Why Oppose the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill

Principles at Stake

• Parental autonomy: Families are best placed to assess safe conditions for their children.
• Skipper responsibility: Current Maritime Rules already require lifejacket use whenever risk is present.
• Local authority: Regional bylaws exist for a reason — waters differ, conditions differ, and rules must reflect that.
• Proportionality in law: National legislation should be used only where there is a clear, demonstrated need.
• Te Tiriti o Waitangi: Māori authority over waterways and safety practices must be respected, not overridden.

What the Bill Gets Wrong

• Duplicates existing law: Maritime Rules Part 91 already governs lifejacket carriage and risk-based wearing.
• Removes parental and skipper discretion: It mandates wearing regardless of conditions, distance, or context.
• One-size-fits-all approach: It applies the same rule nationwide, ignoring regional conditions and local bylaws.
• No evidence of a safety gap: Children already have high compliance with lifejacket use, supported by education and community norms.
• Creates unnecessary criminal risk: It may penalise parents or skippers for brief, harmless non-wearing moments.
• Conflicts with Te Tiriti obligations: It overrides Māori decision-making about safety on their own waterways.
• Misallocates legislative effort: It focuses on a low-risk group rather than improving enforcement of existing rules.

Why This Matters

• It solves no demonstrable problem: There is no national evidence that children are unsafe under current rules.
• Parents lose authority: Everyday decisions become regulated even in calm, shallow, or enclosed-water situations.
• Local solutions are overridden: Councils that have already tailored rules to their regions lose flexibility.
• Māori communities are sidelined: Water-safety tikanga and kaitiakitanga frameworks are displaced by centralised law.
• National mandates reduce nuance: A flat rule cannot replace judgement about weather, location, experience, or vessel type.
• Legal overreach normalises State intrusion: Compulsory rules in low-risk settings set concerning precedents for family regulation.
• Public trust depends on proportionate law: When Parliament legislates where it isn’t needed, confidence in the system erodes.

What Real Water Safety Requires

• Education and awareness: Continued promotion of lifejacket use through Maritime NZ programmes.
• Risk-based judgement: Skippers and parents remain the most appropriate decision-makers.
• Local authority: Regional bylaws tailored to the actual waterways people use.
• Partnership with Māori: Safety frameworks developed in collaboration with iwi and hapū.
• Strengthening existing rules: Better enforcement of Part 91 where truly needed, not more legislation.
• Respect for family autonomy: Law should not intervene where safe practices already exist.
• Evidence-based policymaking: New laws should follow proven need, not symbolic intent.

If You Care About Autonomy, Effective Safety, and Te Tiriti Partnership

This bill should not proceed. New Zealand already has strong safety practices and legal requirements in place. A rigid national mandate removes flexibility, undermines parental judgement, and overrides local and Māori authority without providing meaningful additional protection.

If you believe in proportionate law,
If you believe in respecting family and community knowledge,
If you believe Te Tiriti requires partnership, not unilateral imposition,
Then the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill must be opposed.

“Good safety law supports families and communities — it does not replace them.” — Ukes Baha

Read the full submission:
Submission: Opposing the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill