The Transport and Infrastructure Committee has examined the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill and recommends that it be passed. We recommend all amendments unanimously.

The bill is a Member’s bill in the name of Hon Dr Shane Reti MP. We wish to acknowledge Dr Reti and the bill’s original sponsor, Hon Cameron Brewer, for bringing this matter to the attention of Parliament. The bill’s aim, as introduced, is to reduce the risk of children and young people drowning during recreational boating. It would do this by amending Part 91 of the Maritime Rules to make it a requirement for those under the age of 15 to wear a lifejacket while on board a recreational craft of 6 metres or less in length that is in use. At present under Part 91 of the Maritime Rules the wearing of lifejackets is largely left to the discretion of the skipper and those on board. The Maritime Rules also allow local authorities to make their own navigational bylaws. Currently, lifejacket wearing requirements can vary from region to region.

In addition to the lifejacket requirement, the bill as introduced would:

• create a new definition of recreational craft length, “waterline length”

• replace the term “personal flotation device” with “life jacket”

• extend existing exemptions from the requirements in Part 91 to carry and use a personal flotation device to the expanded lifejacket wearing requirements, for example for surfers and competitors in a supervised event.

We are proposing significant redrafting of the bill to implement our broadening of the bill’s scope and other proposed changes discussed below. This includes replacing original clauses 3 to 5.

As part of our consideration of the bill, we have examined its consistency with principles of legislative quality. We have no issues regarding the legislation’s design to bring to the attention of the House.

This commentary covers the main amendments we recommend to the bill as introduced. We do not discuss minor or technical amendments.

As detailed above, during our consideration of the bill it became clear that children under the age of 15 are not the primary victims of recreational boating incidents. During oral submissions we heard some compelling first-hand accounts of boating accidents. They included instances where adults who were not wearing lifejackets drowned because they were not able to access or don the jackets, while their children, who were wearing lifejackets, survived. Consequently, to ensure that the bill is as effective as possible at preventing unnecessary drownings we recommend adding a new requirement that, when a recreational craft that is 6 metres or less in length is underway, the person in charge must ensure that everyone on board is wearing a properly fitted lifejacket. This requirement would be introduced through clause 8(3), which inserts new clause 91.4(1A) into Part 91 of the Maritime Rules. This would introduce a universal requirement to wear a lifejacket on recreational craft that are 6 metres or less in length overall while underway.

A key consideration for us has been what length of recreational craft should be covered by lifejacket wearing requirements. In the bill as introduced, the requirement would apply to recreational craft with a waterline length of 6 metres or less. Submitters noted that waterline length is more difficult to measure than length overall. Therefore, we recommend amending the bill to replace waterline length with length overall.

Six metres is a relatively common cut-off for requirements in New Zealand maritime legislation. For example, commercial ships over 6 metres in length must undergo an annual survey, and there are more stringent bilge pump and firefighting equipment requirements for all craft over 6 metres in length. Also, this threshold aligns with data on recreational boating fatalities, which shows that most fatalities since the beginning of 2016 (147 out of 199 fatalities, or 74 percent) occurred on vessels 6 metres or less in length. Although there is no definitive reason for this, in general these smaller vessels can be more likely to capsize than larger vessels and can lack certain safety features.

While increasing the length threshold could have the benefit of capturing additional vessels, especially in the “trailer-sailer” category, removing the length threshold entirely so all vessels were covered would not be risk-based. It would also not be practical if the lifejacket requirement always applied on a very large yacht or houseboat. Larger vessels often include facilities such as bedrooms, bathrooms, and kitchens aimed towards longer stays. We note that it would be impractical to use these facilities while wearing a lifejacket. While fatalities do occur on these larger vessels, they occur much less often.

Overall, we are satisfied with the 6-metre or less requirement. We think this threshold appropriately captures the most at-risk craft while being easy to enforce and acceptable to the public.

We note, however, that existing lifejacket-related requirements in Part 91 apply to all recreational craft regardless of length. We propose to retain the existing requirement to carry sufficient lifejackets on board recreational crafts of all lengths when the craft is in use. Retaining this requirement means people will be required to wear lifejackets on board craft of 6 metres or less while the craft is underway and otherwise keep sufficient lifejackets on board when the craft is in use but not underway. It will also ensure that people will continue to be required to keep sufficient lifejackets on board recreational craft longer than 6 metres that have a heightened risk of coming into distress.

As introduced, the bill uses “waterline length” to determine whether a recreational craft is covered by the proposed lifejacket requirements. Although the concept of waterline length is sometimes used elsewhere in the Maritime Rules, it is not defined.

We understand that “length overall” is a more widely understood and used term. People are told the length overall of their craft when they purchase it, and Maritime New Zealand and regional council officers can look up a craft’s length overall for the purpose of enforcement. Because of this, we recommend removing references to waterline length throughout the bill and aligning any length-based thresholds for lifejacket wearing requirements to length overall, as already defined in the Maritime Rules.

Therefore, we recommend inserting the following definition of “length overall” into Part 91 through new clause 7(3):

• length overall—

  • (a)

    means the length of the vessel measured from the foreside of the head of the stem to the aftermost part of the transom or stern of the vessel; and

  • (b)

    for the purposes of paragraph (a),—

    • (i)

      includes structures (such as bulbous bows, deckhouses, free flooding bait tanks, and buoyancy tubing) that project beyond those terminal points; but

    • (ii)

      does not include fittings (such as beltings, bowsprits, platforms, gantries, trim tabs, and jet and outboard drive units) that project beyond those terminal points.

Part 91 uses the term “at the time of use” in relation to lifejacket carriage requirements. This term is not defined in either Part 91 of the Maritime Rules or the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

We acknowledge that this phrase is suitable for lifejacket carriage requirements, as lifejackets are typically kept on board and are therefore available whenever a craft is “in use”. However, it is less clear and less practical when applied to a lifejacket wearing requirement. The phrase “at the time of use” might be interpreted to include situations where wearing a lifejacket is not appropriate or reasonable, such as when eating or sleeping on board while anchored, or when using a craft that is securely moored in a marina.

We consider that the term “while underway” is more appropriate for lifejacket wearing requirements. A vessel that is “underway” is not at anchor, made fast to the shore, or aground. This term is used for lifejacket wearing requirements in many navigation safety bylaws and is more widely understood. It comes from the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 and New Zealand law by Part 22 of the Maritime Rules.

We also considered whether a lifejacket should be worn while a vessel is using an electronic anchoring system or trawling. We heard evidence that the lifejacket wearing requirement should extend to these circumstances.

Accordingly, we recommend amending the bill to replace the term “at the time of use” in clause 5(1A) of the bill as introduced with “while underway” in new clause 8(3).

Rule 91.4(2) includes a list of exemptions from existing lifejacket requirements. These exemptions would be extended to our proposed new lifejacket wearing requirements.

While not covered by Rule 91.4(2), people using a stand-up paddleboard (SUP) while surfing are also exempt from current lifejacket requirements. This stems from a 2022 exemption granted under section 40AA of the Maritime Transport Act. This 2022 exemption does not apply to all people who are using a SUP; it only applies specifically when a person is SUP surfing.

We consider that bringing the 2022 exemption into Part 91 would improve the accessibility of the regulations by ensuring that all exemptions are available in one place. Accordingly, we recommend adding SUP surfing to the list of exempted activities in rule 91.4(2), by means of new clause 8(4).

As a committee we have extensively discussed situations where a universal lifejacket requirement may not be practical. An example of this is when swimming off a boat. In this situation the person swimming would need to remove their lifejacket when entering or exiting the water. We therefore recommend inserting new rule 91.4(1B) to exempt those actively engaged in recreational swimming from needing to wear a lifejacket.

We are also aware that there may be times when an occupant of a vessel may have removed their lifejacket for a short time. Examples of this could include using the bathroom, drying, or sunbathing. In situations like this we would expect harbourmasters to maintain a degree of reasonableness in their enforcement.

The bill would amend Part 91 to replace the term “personal flotation device” with “life jacket”. We understand that the rationale for this change is because the term “life jacket” is a much more common and understood term than “personal flotation device”.

The terms “personal flotation device” as found in Part 91, and “life jacket” as proposed by this bill are both used in a generic manner to refer to all approved buoyancy aids. Technically, a life jacket is a specific, higher-safety type of buoyancy aid with a collar to turn an unconscious person face-up, prioritising survival and rescue. Life jackets are aimed at or marketed for use by people on power boats and sail boats, and by children and non-swimmers.

We recommend amending Rule 91.2 and 91.4 through new clauses 7 and 8 to replace references to a “personal flotation device” with references to a “lifejacket”. The purpose of these amendments is to make Part 91 more accessible. They do not change what counts as a lifejacket, personal floatation device, or buoyancy aid for the purposes of Part 91. We note that there is a range of different lifejackets that can be used in different situations.

Under the Maritime Transport Act 1994, regional councils can make local navigation bylaws for the purpose of ensuring maritime safety in their region. In many cases, regional councils have imposed lifejacket requirements in bylaws. The ability of regional councils to stipulate lifejacket wearing requirements is specifically provided for in section 33M(1)(i) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994. In total, 18 bylaws have been made, requiring users of small craft to wear lifejackets.

We note that our proposed amendments to Part 91 might create inconsistencies with these local bylaws. Under the Maritime Transport Act 1994, the national rule would take precedence over any existing local bylaws.

As introduced, the bill does not set out any penalties for failing to comply with the new lifejacket requirements. To ensure that the bill is effective at promoting lifejacket use, new offences and penalties will need to be created to enforce the new requirements. We understand that Maritime New Zealand also plans to undertake an education campaign in the lead-up to the bill’s implementation. Consequently, we recommend that the Government undertake policy work to create new offences and penalties under the Maritime (Offences) Regulations 1998.

As introduced, the bill would come into effect on the day after Royal assent. We note, however, that time would be needed to develop the necessary offences and penalties as well as to brief relevant local authorities. We are aware that Maritime New Zealand and other parties will require time to educate the public, regional authorities, and key stakeholders on the new lifejacket wearing requirements. We therefore recommend amending clause 2 to provide for the bill to come into force 28 days after Royal assent. This would ensure that the lifejacket requirements are in place by summer 2026/27 while still providing time for Maritime New Zealand to undertake the necessary education campaign.

We also considered the following matter. Although we are not making any specific recommendations, we wish to bring this matter to the attention of the House.