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/73196
NZMTA NEWSCOASTAL CHARACTERS TIME TO ROLL MOSS? BY MARGARET WIND, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW ZEALAND MARINE TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION B y the time you read this article, the NZ Marine Transport Association will have lodged submissions to Maritime New Zealand for two of the most important rules facing our industry since the introduction of Safe Ship Management in 1998. Maritime NZ's development of the MOSS rules (19 and 44) has been a long process and many are now wondering whether this last round of hasty consultation is simply a smokescreen from Maritime NZ. Reports from the recent round of Maritime NZ Road Shows add weight to the belief that MOSS is a fait accompli and that offering industry a fresh round of submissions is simply an obligatory step to disguise a mis-representation of actual costs. Too much time and money has been spent by our regulators behind closed doors. The Maritime NZ development team have earned a reputation for playing their cards close to their chest over the past three years, and MOSS has been veiled in a shroud of secrecy. Had the previous administration considered assistance from industry through working groups, then perhaps we might be embracing MOSS as a workable model for the domestic operators in this country. On paper, MR19 looks like a good, albeit a modernised Safe Ship Management System. Apart from certification being aligned to an operator instead of individual vessels, we have an amended SSM package. MOSS does however, enable compliant vessels to be certified immediately upon completion of survey and reduces the amount of paperwork in the wheelhouse. The problem is however, that it appears we will be paying twice as much as what we currently pay under SSM. This is highlighted in the 'delivery package of MOSS'. Maritime Rule 44 details the role of the surveyor. It removes the role of SSM/ survey companies, which effectively reverts back to the way things were in the 90's with Maritime NZ regulating the surveyors. There is also not enough information about how much each operator will pay under the new rules. The original MOSS consultation and Regulatory Impact Statement showed that Maritime NZ would bear the costs of transition. This new draft shows that operators will pay between $750 to $2000 to change from SSM to MOSS. Then there are additional costs for survey and Maritime NZ Audit. The survey costs will also increase as Maritime NZ raises the standard of surveyor reporting and implements new inspection procedures. Independent surveyors will need to increase their costs to operators considerably if they are going to meet Maritime NZ's requirements on their own under MOSS. Maritime NZ are aware of this problem and have attempted to counter it in Appendix 2, Section 4.13 of the rule by stating "Maritime NZ will influence the market charges for survey services by providing operators and surveyors with charging guidelines". Maritime NZ has no mandate to influence charging regimes and it is outside of its scope. If surveyor incomes are reduced, the surveying industry will disappear and surveying may once again fall under Maritime NZ's employ. The area of Maritime NZ Auditing is also unclear. More transparency is needed in order to make an informed decision about MOSS. It is proposed that Maritime NZ will audit operators at a nominated rate per hour plus travel (how many hours and how much travel?) with a minimum audit period of three years. From an operator's perspective this is no different to what is offered now under SSM, except that, the charge is presently far less as the audit 66 Professional Skipper July/August 2012 is often conducted during the same visit as the survey. Furthermore, the value for money for these audits is questionable and we need to consider who Maritime NZ will send to conduct these audits? Maritime NZ will also need to significantly increase it's in-house resources to assume the full auditing role under MOSS in order to ensure it has the capability to adequately cover the whole domestic fleet. There is certainly not enough financial evidence presented to show that they have done the sums correctly. And if they have underestimated this task, it will be the operators who bear these increased costs in the long run. Two of the biggest issues with the rule philosophy are the reduction in the role of the private sector generally. For example, MR44 now says that a surveyor can be a Maritime NZ employee. Maritime NZ is directly auditing surveyors and operators rather than enabling the private sector to do it. This sector is generally more efficient and responsive. Maritime NZ is not being transparent about compliance costs. This is contrary to the Government's statement on better regulation (see http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/regulation/statement) which states that regulatory decisions should not be taken until "… implementation issues, costs and risks have been fully assessed and addressed". Clearly this has not happened. In summary, there is no compelling evidence for why such a change should happen. The problem is not necessarily with the product itself, but in Maritime NZ's ability to deliver it in a cost effective and efficient manner. MOSS does not seem to offer a total solution to the needs of our industry. There are some excellent concepts, such as reducing the paperwork on board and enabling a surveyor to certify a vessel immediately after his inspection. There are however, many hidden costs, such as the additional surveyor time required to review operator maintenance and survey plans. More information about this is needed; at this stage, it appears they are disproportionate with the perceived benefits. Our industry needs to move forward and grow. We need to take more control of the outcome of this and get a better return on our investments. To achieve this, we need to be sure that the rules are relevant, modern, and cost effective. The current MOSS proposal does not appear to meet all these needs. On a positive note, Maritime NZ, under the new Directorship of Keith Manch, has shown an interest in a more open dialogue with Industry. The Maritime Transport Association will be looking to table concepts that consider an industry working group and the possibility of a simplified version of MOSS for owner/operators of restricted limit ships. Members will be invited to contribute their ideas to this over the next couple of months. Next issue: MTA will cover a more in-depth article on the Qualifications Framework. For details on membership and to have your thoughts represented, please contact: info@ marinetransport.co.nz or 09-535 7702. A special thanks: Some of you will be aware of the recent proposals by Inland Revenue with regard to the policy requiring a 62 day benchmark for commercial use of charter boats. In the development of this proposal, charter boats were categorised with batches. Subsequent to the publication of this issue, Keith Ingram has been in discussion with the Minister of Revenue, Hon Peter Dunn, and we can advise that common sense will now prevail on this issue. Details will be reported later.