HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-04-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARINE SAFETY (DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL VESSEL) NATIONAL LAW (APPLICATION) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 March 2012.)

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:47): I rise and let the house know that I will be the lead speaker on this. I would like to start my contribution by giving some background. I believe that in 2009 COAG agreed to provide national regulation for rail, road and marine, and essentially it has claimed this will be simpler, cheaper, better and more consistent.

Rail was established in 2011-12 and the headquarters are now in Adelaide. Road was introduced and passed recently in Queensland and is yet to be introduced in other states. Marine was passed in the federal parliament in 2012 and is progressing at various stages in other states. I believe it is progressing very slowly. The marine bill was introduced on 5 March 2013—which is a great day.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: A birthday actually. So, in standing to speak on the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Application) Bill, I support the notion to apply commonwealth national law in each state. There will be a number of benefits for South Australia to have the national legislative scheme regulating domestic commercial vessels, and the bill to commence on 1 July will apply to the existing estimated 2,000 domestic commercial vessels in South Australia and will extend to the 230 crown vessels and 50 industry vessel operations, which include rescue, research and community vessels for training and for hire.

There are currently eight different marine safety regulatory systems involving the commonwealth, six states and the Northern Territory that govern the operation of domestic commercial vessels here in Australia, with a single national maritime regulator and a national safety system for domestic commercial vessels. Those people in our state who want to use our waterways, ports and harbours will have clarity and consistency on the regulations they must follow.

I think more people will need to be trained to obtain the coxswain certificate. I have consulted with many of the boating industry associations and interest groups, and one of the main concerns they have raised is the cost of the coxswain certificate. It is not just about the cost, it is about how they will have to do that. To gain a coxswain certificate, it involves a trip either to Port Lincoln or Port Adelaide. I think it is worth noting that it takes up to a week to obtain that certificate, so it will be a burden to those who are going to have to travel over to the West Coast or to Adelaide.

The domestic commercial vessels include ferries, fishing boats, trade ships and houseboats, but not recreation boats, foreign boats or defence craft. Just in saying that, one of the briefs we received mentioned a Scheme O—Other vessels. Vessels that will not be included include waterski and wakeboard towing vessels with inboard engines, and this concerns me. What is the difference between a waterski or wakeboard towing boat with an inboard motor or an outboard motor? There is no difference, so I think we need to get some clarity there.

Permanently moored vessels—a lot of vessels that are permanently moored can be commercial accommodation, so there also needs to be some clarity as to whether those commercial vessels will have to comply if they are permanently moored, or if they can actually be powered down to the waste transfer station or effluent stations. There is some concern there.

There are some novel vessels where the national standard for commercial vessels does not include an appropriate technical solution. I know of a particular vessel in the Riverland that is being used as accommodation for backpackers, but it also has a commercial venture as a tourist attraction, so there is an issue as to whether that vessel (The River Queen) will have to come under this scheme.

This bill will allow current approvals to continue until 2016. To gain a coxswain certificate, or for those vessels to be put under survey, there will be a transition period until 2016. Will that survey come in under more regular scrutiny? Again, that is something that we need to look at. Is the coxswain certificate ongoing? If not, how often does it have to be updated once you have achieved that accreditation? What sort of a burden will those operators come under?

We have consulted multiple departments, organisations and governments and asked whether there are any concerns raised by volunteer marine groups regarding new regulations and costs. Will some of those marine groups that I have spoken to, the like of surf lifesaving groups, have to be regulated? If so, obviously noting that Surf Life Saving SA has different crews for different times of the day, how many of those operators will have to have certificates of coxswainship? Will every operator who goes out on a commercial jet ski that is used for rescue also have to be accredited? Will those vessels have to have an operator who has a coxswain's certificate?

In my electorate of Chaffey, we have volunteer organisations that are using private vessels to do bird counts and tree counts and the like. Will they have to conform to regulation? I guess many of these questions that I am asking now will obviously be raised in committee stage but, again, it is about just exactly who will be impacted. Again, under this national system, the domestic and commercial vessels will be required to meet the same nationally agreed safety standards—so are the standards here in South Australia any different to standards interstate, or is this national accreditation going to have one rule fits all?

The people who design and build commercial vessels in one jurisdiction do not need to get their vessel re-certified each time they travel into another jurisdiction so, if commercial operators are travelling up the River Murray and they go from Victoria into New South Wales and then back into Victoria and into South Australia, will that accreditation roll from state to state? Will there need to be any different requirements? Companies that have national businesses and operate vessels in more than one state will not have to deal with the different laws and regulations. I think that is a great thing, so that if we can have a national standard, it will take a lot of the uncertainty out.

It is a bit like the fishermen, particularly on the River Murray. If you are a South Australian, you can fish freely in South Australia, but if you go to Victoria, you have to apply for a licence, and then if you travel into New South Wales you have to apply for another licence. So, at the moment, we have three different states with three different rules, and that is adding to the complexity. I guess we will see that this will provide national consistency and transparency and, as I have said, I think this bill will create much more clarity and transparency for all the operators up and down the river.

I would like to touch on the South Australian Houseboat Hirers Association, whom I met with, and that association generates about $8 million in hire fees alone. It is offering houseboat holiday experiences, and I want to be sure: when those houseboat operators are hiring out their investment—their million-dollar houseboat—to an operator or to a hirer, is there any accreditation? Is there any regulation that will be put on that operator?

As I see the law at the moment, they have to have a car licence, but they do not have to have a boat licence or a coxswain's licence. They are in charge of a vessel some 60 feet long, in charge of, in some cases, 10 or a dozen people, dealing with other river traffic. That is a concern because, as a regular river user, I watch many of these holidaymakers come up, and they really do raise people's eyebrows as they journey up the river with very little knowledge of just exactly what is before them.

Obviously, the Houseboat Hirers Association Incorporated is a not-for-profit organisation, formed in 1982 and incorporated in 1987. The association represents about 100 members and consists of about 160 houseboats. That goes all the way from Murray Bridge to the Victorian border and they are recognised as the only industry body. In consultation with them, they were very happy with this bill. They saw that it did not inhibit their business or jeopardise people coming up to the region and experiencing that houseboat holiday or houseboat experience.

I think overall the houseboat hirers industry has warmly welcomed this initiative. In the overall houseboat industry, there are approximately 800 hire-and-drive houseboats under commercial survey in South Australia and the vessels are inspected on a two-year basis out of the water on the slipways. Again, will this new regulation require any more regular surveys or will it be business as usual? Surveys are being conducted as we speak on a regular hire-and-drive business; every two years they have their boats surveyed. Will those regulations and rules change coming under a national scheme?

I would like to just touch on particularly heritage vessels. I was in touch with Friends of the PS Industry up at Renmark. They are very proud of what they have achieved up there with the PS Industry. It was designed and built at Goolwa in 1910, and launched in August of that year. The vessel was handed over to the South Australian Engineering & Water Supply Department way back in 1911. It was purposely built to de-snag the river, if you like—to pull out fallen trees, logs and anything that got in the way and made the river unnavigable. It also helped in the construction and the maintenance of the locks, weirs and barrages, particularly of note in South Australia with our seven locks and our barrages down at Goolwa. Back in 1970, it was handed to the town of Renmark as a floating, static museum, as it had come to the end of its life.

I would like to put on the record that the friends of the Industry have maintained it impeccably and have only recently upgraded the boiler. They always proudly say that it is the fastest paddle steamer on the River Murray, so that is another feather in South Australia's cap, as far as a river vessel being faster than any of those in the Eastern States.

In 1995, as I have said, after much expense with the upgrade of the Industry, it was licensed to carry passengers. The coxswain's certificate, as I understand it, has a schedule II certificate. The operators of the Industry very proudly say that they have done better than that, they have a schedule IV and V, so I do not think this legislation will impact on them, but right next to the PS Industry we have the Argo Barge.

The Argo Barge was a floating barge that was built in around 1915 or 1916 in Mannum. That barge was a non-powered barge. It was designed so that the barge would move up and down the river, and that barge had a pumping facility. It was able to pump water directly from the river and into irrigation properties so that people would have a mobile irrigation pump, if you like, and, in doing that, it was also purposely built for the South Australian government to perform irrigation and drainage by the engineering department.

Other than being a floating pumping station, it was a multipurpose barge and it was originally used to help dig irrigation channels, and many of you in here would recognise the huge amount of work back in yesteryear, in the early 1900s. Much of the channel country was dug by hand, or by horse and cart and plough. It was very flat country, and being a flood plain you could not just dig a channel and leave the dirt, clay or anything that was dug away on one side of the bank. It was about removing that clay or dirt so that you could actually have more productive country.

Again, the Argo was one of the largest barges built on the River Murray and proudly resides in the town of Renmark. In 1993, this barge was purchased by the Renmark council and the barge lay, sadly, on the bottom of the river at Renmark until the Friends of the Argo restoration committee formed in 1998. They were able to refloat and repair that barge, and it still floats proudly right next to the PS Industry as I speak.

Again, the heritage vessels are proudly demonstrated regularly up and down the river and we are always seeing some of the private barges and some of the community-owned barges, but they are all coming at a cost and ageing. It is a piece of our history that I must make mention of in this house that must be retained, and we need the ageing volunteers who look after our river history to pass that down. We do not need any more burden for the younger community volunteers who look after those heritage vehicles than we currently have.

In South Australia, we have about 230 crown vessels and approximately 50 industry vessel operations that will be captured under this new system. These include the ferries and obviously the widely reported Cadell ferry that was almost put on the non-existent heap. The importance of the Cadell ferry was made loud and clear by the communities of not only Cadell—the good member for Stuart here was front and centre in putting the case forward to the state government—but also the communities in the Riverland, and the deputy leader and I went up to Cadell for our public meeting to note its importance.

It is not just about the importance of that ferry to the town but also its importance to the surrounding communities, industry and the farmers who rely on moving their plant and equipment from one side of the river to the other. It is that national thoroughfare for people travelling on a highway. It is essentially used as a gateway to the Flinders Ranges and to the West Coast for those people who are travelling along the Sturt Highway and deviate to take the short way to the west side of the state.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: To get kids to school.

Mr WHETSTONE: Of course. As the member for Stuart says, it is a tool to get kids to school. It is also used for emergency services. The ambulance operators have regularly used it while performing ambulance duties. Doctors and nurses have come to me saying that they have used it in times of emergency. It is about the Cadell ferry being kept in service, as well as the many ferry services up and down the river, such as Morgan, Waikerie and Lyrup, which need to be put under survey.

I have noted that the department and the committee that was formed around the debacle with the Cadell ferry are looking at the age of the ferries. The significance of age of those ferries has now come into question. It is an ageing fleet. Just how do we address upgrading, restoring and replacing that ageing ferry fleet? It is a vital tool within the river communities and it affects the wellbeing of all the people who use those ferry services. How will this new legislation impact on those ferries, the operations and the maintenance? They are an ageing fleet.

These vessels that are currently regulated as recreation vessels should be commercial vehicles. In saying that, I will move on. We have talked about surf lifesaving boats and vessels that perform a duty. We have talked about ski schools. They are a commercial boat that is used commercially. Will those ski boats and wakeboard boats have to be surveyed? I did see that they were put under 'vessel O', which was an optional vessel, but we have not dealt with any of those commercial operations.

We have a lot of volunteers, particularly in the river communities, who do great work with bird counts and doing duck numbers. They travel the river to do tree counts. They update the departments and provide a lot of the statistical data that we need to underpin whether we have a duck season or a salinity issue in certain parts of the river. These volunteers are the eyes and the ears of a lot of the environmental population, who take it upon themselves to be good river watchers and good land managers. They really are a very important part of what we need to have as a volunteer base, but will they be impacted with this marine safety bill?

If we look at the competition side of things, there are waterski competitions and tournaments. Will those tournament boats have to be surveyed? Will they have to have operators that have coxswain's certificates? Again, they are being used for a commercial enterprise. If we look at the wakeboard competitions, will those wake boats have to be surveyed and have an operator? Remember that we do not always have people who sit in those boats all day, every day. We have a variety of volunteers out of those clubs or groups who share the burden of sitting in a craft all day and who regularly take up the responsibility of towing competitors up and down the river or around and around in lakes. Again, that is an issue.

If we look at race boats, there are several formats of race boats, particularly on lakes and on the river. We can start off with power boats. Those power boats in some cases are private and some are fully sponsored. If they are brought into a competition as a demonstration or as a crowd pleaser and are paid to go to those events, are they deemed as a commercial operator and will they be impacted on?

Waterski racing is something that is very dear to my heart. I competed at all levels for many, many years. Again, those boats are racing competitively, and in some of the bigger races we might have up to 200 boats in a race. I do not want to see any impact on that, because any motorsport is always under siege with the impact of regulation, insurance, regulatory constraints—

Mrs Redmond: And the cost of fuel.

Mr WHETSTONE: And the cost of fuel, yes. I must say, I do not think the race boats are anything, after being on a big seagoing pleasure craft last weekend. We have had many fundraising events. We have had many fleets of boats coming up and down the river raising money for charity, raising money for great causes. In recent times we have had the Novita river run, which is a great concept. We have a contingent of boats that start at a certain part of the river and travel down, raising money for charity. In many instances they are governed by commercial boats that help them navigate their way down the river. However, if they are out there raising money for charity, if they are out there raising money for the wellbeing of a constituent body, are they deemed as being a commercial exercise? That is something that I think will be raised as time goes on.

We see the Coorong Explorer—if I have that right—that travels the length of the River Murray. That is used for tourism. Again, will that boat have to have any change in its existing regulatory requirements to continue as an operator? Those boats, as I have already said, are used for historical re-enactment. Will those boats need any further regulatory requirements or will those operators have to have any change in their certificates of operation?

I think there are significant issues with every operator that comes up and down the river. As I say, this national regulation needs to be there to help operators. It needs to be there to obviously regulate so that people conform to a national standard. However, it is about the burden that this is going to put on these people. This is a bill that I support, but I do not want to see any abnormalities come into the fray that would put at risk particularly sports-orientated boats that use our rivers and our waterways, particularly the River Murray. So there is a bit of clarity that I will be asking for in committee. I think we need to look at just exactly how some of these vessels will be impacted.

I will just touch on scheme O in closing. Scheme O is a proportion of these government and privately owned newly captured vessels which would be deemed as being an other vessel. This is a category of new existing vessels for which there is no nationally agreed standard or regulatory treatment. So will there be any impact on those vessels of scheme O? In closing, I will hand over to another member, who I am sure will have some significant input.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:18): I will be fairly brief with my comments. It might surprise a few people to know that the electorate of Stuart does include some significant sections of waterway in South Australia. There is nearly 100 kilometres of coastline between Port Pirie and Port Augusta where this would apply and also, very importantly, a section of the River Murray from between Waikerie and Cadell through to between Blanchetown and Mannum. So I do have a particular interest in this issue on behalf of the people I represent.

I would also like to congratulate the member for Chaffey on being the lead speaker for the first time in this place and doing a very good job, raising a lot of important issues. No doubt he will continue to do that through the committee stage as well.

I will not go over many of the issues that the member for Chaffey has already ably addressed. I will certainly reiterate that the Liberal opposition supports this move and, from my perspective, supports it for a couple of reasons: because it is a good idea to streamline some rules and regulations and also, very importantly, the shadow minister for transport assured our party room that, from the briefing she received from the government, this would not be an additional cost imposition on operators of vehicles.

There might be some people who need a coxswain's licence, who did not before, but for people who are already operating under these guidelines, under a state jurisdiction, shifting to this broader national jurisdiction will not add any extra cost to them. I think that is exceptionally important. It is on that basis that I certainly give my support to this issue.

I do note that the new licences, whether it be a survey for a vessel or whether it be a coxswain's licence for an operator, would be valid in all waters around Australia once this kicks in. I would like to briefly add that it begs the question as to whether it is appropriate for us to have national road rules that would apply in every state and whether it would be appropriate for us to have driver's licences which would apply in every state as well. I am sure that seeing how this is implemented and seeing how successful this will be down the track and judging that in hindsight will contribute to that discussion.

I did have the opportunity to ask the Minister for Transport briefly, before I started my contribution, about houseboats. Houseboats on the Murray are very important. On the first reading of this it could be easy to just divide this up and say it applies to commercial vehicles and not to private vehicles. The member for Chaffey has raised an enormous number of different examples, which are important to go through, but I did just want to check about houseboats. The minister has assured me that houseboats for hire will not require any additional licence; so, essentially, a car licence is still okay.

So, while they are technically commercial vessels, because they are being hired out, so they are therefore in commercial use, as long as they are being used by the hiree for private use then there is no additional imposition on those people, which is obviously quite important in terms of just mums and dads and families enjoying the opportunity to rent a houseboat occasionally. It is not something that many people do on a regular basis, but is important that they get to do that. Of course, it is also very, very important for the hirers of those vessels that their business is not impeded because it has become too difficult for people to do that.

The opposition supports this move in broad terms. We will certainly have questions through the committee stage. A lot of my interest in regard to questions in the committee stage will be about volunteer coastguards. There is a volunteer coast guard operating at Port Augusta, and they do a fantastic job. Fortunately, they are not required very often, but when they are required we are very lucky to have them. I would just put a question on notice for the minister and hope that he can come back with an answer with regard to how additional costs to these volunteer organisations might be met, and will there be a government contribution, increased commensurately with the additional cost that the volunteer organisations would incur, by meeting, as I understand it, some additional obligations under this new regime.

I will leave it at that. As I say, the member for Chaffey has done a fantastic job. The shadow minister for transport will also, no doubt, make a very important contribution as she always does, but for me, on behalf of the people of Stuart, I put my support on the record largely based on the fact that we are told there will be no increase in cost to the operators of these vessels.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:24): Thank you for the opportunity to contribute today. This is a particularly important bill, and it relates very much to the electorate of Flinders and the extensive coastline and seafood industry we have. As has already been mentioned today, there are over 2,000 commercial vessels in South Australia, and I would guess that a significant number of those are resident around the coastline of Eyre Peninsula and the West Coast. What this bill will do, of course, is apply national commonwealth law to each state and it will provide some consistency.

Not that many of our vessels travel interstate, but of course with such a mobile workforce these days those who have coxswain's tickets are able to travel, and they will know that there is some consistency in application in what they do right across the state. I understand this new legislation will capture some new vessels at least that have not previously been required for registration, particularly the crown vessels. About 230 of those vessels will need to be registered and surveyed under this new law.

Sea rescue will also come into consideration. I know that we have vessels based in Thevenard, Tumby Bay and Port Lincoln as well which will come into consideration under the new rule. Obviously, if there are new vessels that come into consideration, those who operate those vessels will need to obtain a coxswain's certificate. That is a cost, but of course it is not a huge cost. It is some $450 or $500 and that will be available in our part of the world through TAFE in Port Lincoln. I cannot see any real issues with that. It captures those who were not previously considered and provides consistency, as I said.

I notice the member for Chaffey is our lead speaker. Congratulations to him on a fine job. I thought you might be sitting down here, mate, for that one, but anyway it is up to you. I have no doubt you will be asking some searching questions of the minister should the time come. It is not the first legislation to deal with national consistency across transport. Here a couple of years ago we passed a national law regarding rail. We established a national rail regulator. I remember the minister at the time, the member for Elder, as we stood up and contributed one after the other, said that he enjoyed our contributions because he knew everybody loved trains. I think the same applies here, member for Elder: everybody loves boats, particularly in my part of the world, so I know there are more contributions to come.

The member for Chaffey mentioned the historical boats. I will not keep the house long, but I want to take a couple of minutes to mention one particular historic vessel in Port Lincoln, that is the Tacoma. In fact, the Tacoma really pioneered the tuna fishing industry on—

Mr Whetstone: There was a special on at the weekend.

Mr TRELOAR: —Eyre Peninsula. The member for Chaffey is quite right; it featured on Landline just Sunday last, and no doubt it will be repeated. It was a documentary put together by Ian Doyle. I was privileged to have a preview of that shown at Ross Haldane's home in Port Lincoln, along with Ian Doyle himself and quite a few other fishing industry notables. It is a tremendous story. The boat was built in Victoria, in Port Fairy, 60-odd years ago and was sailed or steamed by three brothers, the Haldane brothers, and their families—really quite young families—all the way to Port Lincoln.

It was given some support by the then government in South Australia, the Playford government, to explore, exploit and develop the tuna fishing industry in South Australia. The opportunity was there in Port Lincoln to do that. Their initial efforts were using a purse seine net. That proved unsuccessful and it was not until a couple of Americans were invited out and demonstrated and advocated for the poling of the tuna fish that the industry really took place.

The interesting thing about the boat the Tacoma is that it was a North American design. It hailed from Washington state, hence the name Tacoma. Tacoma was the town in the US where the designs were originally drafted and the many sister ships were built. The Haldane brothers were able to acquire some plans from the North American company. They built the boat in Port Fairy; in fact they were boatbuilders rather than fishermen.

They built a truly lovely vessel which still potters around in Port Lincoln. In fact quite recently it did a trip with a few on board to try to pole some tuna in the old-fashioned way. I understand that was successful. Everybody on board had a good time and they got the allowed number of tuna for the trip. Congratulations to them, and congratulations to the Tacoma Preservation Society and the Haldane family for pursuing the heritage that is involved with this vessel. Once again, the former minister, the member for Elder, is well aware that the Tacoma is looking for a permanent home. No doubt I will be corresponding with the current minister about this.

We do hope to find a permanent home for the Tacoma within the waterways of Port Lincoln. It is obviously a historic vessel, and it is a treasure not just to Port Lincoln and the tuna industry, but to the state itself. I just thought I would make that brief mention in recognition of the Tacoma. Of course, that is one boat that will come under the new national safety laws, along with the many other vessels that fish in and around the west coast and Eyre Peninsula. With those few words, I commend the bill.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:30): I rise to speak on the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Application) Bill 2013, which is:

A Bill for an Act to provide for a national legislative scheme regulating domestic commercial vessels...

I read from the front of the bill because I want to make sure that everybody understands that, once again, this parliament in South Australia is giving a seal of approval to national legislation. I have spoken in this place many times about the risks we run as a sovereign parliament in the state of South Australia of devolving our powers to COAG and to other national legislation.

I remember speaking for a long period of time about the perils of national legislation—which, in the end, did not become national legislation—when I spoke about the regulation of medical practitioners. That was put to this place as being part of national legislation that was going to offer seamless movement of health practitioners across Australia between states and territories.

As I was able to show in my speech then, it was consistently inconsistent right across all of the states and territories. There were anomalies, changes and amendments, there was some mirror legislation, there was some legislation that was just being adopted, and there was a consistently inconsistent approach to national law which we saw not only with that legislation, but we are again seeing it, as I understand, with this legislation. Some states are looking to amend this legislation, and it will not be a seamless, one-size-fits-all piece of legislation across the nation.

I just spoke a few moments ago on a motion in this house about retirement villages, where we looked at the inconsistencies between retirement village legislation. That is why a select committee has been set up to look at what is happening in South Australia. I said in that contribution that I think we should have legislation which does allow consistency across Australia.

That does not mean to say, in any way, that we devolve the powers of the parliament of this state to make changes as we see fit for the people of South Australia. We have seen what that has done to countries in the European Union and the perils of having European Union legislation overrule sovereign national legislation. I think there are many countries that would now love to get out of the EU because they realise it has not been the best way forward for their particular nation.

I am not saying this legislation is not a good way forward. We should be doing all that we can to improve the safety of domestic and commercial vessels. But, when we put this legislation through, let us make sure that there is going to be some review of the legislation, whether it may be in three or five years' time, to make sure that this legislation is truly working and is consistent with the rest of Australia. I understand that we are amongst the first legislators to actually look at this piece of legislation.

It is very important that we do this. I speak from personal experience, having been out on vessels a number of years ago which were quite unseaworthy. Some of those were commercial vessels, and others were privately owned. I think safety at sea is something that you cannot ever take for granted; you should never underestimate the power of the sea.

Having been out in 50-knot gales for hours and hours with no ability to get into a port because of the structure of the port, it is a pretty ordinary experience being out there and knowing that, if you are not prepared—and we were prepared—you could die. People do die if they do not take their safety and the safety of their passengers as seriously as they should. You cannot get out and push. The member for Elder once had an unfortunate incident when the batteries on his boat—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Not my boat.

Dr McFETRIDGE: —on a boat he was on—were not fully charged and he had to be towed in and, unfortunately, that is one of those things that happens with some vessels when you are dealing with salt water and electrical systems. None of us would ever wish for any of us to be put at peril, never mind the other residents of South Australia or the nation.

This particular legislation, though, is going to cause some issues for boat owners. I think the member for Chaffey has pointed out quite well in his contribution—and I congratulate him on being the lead speaker for this piece of legislation—that there are going to be imposts: $463 plus one week's training may not be a lot of money to some people, but to people who are running marginal businesses involving the hiring of vessels, where they are putting all their money into making sure those vessels are up to survey, and are being kept as safe as they possibly can, that could be just another impost on them.

I would imagine a lot of those people would already have a coxswain's certificate. Now whether they need to have those upgraded, I am not sure, but that might be something the minister can tell us about—who that will apply to and whether there be any exemptions. I think the member for Chaffey asked about the situation where, if you own a ski boat and you drive that ski boat for somebody, and the boat has to be under survey, whether in that case you have to have a coxswain's certificate to drive that boat besides your normal boat licence. I do not know.

Obviously we want people to be kept safe. We do not want people to be out there being put in peril but, the issue is, let's make sure that the legislation as is being put to us now is going to be consistent across Australia, and let's make sure that it is going to do the job that we intend it to do, that is, to make sure that the commercial vessels are being looked after so that nobody is going to be put in any danger at all.

I think there are 110 pages of legislation, and I have not read all of it and, certainly, we have not seen the regulations yet, which will make interesting reading for all of those in the industry, and all of those who will be affected by this. I hope that the regulations are going to be made available—even the draft regulations—as soon as possible to all the stakeholders so that they can see what they are up against.

Certainly with the facilities levy that is going to be applied, and the facilities fund, I would like to know exactly what the regulations, or the guidelines, are going to be for the use of the facilities fund, and the changes to the levy in the future. Will CPI apply? Are there going to be arbitrary increases? What is going to happen, and how broad is that levy going to be? The fact that we have a wonderful state, a wonderful coastline—I often boast to people that we have more navigable islands than the Whitsundays, more hours of sunlight than the Gold Coast, and a greater range of marine flora and fauna than the Great Barrier Reef. We have a few sharks there as well.

This is a wonderful place to go boating. We have a lot of people and, in my electorate of Morphett, we have a number of charter operators with pleasure boats, with party boats as we call them, which take people offshore to fish and to enjoy themselves. We have dolphin tours going up and down there with Temptation, the big catamaran, and a number of fishing charters as well operating out of the Patawalonga. Now with the change in my boundaries, I pick up the Adelaide Shores from the member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Not yet you haven't!

Dr McFETRIDGE: We will be picking the Adelaide Shores up, and I will be making sure that I start to represent the people of West Beach as well as I have, hopefully, done my job in the electorate of Morphett. The Adelaide Sailing Club and Adelaide Shores is a very important part of the local industry there. I certainly will be making sure that I am in there, making sure those business proprietors and charter vessel operators who use that facility, and the Sea Rescue Squadron and the volunteers down there, are able to do what they want to do, that is, enjoy Adelaide's wonderful coastline and the gulf. If this legislation goes some way to making sure that they are able to do that as they should, but with maximum safety, then I think we should be doing all we can to make sure it is passed by this place.

