Sitting date: 22 Oct 2025

LIFE JACKETS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL

First Reading

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I move, That the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider this bill.

It is a privilege to speak as sponsor of this bill. The sea, lakes, and rivers are part of who we are—our lifestyle, our community, our economy, and our culture—but that proximity also carries risk, and, all too often, that risk falls upon our children and young people. New Zealand's drowning rate is tragically high—sadly, the data tells us as much. Drowning has been cited as the third-highest cause of unintentional death in New Zealand for children up to the age of 14. Our overall fatal drowning rate is among the worst in the developed world.

The Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill aims to reduce that risk in a straightforward, practical way. It makes the wearing of life jackets compulsory for anyone under 15 years of age while on board recreational vessels 6 metres or less in length. This is not a sweeping change or radical reform, but it is one that's overdue.

The current rules are inconsistent across every region in New Zealand, thanks to different unitary and regional by-laws. They are inconsistent, can be confusing, and hence ineffective. Not only is it that the by-laws are inconsistent across the country, we've now got the situation where many territorial local authorities require the mandatory wearing of life jackets at all times for everyone but our country's pertinent maritime rule made under the authority of the Maritime Transport Act is now more permissive than most regional by-laws, and, I would argue, below Kiwis' expectations.

Maritime Rule 91 requires that all recreational vessels carry life jackets for every person on board but it doesn't mandate that children wear them at all times. Yes, wear them at heightened risk and on a vessel less than 6 metres, but skippers still ultimately hold the discretion and judgment under Maritime Rule 91. The law, as it is, ultimately leaves it to skipper discretion. Sad news stories over many years show us that discretion doesn't always lead to safety. Even the most well-meaning boatie can sometimes get things wrong.

I want to acknowledge the bill's former sponsors, former National MP Alfred Ngaro, as well as current MP for the North Shore and now Minister the Hon Simon Watts.

This bill has strong sector support from the likes of Maritime New Zealand, Water Safety New Zealand, Coastguard New Zealand, and Drowning Prevention Auckland, who have all called for stronger requirements around wearing of life jackets. I want to thank each of these organisations for taking the time to meet with me and outline the critical issue of water safety. I acknowledge the incredible work that they do in keeping Kiwis safe on the water every single day. Water Safety New Zealand tells me that improving life jacket use is one single action that can significantly reduce our drowning burden.

Put plainly: life jacket use being left to chance or left to personal discretion is putting people's lives at risk. This bill simply puts in place a clear and consistent nationwide rule: if children are under 15 and are on a small boat, they wear a life jacket. Wearing a life jacket shouldn't be optional for a child on a small recreational vessel.

Capsizings, collisions, and weather changes can be unpredictable or sudden. There's no time to reach for a life jacket once you're already in the water. Last year alone, Maritime New Zealand was notified of 17 deaths, of all ages, involving recreational craft. The 2024 numbers not wearing a life jacket have yet to be confirmed, given ongoing investigations, but what we do know is that life jackets would have saved several last year.

I also spoke with Coastguard New Zealand. Sadly, it is volunteers from organisations like Coastguard who have to confront the trauma and reality when something goes wrong in the water. Let's not lose sight of the fact that behind every fatality is a family and a community left with devastating loss.

The scope of this bill is limited to those under 15, which is tied to the minimum age which someone can legally skipper a boat. I acknowledge this bill naturally raises wider questions of universal use, which have already been put to me by those involved in the sector. This is certainly worthy of further select committee investigation. That is: should all Kiwis in small boats be required to wear life jackets? But that is not what we are voting on tonight.

Different definitions of the bill will also need to be addressed, noting that it's critically important that life jackets are not only worn but are fit for purpose, maintained, and properly fitted. I note the existing exceptions in the maritime rules for surfboards; sailboards; and wind surfers, provided a wetsuit is worn; supervised sporting events; and commercial rafting are all preserved. This bill reflects those exceptions.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee will also need to examine and scrutinise what a fitted life jacket is, realistic access to life jackets, determine whether the named exemptions are sufficient and appropriate, and consider the role of education and enforcement. This is about protecting children, plain and simple; just a straightforward rule to protect children on the water and grow a positive culture of lifejacket wearing going forward this century.

We teach our kids to wear seatbelts in a car. We make them wear helmets on bikes. Wearing a life jacket on a small boat should just be as obvious.

Surveys have shown that the overwhelming number of Kiwis want our children and life jackets on small boats. In fact, most Kiwis already think they are already mandatory nationwide, reflected by the fact that most Kiwi kids are already in life jackets when out in the open water with family and friends. This bill simply codifies what many regional councils already have in place; it codifies what most families already put in practice; and it codifies what almost every Kiwi, rightly, expects is already happening.

I want to just reflect on Water Safety New Zealand again. They gave me this quote: "This legislation sends a clear message about the culture we need to help New Zealanders make the right decisions on water. Drowning data tells us that up to 20 lives can be saved every year if the rules were clear and if everyone wore a life jacket." That's Water Safety New Zealand.

This bill will give a clear, consistent, nationwide rule, keeping our kids safe on the water. I commend the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill to the House, and ask that all parties in this House support it to select committee. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Otirā, tēnā tātou i tēnei pō.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Thank you. The spirit of support and mahi tahi! To me, it's a no-brainer that we support this bill. I had one of those idyllic childhoods you dream of these days, where we spent all day in the river when we weren't at the sea. You'd spend all day at the river until your mother yelled out to get home, well after dark. There were some exploits: whatever could float, we'd drag it down to the river, and that was our fun. Often, swimming under branches of the willow trees in the Poroporo River—which was a shallow river, so it didn't feel that dangerous; jumping on logs; if you were flash, you had an inflatable tube of some sort. While it was great fun, in hindsight, I do look back with gratitude that none of us lost our lives taking such risks while enjoying fun. I've got to say, sometimes I think kids today need to get out and have a little bit more fun rather than doing it virtually, but maybe one day they can sit there wearing their life jackets while they're playing virtual reality or whatever you do these days.

The loss of lives is nothing to be scoffed at, and it's something no one in this House wants to see. Under-15s wearing life jackets is a wonderful notion, especially being brought up on part of the beautiful Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, which traverses the whole Eastern seaboard of the North Island, where often people feel so familiar with their shoreline—they feel so familiar with their beach that they are a bit relaxed and take unnecessary risks.

My only query about this is the affordability for life jackets. A good quality life jacket is not cheap, and so we need to think about how we make those things accessible to whānau, because everybody's life is valuable and no price should be put on that. We don't want any barriers to safety. We don't want people picking up, you know, "Oh, your turn with a life jacket", "You're in the most risk at the moment"—and the member who's named this bill in is nodding approvingly, which I absolutely appreciate.

Now, just in the spirit of jest, while we do support this bill, I just want to say, oh, whānau, I hope you don't need to get your life jacket repaired, because that bill didn't get passed because the Nats didn't let it get heard tonight. So if you get a good quality life jacket and you need it repaired, too bad, you'll probably have to send it to the manufacturer. But hey, hey, hey, let's stay friends.

Heoi anō rā, because we are a nation that has beautiful beaches and access to beautiful rivers, we want that culture to continue and we do want our whānau to be safe, especially our tamariki, who hopefully will be good role models for their parents to wear life jackets and their grandparents to wear life jackets. So I commend the bill to the House.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you. I rise to support this bill to the select committee. I agree with life jackets on small boats. It's like seatbelts, and it's regulation that will save lives. When I'm in a car, whether I'm a passenger or I'm driving, I wear a seatbelt. On my kayak, on rivers or seas, I wear a life jacket. I'm a member of a couple of kayaking groups. The Wellington Sea Kayak Network practises assisted rescues and also self-rescues and we all wear our life jackets. However, I have some reservations, some of them alluded to by the member introducing the bill, Cameron Brewer, about age.

I want to use an example and I want to acknowledge the loss and the pain of the whānau involved. I do want to refer to this particular Auckland example. In 2022, there was the Clarks Beach boating tragedy, 6 November 2022. Some people will be remembering that next month. None of the five people on the 4.8-metre boat was wearing a life jacket when it was struck by two waves in short succession and capsized in Auckland's Manukau Harbour a short time later. Ten-year-old Ryder Ferregel was wearing a life jacket when he went out, but it was ill-fitting, it was riding up, so he was allowed to take it off. By the end of the day, after hours—just imagine those hours of clinging to the overturned hull—Ryder and his mother, Gemma, had drowned. As the member said, there are still many drownings in New Zealand.

It wasn't just a 10-year-old that drowned; it was his mother that drowned as well. I really am concerned that if this bill goes through with the title Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill, we will be advised that changing the age will not be within the scope of the bill. I really hope that the member has got good advice on that. There are already some regions where it is compulsory for any age to wear a life jacket. I think the logic would be that we—whether it's 6 metres, 5 metres, 7 metres, we'll hear about what the length should be.

I think the other thing that's interesting in this bill, as it's proposed, is that a 15-year-old can decide a matter of life and death for themselves. Yet the parties on the other side of the House, at the moment at least, think a 15-year-old can decide life or death, a 16-year-old can get married and can pay tax, but they can't vote. I've just been at a most interesting democracy conference, partly led by vote 16. But, before I'm reminded, I'll get back to this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Fantastic.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There are some issues of funding, as was alluded to by my Labour colleague, but it's not just about funding the life jacket itself; there are some issues about funding Coastguard, funding kayak safe courses, funding school pools, funding education and enforcement. There are a lot of different things that we could do.

Of course, local government does a lot of work in water safety and pools and swimming, but please don't make this another unfunded mandate that regional councils are required to enforce without any support from central government. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. No one in this House wants to confront the worst kind of tragedy, the death of a child. When a young person drowns, the pain ripples through families, schools, and entire communities. New Zealand's drowning statistics remain deeply saddening, yet amongst the pain there is progress. Even as our population grows, the overall trend in child drownings is falling. One policy in particular has played a clear role: the fencing of swimming pools. It addressed a well-defined risk and reduced death, especially amongst toddlers. It was a focused response to a real problem and it worked. I suspect the success of that policy vote motivates those who support this bill. After all, who amongst us does not care deeply about the safety of our children?

The bill before us today mandates that every child under the age of 15 must wear a life jacket at all times when on a recreational craft less than six metres long. It is well-intentioned, but good intentions are not enough. Let us turn to the facts.

I ask the House, last year, how many children drowned who would have been covered by this bill? None. In 2023, none. Over the past decade, from 2014 to 2024, there has been only one such case. It occurred in 2022 and it was a tragedy. In that instance, the child had initially been wearing a life jacket but removed it with the skipper's permission. That decision was a fatal error.

Crucially for this debate, it was already illegal under the existing law. The skipper was charged and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. There were numerous other safety failures that day, which I don't have time to detail, but there is no guarantee that this bill would have prevented that death. At most it may have made a difference in one incident in 10 years, and even of that I'm very doubtful. At the end of my speech, I intend to table documents affirming the stats I have just provided for the benefit of all members.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem. Worse, it creates new problems of its own. When the Government overrides the judgment of parents, it is not a trivial step. In cases of neglect or abuse, intervention is necessary, but in a free society, that must be the exception, not the rule. Parents know their children's abilities. They understand the risks of their environment. They are often best placed to judge when it is safe to loosen the reins or when to insist on a life jacket and when to allow a child the joy of freedom under supervision.

This bill doesn't target bad parenting. It doesn't respond to a pattern of preventable deaths. It imposes a one-size-size-fits-all rule on every boating family in New Zealand. It says, in effect, that the Government always knows better, regardless of conditions, child maturity, aquatic activity, or parental supervision. ACT believes that approach is wrong. We believe children should wear life jackets in risky conditions, but on a still day, anchored on a shallow bay, with parents nearby, should you really be criminalised for lying on the deck without a life jacket or for jumping off the boat to cool off?

Some will argue that such exemptions can be sorted out in select committee, but those exemptions already exist under the current law. The law today allows for judgment, supervision, and adaptation to local context. This bill takes away that flexibility. It substitutes rigid rules for human discretion. It reflects a fundamental mistrust of parents and a disconnect from the lived experience of boating families.

Undeniably, life jackets save lives, but so does common sense; so does education; so does a society that values both freedom and responsibility. We should promote safety by informing and equipping families, not criminalising everyday choices. We should encourage good parenting, not presume its absence. Let us not confuse action with genuine outcomes. The tragedy of child drownings cannot be solved by symbolic gestures that ignore the evidence and impose blanket mandates. This House should stand for evidence-based policy, not reflective overreach. I commend the member for his concern and congratulate him on having his bill drawn, however, ACT cannot in good conscience support this bill.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table two documents, one from Maritime New Zealand and one from Water Safety New Zealand, showing a breakdown of drowning statistics from 2014 to 2024.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Is that information publicly available?

CAMERON LUXTON: No, they're not publicly available. One is an official information response from Maritime New Zealand and the other is data provided by Water Safety New Zealand produced after an inquiry from me.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First): Madam Chair, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of life jackets for children and young persons. To mandate life jackets for children under 15 years on recreational craft of 6 metres or less and to require sufficient, appropriately sized life jackets on larger vessels all seems to fit within maritime law and what we're used to doing, especially on larger vessels when you're the skipper. But I note that also, with my boat, which is about 5 metres long so it fits within the under-6-metres, that I actually become the skipper on that day and it's my responsibility for the safety of my crew.

I thoroughly enjoyed the examples that have been put before us tonight by members on both sides of this debate, and I respectfully admire Cam Luxton for putting his libertarian view towards this bill. However, New Zealand First likes pragmatic legislation, and this bill is just that. I'm pleased to take this opportunity to speak to the first reading of the bill and I acknowledge the member for taking the time to draft this and address a clear safety concern.

We support this bill's intent to mandate life jackets for under 15s on small craft. However, I think of my own experience and it gave me a chance to reflect on my holiday experiences and boating, and my mates that go fishing and the like, and boating and playing around in the harbour. I have keen respect for water and movement of water and what it means for you, having been a lifelong surfer and fisherman. And so I get the feeling, and I had to reflect on some of the behaviours that I see amongst all of my mates whilst we're on holiday.

I know the pressure that's involved to race to that boil-up where the kingies and the birds are working and there's so much excitement going on. The kingies are running and hitting that bait ball and you know damn well, if you get there on time, drop your line, get in the way, you're going to be feeding the whānau for the next couple of days. You know it's now or never. You're going to miss it. You've got to go—but no. Take two or three minutes. Get those life jackets on, because I've seen what happens when your boat runs against the tide and the wind is going the other direction or it's moving really, really fast and you get crossed up, or you're sitting in your boat and all of a sudden you've got three lines going off all at once. It's chaos and we've got to hit them because we've got to catch every one of those fish, right? We can't let any one of them go. And there's the problem: we forgot to put the life jacket on and we're bumping kids out of the way or we're getting in front of each other or the chain gets wrapped around the nose or the tail, or your line gets wrapped around, or there's a bronze whaler chasing up one of your fish and you absolutely have to get it on board before that's taken.

I really understand this. Seeing how quickly we can move from being in control to being out of control and at the mercy of the ocean made me think seriously about how we should be doing everything we possibly can to change our behaviour as skippers, to look after the people that are on our boats. I will admit I was one of those that was in the boat and I was out there and I was chasing. I reflect on this and I thank Cam Brewer for pushing this bill through, and we commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just point out to the member, when he's referring to another member, to use their full name? Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise—slightly earlier than I anticipated—and support my dear colleague Cameron Brewer's bill.

I do want to acknowledge you, Cameron—good things come to those who wait, and Cameron has waited some months in this House to have this bill read a first time. It's a pleasure to support this bill. Well done, mate; good on you for having this drawn from the member's ballot.

I wish to also acknowledge the previous MPs who took this bill up in previous Parliaments, Alfred Ngaro and Simon Watts. I wish to thank them for initially bringing this to the attention of the House. I also wish to acknowledge the dissent that we've had here today from the ACT Party. I've listened intently to your speech, Cameron Luxton, and while I disagree, I really respect that within a coalition we can have these types of debate on principle and on policy.

