The only specialised marine publication in Oceania that focuses on the maritime industry, from super yachts to small craft to large commercial ships, including coastal shipping, tugs, tow boats, barges, ferries, tourist, sport-fishing craft
Issue link: https://viewer.e-digitaleditions.com/i/39567
A VIEW FROM THE CHAIR A MARITIME COMMUNITY VISION BY DAVID LEDSON David Ledson, the chairman of the Maritime New Zealand Authority, adds his perspective to the changes taking place at Maritime NZ I n every issue of Professional Skipper there are a few pages of Maritime New Zealand news, a rundown of the various things we have been doing. As well as this coverage, in recent years there has been good coverage of two major Maritime NZ projects – the Maritime Operator Safety System (MOSS) and Qualifications and Operational Limits (QOL) reviews. In addition to items explaining what these projects are about as far as Maritime NZ is concerned, there has been pretty vigorous discussion expressing other, and often differing, perspectives. There was also an article in the May/June issue on the Maritime NZ Funding Review – a third major project for us. That article was written by Michael Fitchett, who is a member of the sector reference group (SRG). The SRG is making an important and valued contribution to this review. Professional Skipper is of course just one avenue people in the industry use to access information on Maritime NZ activity. Considering all this, I thought what Maritime NZ is and what it does was pretty well known across a fairly broad cross-section of those we work with. However, among the many useful insights the SRG has provided is that notwithstanding the profile we get in Professional Skipper, in our own magazines and in our day-to- day engagement with the maritime industry, there is very little real understanding in some parts of industry of the extent of what we actually do. I think it's pretty clear that most of industry knows we are "the regulator". This part of what we do is very important. However, it is just one part of our role and I think that for too long it has been perceived as the defining context in which our industry engagement occurs. To a degree this is a reflection of the need to address regulatory issues that do exist in our industry – and that we all need to get on top of. Notwithstanding these pressures, it probably is also symptomatic of us concentrating on today's problems in the marine industry and letting them determine the nature of our relationships – and not, at the same time, focusing enough on tomorrow's opportunities and how they might shape our relationships in different ways. However, in addition to reshaping these aspects of the industry relationship in our regulatory role, as the SRG feedback has identified, we do need to be more effective in letting the maritime industry know what we do across our full range of activities – and why we do it. Ultimately, we can't be successful without the support of the industry, and it's difficult to see why we should expect to get that support without being able to demonstrate where we are adding value. While we are always striving to add real value, I'd like to briefly highlight one area where we believe "value for money" is being provided. In addition to our regulatory role, one of our other vital responsibilities is to provide a national marine pollution response capability. This is a topical subject, not only because of recent media coverage about oil exploration activity in our waters, but also because Maritime NZ has done some major work in this area over the last year or so. We have recently completed a review of our national response capability. The review concluded there were no gaps and identified action points – and associated expenditure – required to grow our capability over the next few years. Associated with this has been a review of the methodology for determining the oil pollution levy, which funds our national capability. We are also now revising our national strategy, which sets out how we will use our resources to deal successfully with pollution incidents. I would like to make three points about our work in marine pollution. 1. An essential element in the Maritime NZ Authority's ability to make decisions on the key issues is the role played by the oil pollution advisory committee, or OPAC. OPAC consists of around 20 members, including representatives from shipping, fishing, the oil and gas industries, the ports and the public sector. From my perspective, our relationship with OPAC is characterised by "a unity of purpose", and their advice is always very helpful. It provides a very good example of the constructive relationships we are seeking, and that are possible, in all of our engagements with the industry. I take this opportunity to especially thank the industry members of OPAC for their important contribution to the work of the authority. 2. Maritime NZ is focused on promoting the safety outcomes and benefits our work seeks to deliver. This is clearly our first priority. However, our work also contributes to sustaining economic activity today, and enabling it to take place in the future. It seems to me that without a credible marine pollution response capability, New Zealand would not even have the option of considering oil exploration in the national marine estate. 3. Last year, people from our marine pollution response team were involved in dealing with the consequences of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. I have no doubt the invitation for them to participate reflected the high regard in which they are held around the world. We count ourselves fortunate to have them on the Maritime NZ team. Maritime NZ's vision is, "a vibrant, viable maritime community that works and plays safely and securely on clean waters". To achieve this, our focus must not only be on safety outcomes, but also must include ways to deliver economic, security and environmental ones. 34 Professional Skipper September/October 2011 VIP.S48