Maritime Safety Authority officials have often been accused of dragging the chain, or not consulting adequately with people during the rule-making process.

Draft Rule 31B of the Maritime Transport Act, which sets the minimum safe personnel and watchkeeping limits for offshore, coastal and restricted limits (non-fishing) vessels, is a classic example which justifies much of the above criticism.

The rule makers have had a huge task, and it would be very easy for them to take shortcuts in an effort to meet pressing deadlines. 

The MSA promised to have Draft rule 31B out by March 2000. However, the restricted limits industry did not see a copy of the draft until the middle of September, and a deadline for submissions was set at November 1. To be fair, the MSA circulated a discussion document about two years ago to gauge the initial industry response.

The editor of Professional Skipper immediately raised concerns about the deadline. He said the draft rule raised many proposals that had not been fully discussed with the industry, while the ramifications would have a severe impact on the future financial viability and business structure of many restricted limits shipping operators. He asked for the deadline to be extended to at least December 20 to allow the industry to respond after the November issue of Professional Skipper was published. The initial response from the MSA was that it could not extend the deadline due to the tight timeframe required to have the rules in place by February next year.

The New Zealand Marine Transport Association told the MSA at a recent meeting that the time delay was an MSA problem, and should not detract from adequate consultations with the industry because the MSA had lost valuable time from March to September due to internal inefficiencies.

On a positive note, the rule makers accepted the industryŐs proposal that the horsepower rating should be taken on the greatest horsepower of the engine connected to the propulsion system, and not the total horsepower as in a twin-engine installation.

Among the many concerns was the key issue of setting a manning level according to passenger numbers. If manning levels were established by the number of passengers per voyage rather than the total survey numbers, problems could occur when a scheduled service which normally carried low numbers for which the vessel was manned accordingly had one sailing above the benchmark, due to outside influences, requiring an extra crew member on board. The operator then would have to either turn people away to suit the manning level, or operate illegally above the rule requirement.

Rule 31B also has a severe impact on marine farm service vessels, particularly the areas of inshore launch operator, vessel size and skipper/engineering qualifications.

The association pointed out the problems associated in the draft rule with increasing the qualifications pertaining to vessel size versus cargo and passengers. It is the associationŐs view that if a master is qualified and skilled to operate a vessel in a particular area, then just because he is carrying passengers should not mean his qualifications are any lesser. The MSA officials stated that they saw the need to carry extra personnel to assist passengers in the event of a disaster or an emergency.

The commercial operators present raised their concerns with problems in planning adequate staffing for a mix of tourist and commuter services versus climatic conditions at the time of the sailing.

The draft rules state that the MSA must consider the international conventions of which New Zealand is a signatory, and the requirements of the international marine organisations and Safety Training, Certification and Watchkeeping. The MTA indicated that these requirements did not necessarily apply within New ZealandŐs 200 mile economic zone and territorial waters. If these restricted limits ships were not proceeding beyond this zone, why was the MSA hell-bent on forcing unacceptable conditions and costs on the small shipping industry. They went on to say that no-one was trying to compromise safety, but the MSA needed to consider the practicalities of implementation and safety at reasonable cost when making its rules and recommendations.

Rule 31B also talks of the HSC code (high-speed craft). But when one looks at this code it refers to vessels 35m or more in overall length which are capable of speeds of 25 knots or more and which proceed beyond restricted limits. The fast Cook Strait ferries need to comply with this code.

However, the code gives various other requirements affecting vessels under 35m operating within restricted limits at speeds of 25 knots, with another set of rules for vessels less than 20m and capable of speeds of 30 knots or more carrying more than 12 passengers. Most of our modern fast passenger ferries and charter vessels could quite easily fit the interpretation of this code if some pedantic official desires to do it this way, which exposes the vulnerability of some of the draft rules.

The new rules do not allow an operator to man his vessel with confidence. Engineering qualifications are a key issue. If a vessel has three or more systems as determined in their flow chart, and the highest-powered engine is over 750kW, a chief engineer is required. If you have a bow thruster, a hydraulics system driving winches, any computer-controlled machinery, a separate refrigeration plant and compressor, two gensets, a bilge system with an oily water separator, or an automatic fire system, as many of our modern new charter boats do, you also need to have a chief engineer. The problem is that you must have served time at sea in large or foreign-going ships to get this qualification, and there is no career path which allows an engineer local ship to progress any further.

Sea-going licences were also discussed. The rule makers left the MTAŐs meeting with a clear understanding of some of the problems, which they have undertaken to respond to.

It is therefore essential that operators of restricted limits ships obtain a copy of Rule 31B and respond. We suggest you ignore the November 1 deadline, but get your response in by December 20. Copies of Rule 31B may be obtained from the MSA, freephone 050 822 5522.

An abridged version of the NZMTA submission on Draft Rule 31B:

There are a number of brief comments on paragraphs 31B. 2. Definitions, 31B. 4. Application and 31B. 5. Table 1 relating to Equivalent Certificates.

31B. 6. Licences and re-validations - It is the submission of the NZMTA that this area needs to be set aside and given more detailed and considered thought before any action. eg. there is no differentiation being made for passenger vessels on extended voyages against a mussel barge working in an enclosed area.

31B. 12. Passenger Coastal area - NZMTA submits that there needs to be

modification in this area to allow for the gamefishing sector to operate

within an area determined by their SSM Company with a ILM.

31B.13. Passenger Inshore Area The NZMTA submits the restriction of 30 miles from an enclosed limits or safe haven is unnecessary. A master with an ILO should be able to operate anywhere within the limits designated by the SSM Co.

The NZMTA has also made comment on 31B. 14. Passenger enclosed area,

31B15. High Speed Vessels, 31B. 16. Seeking a change to 24 metres for

measurement, 31B. 17. Similarly, and with flexibility with scheduled

services manning.31B.18. 31B.19.

Outside the area of interest for NZMTA is 31B.20, 21, 22

The NZMTA agrees with the wording and spirit of 31B.23, 24.

NZMTA submits that 31B.25. needs an added Para reading - "In the case of smaller vessels where the owner, master and the engineer may be the same person, the duties specified in appendices 1 and 2 apply and must be complied with as far as is possible taking into account the size and operation of the vessel".

The NZMTA further submits that some of the material appearing in 31B is there because of the failure of some SSM Companies to perform at the level expected by MSA. The association submits that shifting the problem down stream to the operators is not an acceptable strategy.

This rule and the new method of measuring ships will have the biggest impact of any new rule in the restricted limits shipping industry. Because of the short time frame for comment most of the industry will not be aware of the implications of the changes in this rule. The new operating limits mean that some vessels will not be able to operate in areas that they do at present without extra manning and qualifications.

The SSM system was sold to the industry as vessels being "Fit for Purpose".

This now seems to have disappeared and the rules say that the industry will be controlled directly by bureaucracy and from afar.

Many operators and older experienced staff who have held appropriate MSA qualifications and operated without mishap for many years must now up skill to stay in business or employment.

No thought seems to have been given to the costs for the industry to comply with the proposed rules in a time when the government is talking cost of compliance with business.

If anyone would like a full copy of the submission please contact the National Secretary Richard Perkins 09 579 9886.

Back to the Top

New manager has big plans by Keith Ingram Fullers Auckland has a new man at the helm. Chris Bradley was appointed General Manager of Fullers Group Ltd in July. Fullers Auckland is the largest passenger movers in New Zealand's maritime industry. In fact, Fullers is said to carry more passengers each year than all the domestic airlines collectively.

Professional Skipper took time out to talk to Chris Bradley, who is 40 years old with a Masters in Business Administration. He is enthusiastic about the challenges ahead.

Chris comes from an accountancy background. He started as a trainee accountant with the Gear Meat Co, then attended the University of Victoria in Wellington, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce and Administration degree. In 1983 he moved to the Apple and Pear Marketing Board's process food division, which marketed Just Juice, in a business administration role.

In 1986 he was promoted and went to London with the board, which subsequently changed its name to Enza as a brand for New Zealand pip fruit. His areas of expertise were in financial management and foreign exchange.

In 1990 he completed his MBA, and three years later took over as General Manager in London of Enza. He was responsible for the fruit from the moment it was loaded aboard the ships in New Zealand, and was pivotal in growing the business throughout England and Europe. He was then responsible for marine planning to ensure that the ships arrived at their ports of destination to suit market demands, which sometimes meant either slowing down or speeding up vessels to suit.

As a young lad, he was always associated with boats, and in his early youth he spent many enjoyable hours on the water off Hataitai Bay in Wellington. Subsequently he has maintained an interest, and while he has done a lot of sailing, he prefers sports boats. This interest in boating was to grow with his involvement as a representative of Enza in the challenge by Sir Peter Blake for the Jules Verne Trophy, and this association has extended to other prominent New Zealand yachtsmen such as Grant Dalton.

Bradley says he sees the opportunity to take over the helm of one of New Zealand's largest passenger ferry companies as a challenge and a desire to further his association with maritime interests.

When asked of his vision, Bradley says the growth of Fullers has been exceptional. He says it is a tribute to its forerunners, and now is the time to consolidate and build on the foundations which have already been established.

He sees the development of a standardised fleet as being the way of the future, much along the lines of their latest ship, Starflyte, which is a modern, fast and efficient passenger mover.

"Centralisation of the company's administration and management onto the wharf is essential, because it is on the waterfront where the business is at. This will allow management the opportunity to get closer to the staff, especially the sea-going personnel who spend most of their time on the water."

"The problems of cross-training, rostering and vessel configurations are all challenges that will need to be addressed," Bradley says.

But by building on the company's existing foundation and strengths, he sees problems developing into successes and ultimately providing a good working place for employees in providing a fast and efficient on-water network of passenger services which will ultimately produce a positive return on investment for the owners.

Back to the Top

Submarine cables and pipelines by Sue Grey LLB Hons, BSc Susan Grey is a partner in M S Sullivan & Associates, Ocean and Coastal Marine Lawyers. Sue is a graduate in both science and law and has a particular interest in the interface between fisheries and environmental issues, both within New Zealand and Internationally.

Both Telecom New Zealand Ltd and their new competitor, Telstra/Saturn Ltd, have recently applied to lay fibre optic cables through fishing grounds off the coastline of New Zealand.

Telecom's proposal is to run a cable from Hokio Beach in Levin to Cable Bay, near Nelson. Telstra/Saturn's proposal is to run the cable from Auckland, through the Manukau Harbour, along the west coast of the North Island through Taranaki then south, on-shore around the Kapiti Marine Reserve, offshore to Titahi Bay in Wellington and then across Cook Strait to the east of the existing Cable Protection Zone down to Kaikoura and Christchurch.

Both companies propose burying their cables. However, concerns remain about the adequacy of the proposed burial depths and the likelihood of the cables remaining buried. The proposed cables have raised significant concerns in the fishing industry, primarily due to the protection given to cable owners in the Submarine Cables & Pipeline Protection Act 1996 (the SC&PP Act).

The act imposes criminal liability on any person who wilfully or negligently causes damage to any submarine cable, whether or not the cable was protected inside a Cable Protection Zone. The only defence to causing wilful or negligent damage is where the conduct was necessary to save life or a ship.

A maximum penalty of $250,000 applies to any conviction under this section. In addition, the vessel is subject to forfeiture to the Crown, although this is not necessarily automatic, and there is some provision for redemption of the vessel back by the Minister of Transport in the event of forfeiture for payment of a fee.

In addition, the SC&PP Act makes provision for the Minister of Transport to declare Cable Protection Zones. Although consultation with affected persons is required before a zone is established, the act specifically states that a CPZ cannot be challenged through the inadequacy of the Minister's consultation.

It is an offence to fish or anchor within a Cable Protection Zone. The act presumes fishing has occurred where any fishing equipment is towed by, operated or suspended from a ship, or an anchor is lowered, suspended from or raised by a ship. The only statutory defences to these provisions are that anchoring was necessary to save a life or a ship, or that the defendant took reasonable steps to prevent the commission of an offence.

The maximum penalty for fishing or anchoring within a Cable Protection Zone for a commercial vessel is $100,000, plus the potential forfeiture of the boat. The maximum penalty for a private vessel is $20,000. The practice of the "guardians" of the existing Cook Strait CPZ is to warn all vessels away, whether or not they are fishing or anchoring. This has effectively closed access to Fighting Bay to all boats.

Rights and concerns of fishers

Boats cannot lawfully be excluded from CPZs, as these restrict only anchoring and fishing. The MSA, which administers the SC&PP Act, has relatively limited powers to investigate alleged snagging on the cable. It is strongly recommended that you seek legal advice before attending any interview at the request of the MSA.

The act does not affect any civil liability. The result of this is that in addition to a criminal conviction, a person who wilfully or negligently damaged the submarine cable could potentially be liable for the costs to repair that cable.

Fishers have opposed both the Telstra and Telecom cable applications on the basis that they will adversely affect commercial fishing. In addition, the objectors negotiated with both groups to seek adequate protection for fishers, including indemnities against prosecution, compensation for any fishing gear that may be snagged on the cable, and obligations on the cable layers to ensure that their cables are laid and maintained in such a way as to avoid any conflict with fishing, and to re-lay or otherwise protect the cables in the event of any conflict, at no cost to and with no loss of access to commercial fishers.

Despite the assurances that have already been given, there are still a number of concerns, because the act is drafted in a way that is far more favourable to the telecommunications provider than to the fishing industry, presumably as a hangover from the days before privatisation. Of particular concern is the risk of a significant closure of access should a problem occur in the future and a CPZ be established. Momentum is gaining within the fishing industry to have the SS&PP Act amended to prevent any new Cable Protection Zones being established in the future.

Back to the Top