s up to you to make the choice; we don’t say it’s personal responsibility; it is everybody’s responsibility. In effect, the State has got that responsibility, but also the State has a huge investment in every one of us, so it’s important for the State that we want our people to survive. We want our people to be part of our community. They are no good to us dead—they are no good to us drowned. So we are taking some responsibility in that area. Anyway, we started out as an under-15s bill. We had strong, informed submissions saying that, actually, we needed to broaden the scope. Actually, we did ask the question of “Should we actually just get this through?” It’s an improvement—we’ll just get the children part of it through, and we won’t go and do the adults as well. And they said, “No. We want you to take the chance”—if you like—“go back out to consider it again, and take it to adults as well.” We took that on. We went back to the Business Committee and said, “Can we have an extension of time?” Now, we were told, line call, that we could actually have said, “Well, we’ll box on and we’ll do it anyway. We will go and expand the scope ourselves.” We felt that that would be the wrong thing to do from a democratic point of view. From a scope-of-the-bill point of view, we felt that that was the wrong thing to do because there would be potentially people who would submit against taking it to adults, who might have not submitted at all or been in favour of children being covered. So we went out again, we think that’s the right thing to do, and guess what happened is that people came back and said, “Actually, we support the change to the bill; we support it covering adults as well.” So we think we have a really, really strong mandate there and I think we gave exactly the right process. There is one other area which we did get in the second round some thought that we could also extend it, and that was the size of the vessels involved. Because we went out, we said 6 metres—we had 6 metres at the water line to start with, which people said, “What’s the water line?” If the vessel if more heavily laden or less heavily laden, that becomes a bit of a challenge. So we said, “Right, OK, well, it’s the bow to the stern.” OK, we leave out the motors and all those sorts of things and we leave out bowsprits. You can’t muck around with bowsprits and that sort of thing. So we were clear about what that is. But, first of all, there was a scope issue there. We had not consulted on that, and that would have been a really unreasonable thing to do, in my view, in terms of scope. Secondly, lower risk: the largest the vessels, the lower the risk. We certainly heard that. Thirdly, you’ve got things like sleeper boards. Well, you know, if you’re sleeping on board a vessel—the larger the vessel, the more likely you are to be sleeping on board, using a kitchen, whatever else it might be. Doing that with a life jacket probably is not a particularly practical proposition, as well. And then there’s also that issue that whatever vessel you’re on, even if you don’t have to wear the life jacket in a larger vessel, you do still at least have to carry sufficient life jackets, and if you’re in that situation where it’s a time of heightened risk—you’re crossing a bar, whatever it is, really rough conditions—then the skipper’s discretion there is to say, “Actually, I want everybody actually wearing a life jacket at the moment, whether you need to, or not.” So we felt those things were well covered. We’re recommending changing the name of the bill, as we said, because, obviously, clearly, it’s not about under-15s anymore; it’s about all ages. So we’re recommending that, as well. We spent a bit of time discussing the definition of a “life jacket”, as you already heard. “Life jacket” is now all PFDs—or personal floatation devices—rather than the other way round where personal floatation devices covered life jackets and everything else, as well. What is clearer, though, is that for each of those devices, you choose which device is most appropriate, whether you’re windsurfing, kayaking—and like Celia Wade-Brown, I’m also a kayaker; in fact, we’ve been kayaking together quite a number of occasions, including across Cook Strait, which is very, very good, but I wouldn’t dream of not wearing a life jacket when I’m kayaking. It’s an appropriate thing to do, and I wear a life jacket. But there are different floatation devices, different life jackets, and different circumstances, and people are able to choose those, but they’ve got to meet the standards that are required. We did have some discussion also about this issue of being under way, whether electronic anchors were OK, whether drifting was OK. We had some concerns from Fish & Game about that, the really slow movement issue—so I think there is an issue there that they might have concerns about. We also had issues around exemptions, which we’ve already heard a little bit about from the ACT Party. The maritime rule also already has a long list of what are pretty common-sense exemptions. I mean, surfing with a life jacket on is going to be a bit strange. We brought in, as you’ve heard, the stand-up paddle boarding in the surf situation because we had an expiring rule, and we thought, “Well, let’s bring it in, so we’re reducing the administrative burden there, in this case, for the Government.” We took on board ACT’s concerns around things like swimming off a vessel. So we said “Look, that’s practical.” We’ve also said, quite specifically, that we expect harbour masters and enforcement agencies to use common