We are here today for a serious kaupapa, and this is something that is a concern for all Kiwis, because water is part of all Kiwis' way of life. In my view, child safety needs to be paramount for Kiwis when we're out there on the boats, whether it's in open seas or in lakes and rivers, and so forth. We do have a high drowning rate in this country, and so one takes time to reflect: how do we move the dial and improve that? It really is about a culture shift. We've talked a little bit about that today: how do we develop that culture shift of—it's just what we do as Kiwis, just like what we do with putting on a seat belt when we get into a car. If you're like me, it's just a habit. Even if you're going up the road 50 metres, I end up putting the seat belt on because it's just what we were raised to do as Kiwis. We need that same type of culture on the boats and in our seas.

Part of developing that culture is making sure our laws reflect the culture that we aspire to have in this country. Right now, we have very fragmented rules across New Zealand, based on the territorial authorities. You look at a map and you see that part of the territorial maps require the skipper to have life jackets on, and then you cross a little boundary and then the rules change. That doesn't make sense. How are skippers supposed to understand all these different rules around the country? That is what this bill is trying to do, to standardise and make it clear what is expected from skippers, whether you're up North or down South in Dunedin.

Many families already adhere to looking after their children with life jackets, but not all. That is what this bill does; it seeks to mandate that every kid under 15 years of age wears a life jacket for vessels six metres or less. The counter example that my colleague in the ACT Party raises is that we shouldn't need to wear them in safe conditions. Well, I'd put a counter example to that, which is: how do you know it's not a safe condition? I mean, in the calmest of waters, bad things can happen. My late father used to say, "Look, there were many recorded examples of accidents happening of people just driving down the road to get their KFC or their fish and chips, and that's why we need seatbelts even for short distances." For what should be a very safe thing is actually not safe.

That is why I just don't buy that example, and it's not consistent, really, with the type of culture that we wish to create in this country. I support this; I look forward to hearing submissions, as deputy chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. We will look at what can be done, from widening the scope of this field to include all other adults in New Zealand, but that is not within the scope of this bill as we are voting today; that is a discussion for another day. I look forward to hearing from members of the public and to welcoming this bill at select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm really delighted to speak in support of this bill. This is really important to me personally, but it is a really important bill across the country. To get consistency in this area is just something that I cannot believe that people would not support.

My family is heavily involved in sailing. My son has represented New Zealand in sailing since he was 13 years old and is now 29, and he's currently in Bermuda sailing at the world match racing cup event over there. He is also one of the head coaches in the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron for youth. I've learnt to dingy sail and sail. We are really at one with the water, and it's something that we enjoy recreationally a lot as well as a family.

We've had some experiences over the years. We are good on boats, we are strong swimmers, we know the water, we know the hazards, we know the weather, but that hasn't stopped us having some issues over the years as well. I just wanted to say, first off, in junior and youth sailing in this country, it is mandatory to wear life jackets. In fact, when you go to those events, your life jacket has to be checked to make sure that it is of a good standard. That's not to say that anybody that goes out sailing will wear a life jacket, because the rules aren't consistent across that. That's racing sailing; that's not consistent across recreational sailing.

I remember once that my son was at an event. It was the Peter Blake event up in Auckland, and he was thrown out of his boat and was knocked at the same time. He said to me, "If I had not been wearing that life jacket, I would have drowned." Now, that's pretty sobering when you think that he is a strong sailor, he has represented New Zealand, he has been a world champion twice over, and he is a strong swimmer, but had he not worn that life jacket, he would have drowned. Why would we not support a bill that would make that rule consistent for all young people in this country? It just seems ludicrous when you think that even the best people can get caught out if they are not wearing those life jackets. It makes so much sense, and I congratulate the member for having this bill and shepherding it through. Labour fully supports this through to the next stage.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): First of all, I just want to congratulate my colleague Cameron Brewer, the hard-working MP for Upper Harbour, for having his member's bill drawn. His hard work and dedication to improve life jacket safety for young people is truly commendable. I rise here today in strong support of the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill.

This is a simple, clear and necessary step that will save young lives on our water. At its heart, this bill is about one thing: ensuring that no parents ever have to lose a child to a preventable drowning. Every summer, thousands of New Zealand families head to our rivers, lakes, and coasts to enjoy the outdoors, but for all the beauty and the freedom that our waters offer, they also present dangers—especially for children and young people. Sadly, too many families have experienced those dangers turning to tragedies.

The drowning rate in New Zealand remains high. I'll give you a little bit of the data. In 2020, the rate is about 1.62 per 100,000 people. It's higher than a comparable country like Australia, which is 1.1, and Canada, which is 1.3. In 2024 alone, 18 New Zealanders lost their lives in boat-related incidents. Of those, 17 were not wearing a life jacket. Wearing a life jacket increases the chance of survival in a boating accident by up to 10 times.

This bill focuses on one of the most vulnerable groups, children under 15 years old. Children under 15 years old are less experienced around water and less likely to respond calmly in an emergency situation. They depend entirely on the adults around them to keep them safe. This bill ensures that responsibility is backed by legal safeguards. Just as we require car seats, helmets, and seatbelts for young people, this bill recognises the special protections children deserve on our waterways.

Yet, under our current law, whether a child wears a life jacket on a small boat is often left to the skipper's discretion or to the presence of a regional council by-law. However, the rules vary around the country. In Auckland, wearing life jackets on boats 6 meters or smaller is optional unless the skipper deems it's unsafe. In Canterbury, children must wear life jackets, at all times, on boats 6 meters or smaller. A child in Auckland should have the same level of protection as a child in Canterbury. This bill introduces national consistency and a clear legal requirement that anyone under 15 years old on a boat 6 meters or smaller must wear a properly fitted life jacket—no excuse and no grey areas.

Support for this bill is well and strong. Maritime New Zealand, Water Safety New Zealand, Coastguard New Zealand, and a long list of front-line responders and water-safety educators are all behind it. They have seen the reality. These are the people who have seen the consequence first hand—the lives lost, the heartbreak endured. They know a law like this could save many lives, and it's very sad and very disappointing to hear that the ACT Party are not supporting this bill. They believe that personal responsibility or the burden is on the skippers, or they're scared the Government is going to overreach, but I want to remind them that the cost of a life jacket is far less than the cost of a funeral.

This bill doesn't impose anything radical. It simply aligns the law with what responsible boat users are already doing. This bill turned common sense into common practice. I say this bill reflects who we are and who we want to be: a country that protects its young people, that learns from tragedy, and that learns about water safety. We pride ourselves on being a nation of lakes, rivers, and coasts, and it is time that our law reflects that reality. Let us act now because no child should drown simply because we fail to act. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd just like to congratulate Cameron Brewer for this piece of legislation. It seems small and significant, yet incredibly important. I come from the West Coast and I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker who also would understand that the West Coast is a place where going to water, either to sea or river, is an exception rather than the norm. The reality is it's pretty harsh. Our ancestors came to that place and many, many of them drowned because it's not a friendly water environment.

When I started an adventure tourism business, whitewater rafting and jet boating, there were many, many people who were quite horrified. It's not seen as the normal thing to do to play in the water. One of the things I learnt very early on, in fact, from day one, was there were no regulations then, none at all—no regulations—but the basic safety implement of a life jacket was an absolute must for everything that we did.

It was disappointing to hear from the ACT Party that they can't see the logic to this, that the ideology of libertarianism that you can make up your mind is going to protect everyone when you go in the water. When you go in the water—and I've been in many, many times under a boat—unless you've got absolute presence of mind, you panic. You panic. The idea that parents could look after their kids is complete idiocy when they're in the water—and most of the time stepping on to a boat with the expectation that they will be safe, and for the most part, they are—but we have many, many pieces of legislation and regulation around this country for the small minority of people who might find themselves unfortunately in this situation, or harm themselves or harm us or whatever; it's for the minority.

We still go through some quite strict security regimes at the airport. The chances, thankfully, in our country of someone wanting to harm us on a plane is very, very small, but we're prepared to do that for the greater good. This piece of legislation is one of those: for the greater good. It is absolute tragedy when someone drowns, especially when it's not necessary. A life jacket is not that cumbersome or costly or an imposition on our civil rights. It's a simple, sensible step to prevent what could happen.

I'm not familiar with boating at sea, but the reality is—and we've seen it the last couple of days—weather conditions change very, very quickly. For a small boat to tip or for someone to be tipped out of the boat without any floatation device, I can tell you that on a river, it's a very, very urgent and unusual and difficult situation to deal with unless someone's got a flotation device.

I think the value of life jackets is probably underestimated. I think we should, along with this piece of legislation, look forward to another National Party MP bringing forward a piece of legislation that says it is compulsory for all schools to teach kids to swim because, in fact, that has been squeezed out of the curriculum, out of school responsibilities. That's part of the reason that we're seeing too many people drown in this country. For a country that's a small island nation surrounded by water—full of water, you name it—we should all be able to swim. And the Australians can teach us a thing or two.

Can I just say that evidence-based policy is what this is based on. Too many people in this country unnecessarily lose their lives when they could have been saved by a life jacket. Can I say that firstly, congratulations to the member, Cameron Brewer. He saw the need for a change in legislation that many people might think is small and insignificant; for the people who will be saved—these are people under 15 years of age—their families, and they will be forever grateful. We look forward to the passage of this legislation. It's the right thing to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Cameron Brewer—in reply.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I relish the opportunity to reply and thank the members for their contributions and the overwhelming majority of parliamentarians that will be supporting this to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

I think that nothing points more pointedly as to the issues we're dealing with than when you look at this map. These are the current by-laws in the different territorial local authorities across New Zealand. What does it show you? It shows you that there's a lot of different rules around who should wear life jackets and how people should wear life jackets. So this is about a consistent, nationwide rule that everyone understands, that kids under the age of 15 on vessels 6 metres or less will wear a life jacket—will wear a life jacket.

I want to also respond to some of the other comments that were made—comments around the criminalisation of parents; that's not going to happen. The best tool of getting people into life jackets will be through education—will be through education. So no one's going to go heavy-handed on trying to find offenders and trying to criminalise them at every opportunity—at every opportunity.

I want to also point to the fact and to the comment from the Green Party that the water safety sectors need more financial support.

Hon Simon Watts: Oh, is that right?

CAMERON BREWER: Well, they might have missed an announcement, Simon Watts. I think you were probably there with Mark Mitchell and the Prime Minister that Surf Life Saving New Zealand and Coastguard received a funding boost of $63.6 million over four years last year—over four years. What did the Coastguard CEO say, with accusations of underfunding when they had six years? "We've received everything that we asked for, so this is good." What did the Surf Life Saving New Zealand CEO say with the $63.6 million funding boost from this Government? "We are thrilled and delighted at this Government announcement."

But, anyway, I digress, Madam Speaker, and I can see you looking at me to get back on the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it's still got something to do with water and boats.

CAMERON BREWER: Oh, as long as it's got something to do with water and boats—do you want the America's Cup speech? No.

Access to life jackets—that was raised across from the Labour Party, and it's a very fair point: the equity of access to life jackets. I went to a life jacket hub at Sport Waitākere, in West Auckland, where they, at nominal or no charge, give out life jackets to those groups and families that need them for occasions. But we do—and I encourage the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to look at that genuine access, look at the affordability, look at communities, Grant McCallum, in the Far North, and their realistic access to life jackets, and on the East Coast, Dana Kirkpatrick. So that is another issue.

Finally, we can't go past—and we heard another story this week, didn't we, about another tragedy on the water. You go through—and I'm not going to read them all out, because they're all discoverable, but there are so many stories that have happened on so many occasions in recent years where life jackets would have saved lives. "Family's Harrowing Boating Ordeal Shows Why Life Jackets are Vital." It's simple: life jackets save lives. "Man Who Drowned on Christmas Day was Canoeing with Daughter Who Wore a Life Jacket and Called Out for Help". The little girl wore a life jacket but her father didn't; she lost her dad. And as the Green Party alluded to, the Clarks Beach tragedy in 2022 and those many souls that were lost, including a young child, due to life jackets not being worn, or being ill-fitted when they were put on.

So there's a lot to think about for the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to get their head around, but this is a bill that has the support of over 90 percent of New Zealanders—90 percent of New Zealanders want children in small boats to wear life jackets, and this will achieve that. I commend the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 106

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 11

ACT New Zealand 11.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

© Scoop Media