The SPEAKER: The member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:40): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What an honour it is to have you here with us during this important debate. I rise to contribute to the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Application) Bill 2013. I place on the record my appreciation to the member for Chaffey for his excellent contribution to the debate—and other speakers, of course, who have contributed—and also for his management of his first bill in the house. There is often some trepidation but he has embraced it and is obviously ready for more, so I thank him very much for that contribution.

The application of national regulatory procedure follows the 2009 COAG agreement to provide national regulation for the rail industry, both for passenger and freight services in this state and also for heavy vehicles in road transport. Rail has been passed and South Australia is now the headquarters for that. Heavy transport on the roads seems to have hit a bit of a hurdle, but it is slowly progressing through some of the states that are considering it post Queensland's introduction for that purpose, and in due course they will provide the headquarters if it is passed in each of the states.

The concept of having national regulation is not one that usually fills me with joy but as our other speakers have said, the opposition will be supporting the bill. We are ever hopeful that all of the promises of national regulation will deliver what is promised, in particular that things are going to be quicker, cheaper, faster, more streamlined, more efficient and they are going to provide harmony and everyone will be standing shoulder to shoulder to provide a better and more consistent regime. For me, that has rarely been implemented. It rarely achieves the promises that abound, but we live in hope.

It was interesting that, for example, when we did the rail amendments to provide for federal regulation, there were all sorts of promises. I was then briefed more recently in respect of rail regulatory processes and the person who provided the briefing who was not from government but from industry said, 'Look, we welcome the new national commission requirements and the headquarters here in South Australia because the national regulation, we think, is a lot stronger and will in fact provide higher standards and we have welcomed that.'

Interestingly, when I got a briefing on that bill, South Australia was allegedly picked as the headquarters because we were so brilliant at what we did here with the South Australian model which was so fantastic and which we were following, so I could not have had more diametrically-opposed sets of information but we live in hope that that has been established and we hope that that will provide certain sets of standards.

Sometimes, there is a whole lot of attention put on the regulation of industries—or in this case transport services—with little attention to some of the really big issues and, frankly, for train drivers, a big issue is suicides on tracks. These types of things never seem to get the attention that all the investigation and preparatory work and reform are given, especially it seems at these COAG meetings, towards how we are going to streamline the rules that are going to give us money. In this instance, whilst we have a new regime, of course the government took the opportunity (all governments who are signed up to this deal) to say, 'Well, who else can we bring into the net?' Who else can we expand this to who will be required to be regulated, who will need to pay annual fees—

The SPEAKER: Surely, 'whom'.

Ms CHAPMAN: —who will need training? The Speaker interjects to give me some counsel on grammar: 'Surely you mean "whom"', and I apologise for that, Mr Speaker. How will this be applied for the purposes of providing a benefit to those who are now going to be captured under the system? Always the shout is, 'This is for safety reasons, and this is important for ensuring that we have a whole new set of rules which are going to protect these people, because we need to bring all these extra ones in because we think they are important and they need to be protected.' Well, if that was the argument, every maritime vessel would come under regulation.

To some degree, there are provisions in state law still. For example, you cannot drive from a tinny to a large vessel under the influence of alcohol. There are certain standards there and the police monitor that, and they will continue to have that role, but here we are going to have a whole lot more people who are going to be captured, not in the application of conduct and behaviour of those operating vessels, but in the training. Always with these things we say training is this great panacea of prevention that is going to be effective in reducing deaths or injury, in this instance in the maritime industry. I am not as convinced.

I freely admit my experience in operating marine vessels is much more limited than that of many others here in the house. Sure, I can operate a tinny, and I have most of my life. The safety obligations that exist for being even a passenger in a small vessel like that over the years have mounted and we now need to have flares and all sorts of other things. All of these things are introduced for safety reasons. We have a boat licence procedure, but now, for the operation of a whole lot more vessels, we are going to need to have training, as I say.

My experience otherwise has been at the board level for the One and All, and it does concern me that the resolution of the historic vessels has not been completed and we are having to debate this bill without those issues being resolved. It just makes me feel very sad that vessels which have provided extraordinary benefit to South Australia in training and in adventure activity, namely, the One and All and also the Falie, are now moored up getting cobwebs down at Port Adelaide. It just breaks my heart to see such magnificent vessels underutilised in this state.

I have even written to the minister about this, and the former minister, who is obviously riveted by this debate. I have sent copies of that correspondence to the member for Port Adelaide in respect to the future of the One and All vessel. It does concern me that here we are having to deal with legislation now which will cover vessels which are left I think practically abandoned by this government.

I say this as well: South Australia has a proud maritime history. We probably would not have been able to establish even as a colony or establish our first industries in fishing, whaling and sealing, for example, if it had not been for the seaworthiness of vessels, the capacity for them to be able to traverse the oceans, skilled shipwrights and navigators and of course the safety procedures both on vessels and onshore. We in South Australia had the benefit of the marine and harbors board. Interestingly, I have a little overlap of that in my life, because some members might be interested to know the marine and harbors board was headquartered for about 70 years in a building in Victoria Square in which I now have an interest and which is now legal chambers.

There are historic photographs of this building at the South Australian Library, and what might be of interest to members is that apparently the first female public servant in South Australia was employed by the harbors board. She is photographed, circa 1907, at the front of the building with others—of course, all men—who are the senior members of the Public Service in that area. So, it has a very distinguished history I think in South Australia. It has historically had a high level of prominence in government departments in respect of the marine operations in this state, and for good reason. Even today industry is very much dependant—and recreational activity and tourism and the like—on ensuring that we have all of those couplings of safety of vessels, seaworthiness, etc.

My biggest concern with this legislation is that it is substantially expanding. Those who provided briefings from the government on this bill have provided a summary of where other jurisdictions are in respect of dealing with this. The statement made in the briefing in respect of the extent of vessels to be regulated was that:

The majority of these vessels are already being regulated as recreational vessels under the SA Harbors and Navigation Act 1993, but should really be regulated as commercial vessels. They are work vessels and have similar operational risks as commercial vessels.

For some of the categories that are being introduced I would agree with that, but there are very large and substantial vessels subject to scheme O, which, frankly, I do take issue with as to whether it is necessary for them to be involved. I know that the member for Chaffey has raised some of the concerns about the application in those areas. My view is that the government has decided to take the opportunity in nationalising this to expand the revenue base and to bring in a whole lot of parties, a very substantial number of which will add very significant cost to state agencies.

It is not just those who might be tourist operators or those that might be in trust, for example in the management of historic vehicles. It also incorporates a number of volunteer marine rescue vessels, which of course are owned by government agencies and will place a financial burden on those departments which, under the current regime of treasurers in the last two years have insisted that they streamline. I think there is some inconsistency there in respect of the costs that are about to be placed on other government agencies to comply with this regulation.

I was also provided post the briefing with a schedule of the fees. Whilst there has been some consideration of the expansive (under this regulation) use of the obligation for a coxswain's certificate to be obtained for an increasing number of activities and classes of vessels used, I was a little surprised to see that some of the costs that are currently imposed under the Harbors and Navigation Regulations of 2009 are quite massive. We are not talking about a few hundred dollars. We are talking about very serious and substantial costs of annual fees of well over $1,000, for example. The survey costs are in the tens of thousands of dollars of cost for the regulation, and surveying, of course, is to provide for the inspection and obligations that flow from that.

I am concerned that this ultimately will be quite a significant revenue base difference. I think it is reasonable for the minister to disclose to the parliament what the expected increase in income will be from the revenue of all of those that this will apply to in the first full year of operation of this bill. As I understand it, we are pressing this bill through the parliament fairly quickly; we were asked to do so and we are happy to accommodate that, to ensure that there can be effective operation from 1 July 2013. Nevertheless, I think the government needs to explain that to us.

I am not convinced that the safety obligations here are the highest priority for the provision of marine services. I accept that they are an important part of our industry and our recreational activities in South Australia, and long may that reign. I am told that the existing providers for TAFE training are at TAFE at Port Lincoln and the Australian Fishing Academy at Port Adelaide, and there are opportunities for others to come in. Doubtless, we will have interstate training arrangements that come in to provide an opportunity for that service in the future.

I am sorry to see that the emergency services department, the primary industries department, the environment department and the police department are all going to carry some extra burden with this, not the least of which is the obligation to send off their personnel for extra training to comply with all of these new rules. If it is of benefit and we have some demonstrable improvement on safety, to be reviewed at least 12 months after the implementation of this legislation, I will be pleased, but I will not hold my breath.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (17:56): I would like to thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and lead speaker for the opposition. Given the time, I am not sure we have time to go into committee, not that I want to reflect on the operations of the house. It was the intention, member for Bragg, to go into committee but, given the time, I suspect that we will leave that for another time.

I will keep my remarks brief and perhaps when we reconvene we can go straight into committee. I just want to thank all the contributors. As we have heard, the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Application) Bill 2013 is a bill to apply the commonwealth national laws as the law in South Australia and it extends coverage to the national law to cover any gap in the commonwealth constitutional reach. I would like to congratulate the former minister, the Hon. Pat Conlon, on negotiating this important piece of national reform and look forward to its speedy passage in the parliament on another occasion.

Bill read a second time.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT