Professional Skipper Magazine from VIP Publications

N Z M TA N EW S MARITIME NEW ZEALAND���S FUNDING REVIEW FIASCO MARGARET WIND EXECUTIVE OFFICER NZMTA S ubmissions recently closed on Maritime New Zealand���s Funding Review proposals, concluding an intensive twoyear project to place the organisation on a sustainable funding path, principally by imposing substantial fee increases on domestic maritime operators. Provisions for wide-ranging changes to the seafarer and operator licensing frameworks have been made concurrently with this project, and are due to be phased in, on the back of the new fees and charges. In an uncharacteristic act of transparency Maritime NZ has posted all 25 submissions on the Funding Review proposals onto its website. A first cursory glance at these submissions suggests that many of the submitters are both sophisticated and informed, and this is highlighted in their observations and analysis. A second, and more thorough reading of the submissions reveals an almost palpable sense of outrage, combined with deep-seated incredulity over Maritime NZ���s methodological approach to the Funding Review. The submissions also show a surprising degree of consensus in their response to the Funding Review findings. IMPACT OF MASSIVE FEES HIKE ON DOMESTIC OPERATORS Many submitters questioned the affordability of Maritime NZ���s proposal to more than double its hourly charge-out rate to $200$300, with no clarity or limit over the number of hours assigned to particular tasks (eg for audit services). One operator pointed out that Maritime NZ was attempting to impose the ���Rolls Royce��� of safety systems on the maritime industry, when most could just afford (and only needed) a ���Corolla���. This operator further pointed out that Maritime NZ���s goal of achieving ���robust, sustainable funding���smacks of salaried security���, is something that much of New Zealand���s maritime industry will never enjoy. RECREATIONAL VESSELS NOT PAYING THEIR WAY Many of the submissions reflected a common concern over the apparently one-sided application of the user pays principle by the Funding Review team, with this approach applied dogmatically to domestic commercial operators, but not at all to recreational Need a break from the water? ? Subscribe to RV Travel Lifestyle Magazine, sent to your home, plus receive the digital version for only $50.00 for both.(Save $23.40 rrp) SUBSCRIBE FROM ONLY $50! Digital subscriptions can be read on the device of your choice. Ph: 06 306 6030 Email: subs@rvmagazine.co.nz 70 Professional Skipper March/April 2013 www.rvmagazine.co.nz boaties. One submitter described Maritime NZ���s justification of this continued anomaly as, ���fatuous nonsense���. SHOULD COMMERCIAL OPERATORS FUND INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS FOR THIS SECTOR? Despite contrary recommendations from some of Maritime NZ���s own sector advisory group, Maritime NZ has maintained its stance on charging the maritime industry for investigations and prosecutions. Many submitters argued that this should be funded from general taxation because it is clearly an activity which benefits the general public. One submitter pointed out that, as fees and fines contribute to Crown revenue, this is where the costs should also fall. MARITIME NEW ZEALAND CHARGING FOR SERVICES IT DOESN���T PROVIDE Double dipping by Maritime NZ was also a recurrent theme in the submissions. Many operators (e.g. Interisland ferries and lake users), do not use Maritime NZ funded navigational aids, and yet are being charged for them. In the words of one operator, this is a ���direct conflict��� with Maritime NZ���s own over-riding principle of user pays. Double dipping by Maritime NZ was a recurrent theme in the submissions. The most surprising feature of the submissions is not, however, the condemnation of Maritime NZ���s highly selective application of the user-pays principle on domestic commercial vessel operators. Rather, it is the level of commentary from submitters on the poor quality of analysis provided, leaving one to question the cost to industry of average business practice. LACK OF ROBUST ANALYSIS Submitters appear to have exposed serious weaknesses and omissions in the Funding Review���s analysis at almost every level. For example, the fact that neither MOSS nor QOLS (now SeaCert), were used to model the impact of the new fees and charges left most submitters aghast, with many indicating that any meaningful comment on the Funding Review proposals would be impossible in the absence of this information. Larger operators pointed out that the Funding Review seemed to apply the same approach roundly rejected by the Regulations Review (Select) Committee in 2009, when a successful appeal against Maritime NZ fees proposals was lodged by the New Zealand Shipping Federation. Disturbingly, one of the larger operators has signalled that it will appeal the current proposals on similar grounds if Maritime NZ proceeds with the proposal in its current form. Many submissions questioned the proposed hourly rate on grounds that it was ���grossly inflated���, ���unacceptable��� and had ���no basis in financial reality���. This may be unfounded but

• A4 TO ADVERTISE
• 1-20
• 21-30
• 31-40
• 41-50
• 51-60
• 61-70
• 71-80
• s93 covers
• ac52