sense and discretion when they’re enforcing the by-law. Look, finally, just in terms of implementation, we did want to make sure—and we changed the implementation date to 28 days—there is time to develop a penalty regime to do the public education. A lot of our submitters were organisations who will be actively involved in that public education programme, and I thank them for that. Finally, the point that Tangi Utikere raised about amending the by-law process, it’s not often that Government actually helps local government out and makes life easier. Central government’s very good at loading costs on, and we were quite insistent and we said, “No, we’re not going to do that.” So if their by-laws are inconsistent now with the new law, then they can simply just talk to the director of maritime safety and say, “Look, we want to take those out.”, rather than having to go and consult. That just saves them a bit of money. There’s no point in going to consult on something which is, effectively, ultra vires or illegal. So thank you, everybody, for the work that’s been done. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Five minutes—Julie Anne Genter. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (17:24): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I have to say that I think this might be some of the absolute best work of this entire term of Government. I want to congratulate chair Andy Foster, the member who is now “Hon” Cameron Brewer, who had the bill pulled, and now the Hon Shane Reti, and all the members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Normally, I’m a permanent member of that committee, but I haven’t been for most of this bill, just because I’ve been overseeing the Planning Bill on the Environment Committee, but I’m soon to come back to transport—I know you all miss me! My colleague Celia Wade-Brown did excellent work looking after this bill on behalf of the Greens. I think this is such an important issue. I’m sure everyone’s talked about all of the issues, so I probably don’t need to repeat them all, but, as someone who occasionally gets lucky enough to go on a sailboat with my partner’s family who are fond of sailing and don’t own a boat but charter boats, and we take our little children on a boat, never would anyone consider being at sea without wearing a life jacket. But, of course, it just makes sense to make that the default for everyone. I think it’s fantastic that the select committee listened to the submissions, listened to the evidence, and actually has decided to nge the bill to go further, to do what people were asking it to do. This is New Zealand’s Parliament working at its absolute best to get sensible outcomes. I do think it’s been too long. We shouldn’t have had to wait for a member’s bill for this to happen; it should have been on a Government programme. But, as is often the case with these things—like marriage equality—it came from a member’s bill, and it was some of the best work this Parliament has done. So good on members’ bills, and MPs putting in really good, constructive members’ bills and having a select committee that’s actually treating the issue seriously and taking on board and pushing to actually get the changes that are needed for the bill to do the best job it can do. I really hope that we see other changes to support this implementation that means that we can actually reduce our drowning record, which is far, far too high, and it can be much lower. So I commend this bill to the House. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (17:26): I rise in strong support for the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill, which has now changed to the Life Jackets Bill in its second reading. At its heart, this is a bill about protecting lives. It is about making sure that when New Zealanders head out on to the water—whether they are fishing, boating, kayaking, paddle boarding, or simply enjoying a day with their families—that they can come home safely. This bill is about strengthening that chance through a clear, critical, and common-sense measure: the wearing of life jackets. New Zealanders have a deep connection with the water. The water is part of who we are. We are surrounded by it. We grew up around it. We enjoy it. But we also know that our water can be unforgiving. Weather can change within minutes. Calm conditions can become dangerous without warning. Even experienced boaties can find themselves in trouble. This is why this bill matters. It is a critical piece of legislation, it is evidence-based, and, most importantly, it saves lives. One of the highlights of this bill has been the select committee process. I want to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which is led by chair Andy Foster. But, above all, I want to thank every person and organisation who took time to make a submission. In this House, we often talk about public participation in the lawmaking process; this law shows exactly why that participation matters. The select committee is not simply another stage in passing legislation. It’s not about just listening to the submitters’ feedback. It’s not about just listening. It is where New Zealanders can bring their expertise, their experience, and sometimes their personal stories to Parliament. It is where legislation is tested, challenged, and ultimately improved. This is exactly what’s happened with this bill. We heard from Water Safety New Zealand, Coastguard NZ, Maritime NZ, emergency responders, boating clubs, and members of the public who care deeply about keeping people safe on the water. Many submitters made one very clear point: if the purpose of this bill is to save lives, then it should not be limited by age. The committee listened. Because of the thoughtful and constructive feedback we received, we agreed to expand the scope of the bill so that it applies to people of all ages. I think this is one of the strongest outcomes of the select committee process. It demonstrates that public submissions are not simply listened to; they genuinely shape legislation. This is democracy working exactly as it should. To everyone who made a submission, thank you. You have strengthened this bill. Your voices have made this legislation better. Because of your contribution, this bill has the potential to save even more lives. As the member for Mt Roskill, I want to speak about what this bill means to my community. I had a chance to visit the Royal New Zealand Coastguard Federation’s base in Auckland and talk about what the bill means to my community. I didn’t realise that many families from Mr Roskill actually enjoy spending time on the water—whether it is fishing, boating, or spending a weekend with families. One of the most popular destinations is Manukau Harbour. The Manukau Harbour is also one of the New Zealand’s most challenging waterways. It consistently tops Water Safety New Zealand’s list of country’s high-risk water safety blackspots. Its powerful tidal currents, shifting sandbanks, narrow channels, and rapidly changing conditions make it one of the highest-risk areas in the country. Many Aucklanders know how quickly conditions can change there. What makes the harbour especially challenging is the unique geographic position. Rescue teams require extra travel time before they are able to reach an incident. When every minute counts, those extra minutes can mean the difference between life and death. This is why wearing a life jacket is so critical. A life jacket keeps a person afloat. It helps them conserve energy. It helps keep their airways above the water. Most importantly, is significantly increases the chance that they will still be alive when the rescuers reach them. Simply put, a life jacket buys time. For those who enjoy the activities in Manukau Harbour, that extra time means everything. This bill recognises that reality. It is not about taking away people freedom to enjoy our waterways; it is about making sure they come home afterward. This legislation is about creating a stronger culture of safety. Changing behaviour does not happen overnight, but Parliament has an important role in setting expectation. We have seen this before. Seatbelts were once resisted. Motorcycle helmets were once debated. Today, those measures are accepted, because they work, and I hope that, in time, wearing a life jacket becomes just as automatic. Before someone starts the engine, before someone leaves the boat ramp, before someone heads out to fish—putting on a life jacket should become second nature, because prevention is always better than rescue. I also want to acknowledge those whose work behind the scenes has helped bring this legislation to where it is today. I want to thank Minister the Hon James Meager, the Hon Cameron Brewer, who was originally the bill carrier, and now the Hon Dr Shane Reti for their commitment and support throughout the development of this bill. Much of the work that goes into this legislation happens away from public eyes. It involves careful policy work, engagement with stakeholders, collaboration across Government, and a genuine commitment to improve outcomes for New Zealanders. I also want to acknowledge the officials: committee staff, departmental advisers, and everyone who has contributed to this legislation. Good legislation is never the work of one person. It is the result of many people working together with a common purpose. Ultimately, this bill is about something very simple. Every life lost in our waterways is one too many. Behind every statistic is a family, a parent, a child, a partner, a friend—people whose life are changed forever by a tragedy that, in many cases, should have been prevented. If wearing a life jacket can give someone a better chance of survival, if this legislation encourages more New Zealanders to wear one, if even one family is spared the heartbreak of losing a loved one, then this bill will have been worthwhile. This is why I support it. It has been strengthened by the public participation, it reflects common sense, it promotes a culture of safety, and, most importantly, it will help save lives. Before I conclude, I would like to acknowledge all the rescue personnel, all the volunteers, and all the water-safety advocates who work tirelessly to save life and keep New Zealanders safe on our waterways. Like Dr Shane Reti mentioned just now, I think this Saturday will be the World Drowning Prevention Day, and there will be multiple events happening in Auckland. I encourage people to go there to have a look, to understand more, to understand how a life jacket can save life—how you can handle when you are drowning; how can you keep calm and ensure you can preserve energy so you can earn more time for the rescuer to come to rescue you. Also, here, I would like to say that I want to thank all the volunteers, because their courage, dedication, and commitment to educate the public in responding when emergencies arise makes a huge difference. It makes the difference between life and death. This will support your effort, and I hope that it will ensure more people will come home safely. I commend this bill to the House. Debate interrupted. Points of Order