New Zealand Immigration Officer Making Wild Claims

[Bluewaters2812]

You seriously should forget about buying that boat if this is the way you're planning to approach things.[/QUOTE]

No need to get personal. Keep your opinion to yourself if you feel the need to get personal or stuff off!

[goneyachting]

In New Zealand we have a very strict Category 1 code, written by the NZ yachting federation, to pass to be able to sail offshore, for NZ boats that is. But one needs to know that New Zealand is responsible for a huge chunk of ocean when it comes to SAR and our little navy is often called to help foreign yachts in distress at a huge cost to our taxpayer, our customs are understandably concerned if they feel a foreign vessel is heading off and in their opinion are unprepared.

[Target9000]

Originally Posted by goneyachting

In New Zealand we have a very strict Category 1 code, written by the NZ yachting federation, to pass to be able to sail offshore, for NZ boats that is. But one needs to know that New Zealand is responsible for a huge chunk of ocean when it comes to SAR and our little navy is often called to help foreign yachts in distress at a huge cost to our taxpayer, our customs are understandably concerned if they feel a foreign vessel is heading off and in their opinion are unprepared.

Does the Category 1 code have any regulations in it related to the two of the comments that the OP made.

1) Stainless steel bolts are unfit for chainplate usage

2) Plants in the cockpit make the boat unfit for voyaging

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

I guess NZ should have thought about it when they signed up to the treaty? If they are too small to reciprocate then stay out of the treaty.

Something is not right if an immigration official is concerned about areas outside his juristriction.

NZ is located in the roaring 40's, some of the roughest waters in the world with regular rescues.

Following recent rescues would not be surprising if mandatory carrying of EPIRBS was mandated for all vessels. Now some would see that as an vast imposition on there personal freedom however from the perspect of the rescue authorities an appropriate use of relatively cheap modern technology.

[Paul L]

Not having the NZ officials side and only having the OP side, makes this sound fishy at best.
FYI, any boat leaving a US port can be stopped by the officer in charge of a Coast Guard vessel if they believe the voyage is manifestly unsafe.

[chris_gee]

For NZ boats as others have said a category one safety inspection is required. The requirements are essentially prudent seamanship and self sufficiency given that the nearest landfalls are over a thousand miles away and the waters can be very difficult. Comments on nanny states etc seem uncalled for.
The rules do not apply to overseas registered vessels.
Immigration officials have no authority to be involved in safety questions. The person sounds like he is sounding off.
However there are a couple of provisions whereby a vessel can be held if deemed unsafe.
See New Zealand Customs Service : Yacht & small craft departure
Or Maritime Safety Act
55 Detention, etc, of ships and maritime products

(1) The Director may from time to time do all or any of the following:

• (a) detain any ship or any ship of a particular class:

• (b) seize any maritime product or any maritime product of a particular class:

• (c) prohibit or impose conditions on the use or operation of any ship or any ship of a particular class, or the use of any maritime product or any maritime product of a particular class:

• (d) impose conditions on the release from detention or seizure of the ship or maritime product.

(2) The powers under subsection (1) may be exercised where the Director believes on clear grounds that—

• (a) the operation or use of any ship or maritime product or class of ship or maritime product, as the case may be, endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, or is hazardous to the health or safety of any person; or. ....
  

Prudence might suggest inspecting rigging and chainplates regularly. However it is not a requirement for overseas boats. A piece of bamboo and pot plants are irrelevant.


One might suspect this is simply an official big mouthing. However immigration have no power to order a boat to be hauled to inspect for cracks. If this is required it would mean that Maritime Safety have serious and clear grounds to belief that the vessel is unsafe. Such an action would be rare indeed.
Which of the situations applies is unclear but can be determined by simply seeking the authority and rationale behind this.

[Steve Pope]

NZ Navy / Airforce plus the occasional civillian helicopter (inshore) and NZ CoastGuard (volunteers) look after the SAR events. The Navy/Airforce are normally used in fisheries surveillance within NZ's 200 mile economic zone. When they are required to do SAR it is a redirection of resources rather than a new cost, the money is being spent whatever they are doing. The ratio of yachting help / rescues would be minimal compared to the time spent helping / looking for sinking / sunk joint venture fishing vessels or Pacific island fishermen whose outboard has broken down and drifted into the wild blue yonder, or the searching for the Tongan ferry the Princess Ashika that sank with considerable loss of life. For many of the people doing the milk run down through the islands the 1000 to 1250 mile sail south is their first venture out of the benign tropics towards the rougher seas around NZ, Conditions that many Kiwis would consider to be normal would be thought of as extreme by visitors to our shores. They will have leaks (ports, hatches) where there was none before. They will experience 1 or 2 good blows on their way south as the weather pattern has a 7 day cycle so most get wet at some stage plus it gets colder. Most, when they eventually get here love it, some never leave, others keep returning. None I have heard of have had trouble with pot plants in the cockpit, lots of boats have small herb gardens on board, and the SS bolt issue makes me wonder if this is a sendup?

[chris_gee]

This quote from a previous post by the OP may provide some context.
Not that being an individualist or minimalist is a problem in itself.
My boat costs under $100 per year to maintain, so 90% of my spending is food. I have started more and more to grow food onboard, forage and hunt. I also regularly obtain free or cheap available stuff in one place and trade it for something better somewhere else. For example: I have found fillet knives diving and then trade for basket of fruit, or sunglasses for limes, diving mask for octopus etc..

That said, cruising around in new zealand has been extremely expensive, costing just over $5000 for 18 months. Again, about 90% is food, and this is so much because of my ridiculous chocolate addiiction which is over a third of my spending. I am glad to be leaving soon.

[Krawdad]

Cut the poor guy some slack you guys. He piloted his boat thousands of miles safely to NZ sailing some of the toughest seas on the planet. All the arguments about SARS responsibility and NZ laws may be valid in a context of real and substantive safety deficiencies but this is apparently not the case. If this customs official cited safety concerns over a potted plant and bamboo stick in the cockpit he is clearly way-way out of line and nothing more than a pompous ass on an ego trip. It is the height of absurdity. I have no idea what recourse this obviously veteran sailor has, but somehow common sense has to prevail here. If it were me caught up in this nonsense I would try to go over this bureaucrats head, barring that I would just leave if no one could produce a law in writing that prevented me from doing so.

[Boatguy30]

Toughest seas on the plantet? Check the origin of the word Pacific.

[Boatguy30]

And clearly this will be sorted shortly, as after 18 months, NZ will be in no doubt keen to be rid of this guy. Lucky for Aussies he will likely not be able to "afford" the visa and clearance costs.

[Boatguy30]

Originally Posted by Steve Pope

NZ Navy / Airforce plus the occasional civillian helicopter (inshore) and NZ CoastGuard (volunteers) look after the SAR events. The Navy/Airforce are normally used in fisheries surveillance within NZ's 200 mile economic zone. When they are required to do SAR it is a redirection of resources rather than a new cost, the money is being spent whatever they are doing. The ratio of yachting help / rescues would be minimal compared to the time spent helping / looking for sinking / sunk joint venture fishing vessels or Pacific island fishermen whose outboard has broken down and drifted into the wild blue yonder, or the searching for the Tongan ferry the Princess Ashika that sank with considerable loss of life. For many of the people doing the milk run down through the islands the 1000 to 1250 mile sail south is their first venture out of the benign tropics towards the rougher seas around NZ, Conditions that many Kiwis would consider to be normal would be thought of as extreme by visitors to our shores. They will have leaks (ports, hatches) where there was none before. They will experience 1 or 2 good blows on their way south as the weather pattern has a 7 day cycle so most get wet at some stage plus it gets colder. Most, when they eventually get here love it, some never leave, others keep returning. None I have heard of have had trouble with pot plants in the cockpit, lots of boats have small herb gardens on board, and the SS bolt issue makes me wonder if this is a sendup?

So only the "darkies" are a drain on NZs resources?

[boatman61]

Well all I can say is... if a Tiki 21 was allowed to leave NZ and continue a circumnavigation (many seemed amazed I sailed mine from Poole to Cherbourg, just 70 odd miles)... there must be more to this than meets the eye..

[roverhi]

The problems with crevice corrosion and SS fittings are well known. A matter of preventive maintenance which requires removing the fasteners and inspecting, at the minimum, on a regular basis. For most boats and most fasteners, the SS will last many many years. The customs guy was probably just passing on information he'd picked up.

The plants in the cockpit are probably a real problem at his next port. Know you can't bring dirt into Hawaii unless it's been sterilized and think that's a pretty universal no no. No nation wants a foreign organism brought into their country and dirt is a prime source of those organisms. If you want to grow things, do it hydroponically.

[GMac]

Originally Posted by NoTies

Gotta love the paranoid nonsense and mis-information that gets bandied about here.

Oh yes, it constantly amazes me how many think that as it's on the interweb it's true.

Lets bring some reality in here people rather than trash people, laws or countries based only on hearsay.

The OP has either got something very wrong or his boat is that scary it really is a danger.

The only contact a outward bound boat should have with NZ Immigration is a departure card which needs to be filled out. The Customs man takes that when he does the final clearance, at which time you must leave immediately. If an Immigration person is aboard it would suggest something very unusual is happening.

NZ Customs walk aboard, check all your paperwork and then stamp it. They then wish you a safe trip and help you chuck off the lines. They are not tasked with boat safety.

So if the OP is being pulled up by a NZ Official it will only be due to someone seeing something that scary they have questioned him as they do see it as a genuine and imminent danger to him. If anyone mentioned a plant that would only be to warn him it's probably not allowed at the next port. A bamboo stick? Why would anyone be concerned about that, unless he's using it for a mast or something stupid.

The NZ Govt makes NZ registered boats comply with MNZ Category One safety rules, that is administered by Yachting NZ. The Govt also has the power to stop any vessel should they see fit, it's an international thing. But they only use that in very extreme cases, very extreme. The last time I can remember that was years ago when some dude tried to row to Antarctica or somewhere silly like that. He was cleared out twice and then rescued from the Sth ocean twice. They shut him down at his 3rd attempt to save both his life and the rescuers.

Haveing cleared out of NZ many times in both NZ registered and offshore registered vessels I can say I have never once seen a Immigration officer, never once had the boat looked at by the Customs Officer and never once had any safety check what so ever on the non NZ registered vessels.

Just sussed and for those bored, here is the link to the actual NZ law any vessel leaving NZ must comply with.

Customs and Excise Act 1996 No 27 (as at 30 March 2013), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation. Section 33 is the bit your looking for.

There must be more happening than the OP is suggesting.