To: Transport and Infrastructure Committee
From: Ukes Baha | 11 December 2025
Submitted in response to the Committee’s call for submissions on the Bill.
Under Maritime Rules (Part 91), skippers must carry correctly sized personal flotation devices (“lifejackets”) for every person on board and are legally responsible for requiring their use in heightened-risk conditions, including bar crossings, rough water, emergencies, and when a person is a non-swimmer. (maritimenz.govt.nz)
Most regional councils already require lifejackets to be worn on vessels under 6 metres, and non-compliance is enforceable with fines. (Waikato Regional Council)
Because responsible safety behaviour is already embedded in law, supported by regional bylaws, and widely practised by New Zealand families, there is no demonstrable national gap that justifies a new prohibition aimed solely at children under 15.
Current law places responsibility on the skipper—who is often the parent or caregiver—to determine when a lifejacket must be worn in response to actual environmental risk. (maritimenz.govt.nz)
The bill replaces this judgement with a blanket requirement that all children under 15 must wear a lifejacket at all times on a vessel under 6 metres, regardless of conditions. This undermines the core principle of the existing maritime framework: that real-time risk assessment is best made by those on the water.
In routine, low-risk situations, this amounts to unnecessary State intrusion into parenting and family decision-making. There is no clear justification for overriding the discretion of parents and skippers who already comply with safety rules.
The bill applies the same rule to all small vessels in all New Zealand waters, regardless of local conditions, community practice, or existing bylows. (legislation.govt.nz)
The current regulatory environment already includes:
A national, fixed rule removes local nuance and replaces it with a rigid statutory command—not because the present system is failing, but because of perceived inconsistencies that are better addressed through local governance, not central expansion.
The Ministry of Justice’s Bill of Rights analysis found no immediate rights breach, yet the bill still introduces a compulsory behavioural requirement affecting families in routine recreational activity. (justice.govt.nz)
Human-rights principles in Aotearoa emphasise:
Replacing judgement-based safety practice with a fixed age-based rule restricts these freedoms. Any limitation on such rights must be demonstrably justified, supported by clear evidence of harm requiring national intervention. That evidence has not been presented.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi affirms tino rangatiratanga—authority and decision-making power—for Māori over their people, practices, and local waterways.
A centralised rule mandating how children must dress or behave on small craft:
The bill treats Māori communities as passive recipients of State policy rather than active partners with their own well-established water-safety tikanga. This is inconsistent with Te Tiriti principles of partnership, participation, and protection.
A Te Tiriti-compliant approach would require co-design, not unilateral imposition.
Maritime Rules and regional bylaws currently provide:
These frameworks already work effectively, maintaining safety while respecting parental judgement and local authority. The bill does not materially improve safety beyond what existing law already achieves; instead, it hardens one small part of the system while ignoring the strengths of the existing adaptive approach.
This bill is not needed because:
Recommendation:
The Committee should not recommend the bill proceed. Where further improvements to water safety are desired, these should be pursued through enhanced education, strengthened existing maritime rules, and local, Treaty-aligned partnerships, not through unnecessary national compulsion focused narrowly on children.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com