HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-04-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 20 passed.

Schedule 1.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, under this new bill, how many vessels will be captured by this legislation? We have had a briefing and were told that around 2,000 are already under the umbrella, and there would be another 230-odd that would come under crown vessels, but how many in total do you anticipate will be captured under this new legislation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised the 2,000 includes the extra vessels. I think, for river communities, which would probably be what you are most concerned about—and I am not trying to be presumptuous—I understand the advice I have received is that commercial riverboats, like houseboats, will just be required to maintain a certified driver's licence. I think that should alleviate your community's concerns; this bill is designed for other purposes.

Mr WHETSTONE: Of those 2,000 how many new vessels will be captured under this legislation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised around 50 industry operation vessels, and around 200 to 230 crown vessels.

Mr WHETSTONE: Again, schedule 1, part 1, section 7: what will be the impact on government and privately owned vessels under scheme O under this new legislation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that concerns were raised about scheme O vessels which include permanently moored vessels, volunteer marine rescue vessels, waterskis, wakeboard-towing vessels with inboard engines, ferries in chains and unpowered barges. Scheme O is a category of new and existing vessels for which there is currently no national agreed standard or regulatory treatment. I am advised that it has been agreed that in the three-year transition period from commencement of the national system, work on nationally agreed standards for the treatment of these vessel types will commence.

I am advised that in the interim period these vessels will continue to be subject to the applicable pre-existing South Australian requirements—that is, where they are subject to recreational requirements, they will continue to be required to comply with those. If they currently have no requirements, that will continue on until a standard has been agreed.

I am advised that the proposals regarding treatment of scheme O vessels will be subject to unanimous ministerial council agreement, that is, every state and territory must agree, following appropriate public consultation. It is recognised that for some of these vessel types there are longstanding local approaches that cannot be easily reconciled nationally.

Where the number of vessels involved is small and the local solutions are operating effectively, it may be that the national solutions will not be agreed and the current regulatory treatment will continue beyond that three year transition period. The national system for commercial vessels applies a risk-based approach where a vessel's operations are low risk, the intention is not to subject them to unnecessary regulatory burden. So common sense will apply.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, minister. Just some clarification—under 'the vessels subject to scheme O', dot point 2 does say, 'waterskis, wakeboard-towing vessels with inboard engines'. Could you please tell me what the difference is between a waterski boat or wakeboard-towing vessel with an outboard engine, as opposed to an inboard engine?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that inboard engines on these types of vessels are usually petrol engines and therefore there is a higher risk of explosion. The inboard petrol engine is more prone to fire an explosion than outboard because the ignition source on an outboard is away from any potential fuel leaks. I am advised the difference is risk. This is why waterski or wakeboard-towing boat with an inboard engine are separated from the ones with outboard engines in scheme O and why they would be looked at with a view to developing a national approach to their regulation.

Mr WHETSTONE: In saying that, the explanation seems to be based around issues with fuel.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Ignition.

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes. Minister, both outboards and inboards have their fuel tanks inside the cockpit of the boat. I am looking for some direction as to what is the difference between an inboard and an outboard, particularly with where the fuel cell is kept.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is all about proximity to the ignition source, I am advised. I am not a marine engineer and I suspect that you are not, either. That is not to say that your concerns are not valid. However, I think the appropriate risk-based approach is that when the ignition source is further away from the fuel source there is less likelihood of an explosion. When you are in a confined space and that fuel source is close to the ignition source there is probably a greater risk of explosion, and that is the reason for the regulatory difference. I can understand why some people may think it is over-burdensome regulation, but I can assure you that it is all based on minimising risk to the those users.

Mr WHETSTONE: If we are talking about fuel and ignition, obviously the ignition is driven by a battery. No matter whether it is an inboard or an outboard, the battery is still inside the cockpit of the boat. Inboard or outboard, the fuel is still on the inside, or underneath the floor—inboard or outboard. I am just trying to get some clarity around why an inboard has been classified as a less safe boat than an outboard.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that senior engineers from across the country, who have expertise in this field, have considered this on a risk-based approach. I am assuming that inboard engines, where there are risks of fumes and greater leakage within a confined space, can create a circumstance where there could be an explosion. Again, I am not an engineer; I am taking advice from the department on this.

It seems reasonable and prudent. However, I can see your point that some people who may run both types of machinery may not see any greater risk. I can assure the honourable member this is not government gone mad or regulation gone mad; it is simply taking the advice of engineers who know what they are talking about. I am also advised that the standard has not been finalised. It is going through a three-year consultation period, so that standard is not finalised as yet, but it is prudent to look at it.

Ms CHAPMAN: On schedule 1, part 1 of the bill, clause 2, is it still proposed that this will commence on 1 July 2013?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: God willing, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Other than divine intervention, I will take it that as an assumption that it will be. A marine incident, which is going to be the subject of obligations to report and have investigations and the like, is defined in clause 6 on page 17 of the bill. I will just set the scene here with what I will call 'usual', of course—where there is a death or injury to a person associated with the operation or navigation of a vehicle, collisions and the like.

Included in that is a collision by a domestic commercial vessel with an object. I do not imagine that happens a lot, but I am aware of one in South Australia that occurred in January 2011 (it may have been 2012) of which the minister may be aware; although, he may not, because he is only the new, freshly minted Minister for Transport in covering this responsibility. On this occasion a barge in the Port River collided with the bridge. On this occasion, for the purposes of this a barge is a domestic commercial vehicle.

Notwithstanding apparent reports at the time that the collision had occurred as a result of the barge hitting the bridge, it actually became clear that the bridge had hit the barge. How would that happen, the minister might inquire? Somebody, somewhere, let the bridge come down after it had been opened and it collided with the barge which was at that time attempting to go through the opening quite legitimately.

On that occasion, I am told, on subsequent inquiry, it appeared that there were a number of things that had not been done. I will summarise them and I hope I am giving a correct reflection of what occurred. The situation went something like this: before the relevant proposed transfer of the barge through this passageway, the appropriate notification was given to those in the department for transport who operate the bridge that this would be required and that there would be a traversing of that passage by the barge.

I do not know a lot about barges, minister, but I understand that they do not self-propel and that they need to be towed, and that the usual way of doing that is to have tugs or some other similar type of vessel which pulls them along. For the purposes of this exercise, to go through the bridge, of course, it had to open, so that it could safely traverse that area, and it was pulled along for that purpose and, of course, relevant notice had been given. The operator of the barge duly was sitting there early one morning being pulled along, the bridge was opened and it then closed on top of his vessel.

It appears that, thankfully, nobody was injured. There was some property damage. Certainly nobody was killed, and those who were operating the tugs apparently escaped without any incident, thankfully. Subsequently there were inquiries and negotiations and the usual reporting and I am going to be asking you, minister, some questions about how the process of investigation of an incident like that changes from the current system that we have to the new system because, obviously under this definition, it is still going to apply.

Firstly, as I understand it, because safety is such an important component of this new responsibility of the national regulator, my understanding is that, there had been some identified error—if I could describe it as broadly as that—on the part of the operator of the bridge in not having adequately recognised that the booking for the traversing involved three vessels and when two had gone through, they thought the job was completed and whacked down the bridge.

In any event, I am not here to discuss who was negligent or who was contributorily negligent or otherwise, but I am sure the minister will appreciate that there are some very serious penalties in here. I would like to know firstly: if that was to occur under the new regime that is proposed, firstly, who would that be reported to and who would be required to report it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that, for the purposes of the bill, AMSA, the national regulator, will be the receiving body of the reports. Obviously the operators, which would be the traffic authority, would make a report, as would the operators of the barge, and the national regulator would investigate.

Ms CHAPMAN: I take it from that that both the traffic authority and the operator of the barge have obligations to report it. How does the traffic authority have an obligation under this proposed bill to do that? Where do I find that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that for the purposes of this act, deputy leader, the department has delegates assigned to them from the national regulator, so that would be a reporting body. Also, the owner of the vessel would be required as well. In terms of, is there a direct requirement within the act for the department, and that that is the entity that runs the public piece of infrastructure, obviously, as a government, we would avail ourselves of the national regulator, but we are also provided with a process of delegates through the legislation and they would make these reports.

Ms CHAPMAN: I want to be clear about this. I know the operator of the barge has to report it because that is clear in this bill. Whilst the traffic authority was involved because it was the operator of the bridge in the incident, I do not know anywhere in the bill where its obligation is to report it to the national regulator, irrespective of whether the national regulator is actually a person sitting next to them in the department as a delegated thing or not.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will be clearer. The advice I have received is that the entity that owns the object that has been collided with—the permanent piece of infrastructure—has no obligation to make the report; however, the vessel owner does.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, I will cross off the traffic authority, that is fine. You see, minister, one of the things that happens with motor vehicle accidents is that all parties who are involved in the accident have obligations in the first instance under our road traffic laws to report it to the nearest police station, or words to that effect. So, even if you think it was not your fault, or you might have only had minor damage and so on, after a certain threshold, everyone has to report.

In this particular incident, which is an unusual one, I will grant it, it appears there is no obligation on the other party to report the incident. It may be that, as a result of a statement made by the barge owner in this instance, it seems important to the national regulator that he or she conducts an investigation and summons the other parties under their powers and so on, and they will pull them in, obviously, to ask questions, and they have certain powers to inquire, etc. But there is no obligation for them to report?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I suppose the analogy that I can give the deputy leader—the one that she gave was a very good one, because it was, basically, from the description she gave, a bridge hitting a barge rather than the other way around. However, if a dislodged buoy or a log or debris in a waterway collides with a vessel, I am not sure what regulatory onus we could put on the debris to make a report.

So, given that the practical commonsense solution to this is that the owner of the infrastructure that has been collided with is generally a government entity or a private corporation who owns a piece of infrastructure, even though they do not have a direct requirement, the Department for Planning, Infrastructure and Transport has delegates within the department who would make these reports, and the owner of the vessel that collides with the piece of infrastructure has a reporting requirement.

So, I suppose, to take your analogy a step further, if a boat collides with a log, the log has no requirement to make an application to the national regulator that they have collided with a vessel, the vessel does.

Ms CHAPMAN: As long as you appreciate, minister, that we are not talking about a floating container in the ocean or a log or something else that may not have an identified owner, but there are plenty of situations where there are. In this instance, one is the bridge which happened to be owned by a department that is familiar with the processes and so on, but what if it was a piece of equipment (a pontoon or something) that was owned by a school that was carelessly or recklessly left unattended in a waterway which it collided with.

There can be other situations. It may not have been a government school. Do you understand my point? Those who might be responsible—even negligent or reckless or criminally liable—for leaving equipment deliberately, recklessly or negligently in the course of their operating a domestic commercial vehicle, may be equally culpable and ought to have some obligation on them.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No doubt, but I am not sure how someone who has negligently left an obstacle in a waterway could then report a collision because they would not be aware of it. It is not to say that there are not penalties in place. I am assuming you are looking for almost a legislative trap for people who are negligent, so if you do lodge debris or something is not moored properly or something drifts off into the water, the ocean or an oceanway and they collide, there is another offence of not having reported it to the national regulator. I do not see the need for it but I understand your raising the point.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to page 21 under clause 7 which is the definition of 'domestic commercial vessel'. As you have explained in some earlier questions, the definition is fairly comprehensive but there are a number of exemptions under 7(3). The usual suspects are there. Clauses 7 and 8 cover the exemption for a domestic commercial vessel while it is in the course of its construction and, for obvious reasons, while it is still sitting there on the slipway it does not have to comply with all these things, but it seems to become covered by definition as soon as it has been delivered under the relevant building contract which is in clause 8.

When Holden's finish building their car and they deliver it to a wholesaler as a product, it usually does not have to be registered until someone comes along and buys it and then wishes to use it. My question here is: is there some obligation here that all of these registration obligations commence even if the recipient at the conclusion of the building contract is not intending to use it straight away? Do you have to actually start paying the fees straight away?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that while the boat or the vessel is not in the water, registration is not required. So when transporting it on a trailer or in a slipway, for example, it is not required. When the vessel is in use, registration is required. There are rare circumstances when an exemption can be granted by the department, I am advised.

Ms CHAPMAN: Not until use.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Not until use.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, the purpose of the national regulator is to investigate, monitor and enforce activities under/or for the purposes of the legislation. Will this result in extra costs for South Australians and will further resources be provided to cover these extra costs?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I just seek a point of clarification from the honourable member. Are you talking about its powers to investigate incidents, or are you talking about its general operation as a new piece of legislative framework?

Mr WHETSTONE: Both. Obviously, this is going to encumber more vessels, with more regulation being on those vessels. So, will further resources be provided to cover those costs?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that we are working within current resources and there is no fee increase subject to this legislative change.

Mr WHETSTONE: So, if there are more vessels that will come under this new legislation, there will be increased surveillance of vessels that will increase the need to put more resources into monitoring the vessels. I guess, essentially, we will need to provide more resources to cover more vessels.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that that will be a matter for the national regulator but, obviously, there are delegations in place and we will use our existing resources to implement it.

Ms CHAPMAN: On schedule 2—which, of course, my learned leader here in this debate has identified—the national marine safety regulator will have certain powers and obligations. I just want to be clear. The new national regulator is going to be based in Canberra, is that correct? Has he or she been identified yet as the person who is going to be appointed to this position?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the structure of AMSA will have a governing board with a chief executive, who will be answerable to the board, and it will be based in our nation's capital, Canberra.

Ms CHAPMAN: That fills me with confidence but, in any event, how many people are going to be on the board and how many people will be employed in Canberra for this job?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised it is a corporate structure that is already in existence. As to how many board members it has, I do not have that answer for you here now; I can get that for you. They already regulate large vessels.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, this is a contingent that is already based in Canberra but will just have a board attached to it. Will the board be paid and, if so, can you give me an estimate of the cost for the first year of operation of the new structure in Canberra which, I note, incorporates some already existing structure?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the national regulator will be funded by the states, the Northern Territory and the commonwealth until 2016, in accordance with arrangements set out in the intergovernmental agreement signed on 19 August 2011. For South Australia, this is 7 per cent of the national cost—an increase of $77,700 in 2013 over the state's annual contribution to the National Marine Safety Committee, which is to be discharged upon commencement of the national system, as the national regulator will take over this role.

Ms CHAPMAN: So we have an annual contribution. I am not sure what that is, but we are going to be paying $77,700 more than whatever our annual contribution is. Do you have an estimate there of what our annual contribution is, minister?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will take it on notice and give it to you between the houses.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the course of setting up the new structure, is South Australia expected to be transferring any personnel to this body? If not, could the minister tell us how many currently in South Australia are undertaking the enforcement responsibility, which will continue even under this model, in managing marine safety—how many do we have now and how many are we going to have?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised there will be no transfers to the national body.

Ms CHAPMAN: How many do we currently have?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there are currently 17 officers at DPTI who would be authorised.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think this is clear from what you have previously said, minister, but if you could clarify it: even with the expansion of some 200-plus vessels which will now be caught under the new system in South Australia, are you saying that the current 17 officers will be able to absorb that responsibility within that existing workforce?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised there will be a three-year period while we are calculating and understanding how—obviously there will be a three-year consultation period. The risk-based approach being adopted by the new national regulations do not necessarily mean that the new vessels coming online will have a greater risk and therefore require greater regulation in terms of manpower, for lack of a better word. While we are still calculating and trying to understanding exactly what their new roles will be, the department does not anticipate the requirement of any more resources.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you for that, minister, because, of course, they have had a few years to work it out. I am sure you will be surprised, as I will be, if you receive a submission as we approach the budget for extra funding for these things, if in fact you have been told one thing and something else occurs. But let's hope that is the case and that that can be accommodated in the resources that are currently there.

Mr WHETSTONE: My question is on Schedule 1, part 3, division 3, which is on page 26 of the bill. What will be the impact on recreational vehicles using rivers and waterways under this new legislation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised none.

Mr WHETSTONE: When you say 'none', the impact on those recreational vehicles—will they come under schedule O, which is still being sorted out?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: To clarify, are you talking about the hire and drive vessels or are you talking about all recreational vessels?

Mr WHETSTONE: I guess I could differentiate the different recreational vessels. Hire and drive, yes, but we could also differentiate recreational vessels as a vessel that is being used for recreation in a competitive sport. So, if we are talking about scheme O or a vessel under scheme O that would be used in a waterway that would be used for a competitive waterski event or wakeboard event or the like.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that competitive sport vessels are not captured by the regulations.

Mr WHETSTONE: If competitive vessels are not captured, then under scheme O you have waterski wakeboard towing vessels with inboard engines. Now, those vessels are used for recreation and competitive sport.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice I have received from the department is for that purpose it is only hire and dry vessels that are captured.

Ms CHAPMAN: Part 3—general safety duties relating to domestic commercial vessels. This is the section that imposes all the obligations and offences, minister, on a number of different categories of persons, including the owners, the designers, the builders, the suppliers, obviously masters, the crew, passengers, et al. I do have some questions about these. Firstly, I want to go to the duties of the owners, which is in clause 12 on page 23. This includes liability by way of prosecutions, and the offences are then laid out in clause 17 as to their penalties, I should say. It includes failing to implement or maintain a safety management system.

I am going to ask these questions and it may well relate to obligations that the master of a vessel also has—I don't know, which may be responsible, but I will ask this. As you know, there are strict obligations in relation to someone who has responsibility of a vessel when they are driving it to not be under the influence of any drug or alcohol. As I understand it, in South Australia it is still the situation that, if someone is found to be drink driving a sea vessel, then the police administer the enforcement of that. They board the vessel, they might require breath testing, they arrest persons, prosecute them, etc., as we would normally expect in road traffic offences.

Here, we are talking about a domestic commercial vessel, which, of course, has a responsibility out on the ocean to do whatever task it is doing and that may employ crew and the like. If I were to identify an analogy of a train driver, who in South Australia is required to not have any alcohol in their system, there are opportunities under their regulatory regime, which has also recently moved to a national scheme, for them to be required to provide breath tests and the like to be able to identify if they are having any alcohol in their system. The testing in relation to that—I am sure the minister is following this with interest.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I am.

Ms CHAPMAN: The results of that, as I understand it, if the train driver is found to have alcohol in their bloodstream, are that they may face suspension and/or a removal from office, but there is no obligation to report that to the police.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: There's the regulator.

Ms CHAPMAN: Either for the regulator or the police.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So if the regulator does the breath test.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, the driver of the train I'm talking about. They have a national regulation scheme. So, it is a way of keeping a check on to make sure—spot tests and so on—that people are not breaching not just the road rules but their obligation in relation to their employment, which of course has a high standard because they are carrying passengers. Similarly, I think, it is fair to say, if you are a bus driver or if you are operating a domestic vessel here on the high seas and you are responsible for crew and others, there are certain obligations.

There is an obligation on the owner of the vessel to have a safety management plan, and various similar provisions for others who are supervising on the ship. I just want to ask you: what is the situation in relation to the opportunity, the regularity, and the spot auditing of the operators? I will come back to who is responsible and who can be liable if this is found to be wanting in some way, but who—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: It's a criminal offence.

Ms CHAPMAN: For the criminal—there are imprisonment terms here, of course. Who is responsible for the security of ensuring that the operators of vessels or anyone in a supervisory position is not under the influence of alcohol or drugs that would in any way impair their capacity to operate on these commercial vessels?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised by the department that, in the operation for the purposes of this bill, the enforcement provisions remain as they are now. However, talking of the examples you raised, the safety management plans to be derived are the responsibility of the company or the master. For example, if the safety management plan of the individual company is for random alcohol or drug testing before or after a shift, that is their opportunity to have their safety management plan in place.

The current law as it is now will apply after the commencement of this act, so it will still be the current law enforcement principles. I think what you are asking me, just to clarify for the department, is: is there any change from what happens now to what happens under the management of the new system? I am advised that the answer to that is no.

Ms CHAPMAN: Let's be clear: I am not talking about those where the police are involved—we talked about that process; it is a different matter. We are talking about obligations here under this act, which include doing a management plan for all of the different parties that are referred to in here.

You have told us that there are 17 people in the department who are managing this at the moment. Are you then saying that the obligations that are now here for the new duties under all these categories—I will come to the penalties in a minute—are exactly the same as those that apply under the current state marine safety obligations?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I was talking about the criminal—

Ms CHAPMAN: No, forget the criminal; I left that aside initially. I am not talking about police going out there and jumping on and taking a breath test; they are out of the category. I am talking about the marine safety obligations here.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the marine officers who we have in place and who implement current safety marine procedures and laws now will still be operating and will have the ability to implement the national regulations. If you are looking for a more particular example, I am assuming you are talking about boarding powers.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry, we are at cross purposes. Under part 3, there are general safety duties, and at present we have a law in South Australia, in relation to the current vehicles that are registered, covering certain things that owners, crew and masters have to do already, and 17 people in the department handle that. We have a new set now, which is going to be channelled and supervised through a national regulator.

It seems to me on reading this that we have got a new level of obligation for some of these categories, including the maintenance of a safety management system which does not apply under the current system. Now, I may be wrong, so I am really asking you: what is the difference in the obligation of these categories of persons—owner, master, crew, passenger etc.—under the new system than it currently applies under our state system?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the national law sets out the general safety duties required of owners, masters, crew and passengers to ensure the safety of all vessels, marine safety equipment and operations. The national law sets out the duties relating to design, construction, manufacture, repairs, modifications required, vessel designers, builders and suppliers.

The GSDs are not different to the similar obligations that apply currently for commercial vessel operators under the South Australian work, health and safety law. I am advised it is an extension of that. The penalties for failing to meet general safety duties and for doing something that results in the loss, destruction or serious damage to commercial vessels are detailed in the act. I will give you an example.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, in essence, things have changed, but they are now to be consistent with the duties that are under the state health and safety legislation, right? So, they have improved. What you have also said to us is that, even though there is now a new set of duties and clearly expanded because obviously the state occupational, health and safety legislation is much more onerous than previously applied, you are assuring us in the house that the 17 personnel in the department will be able to undertake those duties adequately, notwithstanding the extra obligation of what to inspect, etc., and not to mention the extra number of vessels?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the national regulator is drafting and consulting on the type and nature of audits to be conducted and their frequency, but I have complete confidence in the 17 men and women in the Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure to carry out their duties with vigour and in the usual pursuit of excellence and the safety of the people of South Australia.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sure, minister, that you have every reason to be confident in the workmanship and the indications of commitment of loyal members of the department, but it seems hard for me to imagine how they can actually identify that they are able to undertake this and give you that assurance when the national regulator has not even been appointed, he has not even set out the audit arrangement that he expects them to deliver, for example, and there is a whole new regime of obligation.

So, I would be taking that with a pinch of salt if I were you. Nevertheless, I am not saying they are attempting to convince you that they will be able to cover all that, but we will see. Are there duties under the current state law that impose obligations and criminal sanctions for designers, builders and suppliers?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Sorry, could you repeat that?

Ms CHAPMAN: In the current state safety duties, as distinct from the occupational health and safety laws, are there duties for designers, builders and suppliers, or is that a new category that has come into the state regime for the purposes of going into this federal system?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the general safety duties for vessel designers, builders and suppliers are that they must ensure that work carried out for maintenance and extraction complies with the safety requirements, and that any equipment supply is appropriate and safe for design and purpose of the vessel.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think I heard that already, minister. I have read that; that is in the bill. What I am asking you is: was this a category of group of having duties in the current state safety provisions, or is it newly added because it happens to be in the occupational health and safety? There is a new group; not just more boats, but more people.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Welcome back, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate continues.

Ms Chapman: You're most helpful.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes I am. I am from the government; I am here to help. I understand that the work safety act that you have been referring to applies, but this is a risk-based approach. I suspect—but I could be wrong—your questioning is leading towards: given all the extra onerous responsibilities surely 17 people is not sufficient to conduct and implement the new regulations being imposed upon us through this new national body. That is not necessarily the case, I am advised.

Ms CHAPMAN: You have been given that assurance.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, if you have that assurance, then we are completed.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, you have been given that assurance.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry, I thought you said you'd been given that assurance. Given that the methodology being used is changing and it is more of a risk-based approach and we are putting more onus upon individual owners and operators of vessels to conduct general safety duties, to have plans in place, I do not necessarily believe, and nor does the department believe, that the requirements will be much more onerous, but it will be more harmonised, and that is the approach.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, minister, that does not fill me with confidence, I might say. It is not just a question of whether we are just moving one set of rules over to a national group who are going to have control. That is one thing; that is the whole 'quicker, cheaper, more simple, more harmonious' and all that other piffle that we get fed every time we have a national proposal. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

What I want to know is what extra obligation is on the current group of people, the expanded group of people, and if 'designers, builders and suppliers' is a new category of people who fall under the marine safety regulation (as distinct from whatever state obligation they have—different group of people, a different set of people who supervise that) then I would like to know, because in coming into this model, they are also attracting very significant penalties of up to two years' imprisonment.

In between all of your answers, it seems that what you are saying is that, even though the national regulator has not been appointed yet and he or she has not set out the obligations for audit, inspection and spot audits and all those sorts of things, you expect this whole new system to be kept modest in cost or, even if it is expanded, to be a lesser cost because you are going to put the responsibility back on the masters, the crew, the passengers, the owners, the designers etc., to come up with their own master plans.

I have seen all that before. We have seen it in lots of situations. We have seen it in the public transport system. We have seen it with bus operators and the obligation of the contractors to provide for safety management plans and the obligation to have accredited bus drivers and we still have people driving around reading iPads. It does not fill me with confidence that we are going to transfer the responsibility of the enforcement of these new obligations back to the people who are doing it. It is a bit like the marine parks proposal. We are just going to hope all the fishing people comply with it.

I want to be sure that if we are going to go to this national model, or even if we keep it the same here, we are actually going to have a system that works. That is the purpose of my questioning this, so I would like to know whether, under the current structure, designers, builders and suppliers are already caught under our state marine safety legislation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Many of the vessels you are talking about are currently operating as businesses; they are workplaces now. As we speak, there are commercial fishing vessels off our shore and other vessels that are operating that have these plans in place already because they are required to offer their workforce a safe place to work. The national regulation simply brings that under a national standard.

It is not as if we are saying, 'Currently there are no standards and we have 17 people enforcing those lax standards, so therefore a national standard—we can still do it with the same number.' That is not what we are saying. What we are saying is that a lot of the work already being done is going to give us the ability to have the transferability through jurisdictions which is going to add to competitiveness for a lot of these vessels. These workplaces will have standards that will be harmonised across the country, so you will not have to have different training packages throughout different jurisdictions.

I think if we were speaking at Federation in 1901, you may have been right, but we are not speaking at Federation. It is 2013 and these workplaces have been operating for a long period of time and they have practices in place. The national standards for commercial vessels already apply in South Australia and that extends to designers and builders.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is what I asked—hooray. I am not sure that going back to Federation helps. I remember that in the history of Federation, we of course went into a Federation and Aboriginal men and women had the vote in South Australia and it was taken away from them when we went to Federation, so I cannot say that going national is always a good thing to do—but we will come back to the penalties on these, thank you, minister.

What are the current penalties for each of these offences? Duties of owners, for example, is in clause 13(1). The penalty is now two years for committing an offence. This is for the most senior offences. For designers and builders, it is two years' imprisonment or 1,800 penalty points. For masters, in clause 18 I think, there is a two-year imprisonment or 1,800 penalty points or both. Similarly for the crew, there is a two year imprisonment or 1,800 penalty points or both.

Passengers get 12 months imprisonment or 200 penalty points and, presumably, the worst thing they could do would be to interfere with the lawful activity of crew or somebody on a vessel, causing a safety risk. My question is: what are the current penalties for each of these under part 3, I think it is divisions 3 to 8?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that we do not have the current regime with us. We have the proposed regime, not the current regime, and that would be under the workplace penalties, so I will get those for you between the houses if that is appropriate.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just so that it is clear, it is divisions 1 to 7 of the principal offences. I do not need all the lower level offences which are under those, thank you, minister.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, I have an easy one for you. Could you please outline the coxswain's certificate requirement for those newly captured vessels under this new legislation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the cost of training for a coxswain's certificate is free for South Australian students who are eligible through Skills for All. The cost of issue of a coxswain's certificate is currently $463 and is valid for five years, after which it is subject to renewal at the current cost of $32 and requires a self-declaration of medical fitness.

I am advised that, for the newly captured industry operations small hire and drive businesses, the hirees of these vessels do not need to have a coxswain's certificate; they will just need to comply with current requirements, for example, either a boat operator's licence, a car driver's licence for houseboats or no qualifications for certain small hire and drive vessels operating in limited areas.

For newly captured government vessels, some agencies already have qualified coxswains as part of meeting their workplace health and safety obligations. For example, SAPOL has 13 staff with marine qualifications; the MFS has nine staff with marine qualifications, with another two expected to have qualifications by the end of the year; DPTI has 15 staff with marine qualifications; SA Water has 70 staff with restricted coxswain's certificates; and SARDI has about 30 to 35 commercially qualified staff, largely drivers.

It should be noted, I am advised, that of the newly captured government vessels, approximately 100 of these vessels are human powered, for example, kayaks used by TAFE for their outdoor recreation course at Regency Park, and they would not require a coxswain's certificate to operate. DPTI, I am advised, has been working for some time with these agencies to have them meet commercial standards in terms of both survey and marine qualifications.

Mr WHETSTONE: Regarding a commercial houseboat operator who does a hire and drive operation, there are two parts to it. The operator will hire his houseboat to a customer who has to have either a boat licence or a car licence to be able to operate that vessel. If he supplies a ski boat as an extra to that houseboat and the owner drives the ski boat as a service or as part of the hire, what requirements does he have to have to be able to supply that extra craft for the hire of that houseboat?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am assuming your question is about the owner of the houseboat who has hired out the vehicle to a customer.

Mr WHETSTONE: No, not the houseboat but the houseboat operator. There are services where a houseboat operator will hire his houseboat but he will also hire and drive his ski boat for the people who have hired the houseboat, so there are two vessels in the transaction. The customer will hire the houseboat and they will drive it, but the owner of the houseboat will supply a ski boat and drive that ski boat for his customers. What onus is on that owner of the ski boat?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I suppose what you are saying is: is the ski boat exempt? The advice I have is that they are unsure but the assumption would be that a ski boat is a commercial vessel. I am advised that it depends on the size of the ski boat. I am advised that there are certain requirements for a boat licence, so it would depend on the size and nature of the boat. Do you want to give me an example about the size of the boat?

Mr WHETSTONE: I will start off with some of the smaller fish—a standard tinny of 4.2 metres with a 50 horsepower outboard.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: That is a no?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is a no.

Mr WHETSTONE: Well, we will move up to a—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How about, rather than doing this, I give you between the houses some written advice about what the outcomes are and you can raise it when it returns to the House of Assembly?

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, minister. In relation to surveying and capturing more vessels, particularly on the River Murray we note that there are limited slipways. Are there currently enough slipways along the River Murray to accommodate any requirements imposed by the national regulator about the frequency with which the vessels must be surveyed?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that nothing changes. The requirements that are in place now will be required in the future.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. A. Koutsantonis]


Mr WHETSTONE: Just for clarification, I obviously have a little involvement with slipways on the river, and I have noted that there are limited slipways on the river. With increased vessels that will have to be surveyed, are there currently enough slipways along the River Murray to accommodate those requirements under this new national regulator?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the current practice will remain and there are adequate slipways. If you wish to have a more in-depth briefing, I will move heaven and earth to get you that briefing.

Ms CHAPMAN: We are on part 4—Vessel identifiers and certificates for vessels and seafarers. This covers a number of categories, including the obligation to have a unique identifier certificate or label or something. Firstly, I want to ask what it actually is. I note that, under the definitions clause, it says whatever it says in clause 31, but clause 31 does not actually tell me what it is. Can you just tell me exactly what it is? I notice that various different parties have to have one of these things. Is it some sort of registration disc or what is it? Has it not yet been prepared? Secondly, is this a new obligation that is needed, separate to what we have previously had?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that they already have a number allocated, but they are not required to display it. By 2016, they will be required to display it.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question then is: assuming it is some sort of display document, why is it necessary for these things to be required to be displayed when we have just passed laws to not have to have them displayed as registration stickers on motor vehicles?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I suppose the analogy I could give the member for Bragg is numberplates, as opposed to registration labels. Numberplates are required to be displayed in South Australia and that requirement has not been lifted. Registration renewal stickers are the ones that have been revoked. So, you can consider these basically as registration plates.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am advised by my learned leader in the management of this debate that boats already have to have a registration sticker on them. This is distinct from this unique identifier document, so I am just trying to understand why we need to have this added as well. If you are going to insist that this be put on, are you going to relieve the obligation to have the current registration sticker, as cars—as I have pointed out—have recently been relieved of that obligation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think there is some confusion, member for Bragg. Recreational vessels are required to have these numbers; commercial vessels are not, as they usually have names—names like Glenys or Public Enemy.

Ms Chapman:She Got the House.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS:She Got the House, yes.

Ms Chapman: I have seen that one moored down at Glenelg.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, there you go. This would require commercial vessels to have that identification on there. I suppose when you want to be able to transfer requirements through the jurisdictions, having a recognisable number that is consistent around the country would be something a commercial vessel would have for the first time, I am advised.

Ms CHAPMAN: There are penalties for not displaying and using a vessel without one, etc.—the usual. The penalties seem to be 60 penalty points, largely, for each of these offences. I assume you are going to tell me that the regulations have not been written yet, but do you have any idea about what a penalty point is going to be equivalent to in dollar terms?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How many penalty points?

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, there are 60 penalty points referred to throughout here. How much is a penalty point going to be equivalent to?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that one penalty point will be equivalent to $170. Sixty penalty units is $10,200; 160 is $27,200; 120 penalty units is $20,400; 200 penalty units is $34,000; and 1,800 penalty units is $306,000. I am advised that these penalty unit amounts are set by the commonwealth.

Ms CHAPMAN: That may be so, but what are they currently?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that $170 is the current value.

Ms CHAPMAN: Exactly the same?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is the first time I have ever come in here to pass a bill where the fees are going to be the same, but anyway, we will see.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: It's a new morning in South Australia.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it? A new dawn under your stewardship, minister; that's excellent. I refer to certificates of survey, which are under part 4. I assume that this really just conveys what are current obligations, but perhaps you can identify if there are any new aspects of the surveying obligations under the new regime.

I notice there is a lot of reference here to offences with strict liability, so it may well be that this is because a certificates of survey regime is already in operation, but we now have a much greater threshold of obligation under the new set. I may be wrong, but can you tell me what the difference is between what we have now for certificates of survey and what we are about to receive?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that existing vessels currently under sale will be subject to the same survey regime. New vessels will be subject to the national standards for the administration of marine safety, section 4, Survey of Vessels. This standard was agreed to by the ministerial council of 6 November 2009 and will take effect upon commencement of the national law.

In addition to an initial survey of a vessel, this standard provides for a five-year periodic cycle survey regime based on a risk assessment of the vessel. I am also advised that the current round is a two-year survey and the new round will be either one year, three years or five years, based on the risk.

Ms CHAPMAN: So I've got this clear, at present, all commercial vehicles that are currently captured are obliged to have a survey—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That's the new vessels, not existing vessels. All existing vessels are still under the same survey that they are now.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, I understand that there's a transition obligation for them, and we've been briefed on that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, it's not transitional: it's grandfathered. That will be in place.

Ms CHAPMAN: Right, okay, so all the new ones that have been captured, for example, under this act, will go onto a system where they will be told, based on risk, whether they have to do a one, three or five. At present, the existing ones do one every three years, is that right?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Two.

Ms CHAPMAN: Every two years, right. I assume, minister, that is on the basis that those who are supervising this—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry, to correct myself, one or two years.

Ms CHAPMAN: —will be able to say, 'Well, look, we think this is a much more high risk activity, for example, and therefore we want you to a survey. You are carrying more passengers. There is a higher level of risk, and therefore we want to be sure about it.' Whereas a fishing boat where fewer people are likely to be exposed to any safety risk may not have the same obligation. Am I correct in that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It's safe to assume safety comes first.

Ms CHAPMAN: The certificate of survey I have been provided with, minister, is quite an extensive list of what our current Harbors and Navigation Regulations are, which set out some fairly extensive costs for surveys already, so I am assuming that they are obviously not going to change. There are fees to be paid for the people who provide the survey, and if they need new equipment, boilers, engines or paddles—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It will stay the same.

Ms CHAPMAN: —all of that will stay the same. I am particularly interested to know about what is going to happen with the surveying obligations for historic vessels. During the briefing, we were advised that there were I think half a dozen of these in South Australia. I might be wrong; there might be more. They still had not really sorted out how they were going to manage those. The ones I am interested in are the One and All and the Falie, which are ships I am sure you are familiar with and which are a very important part of maritime history for South Australia.

I am pleased to note that I read recently that the One and All, whilst it is still waiting to have a new manager, is at least being used by someone I think in the education department who has some school children utilising it. I am pleased to hear that at least it is doing that.

I might mention for the minister's benefit that when I sat on the board of the trust for this vessel, we sent it to the Geelong Grammar School once a year and it earned very good income, actually, from students in Victoria. It helped to provide for its support, and I have been very disappointed in the time I have been here in the parliament in its lack of use and its lack of production of revenue for the state so that it might be reinvested for the benefit of children in training.

However, I would like to know, given that this ship has been surveyed in recent years (I am hoping you will tell me is in very good order and, given that has already started taking out some schoolchildren again, I am assuming that it is in good order), what is the anticipated annual cost of the surveying and certification obligations for each of these two vessels over the forthcoming, say, two years? How is that going to be paid for, and will they be kept in survey?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Much to the distress of the member for Bragg, the One and All and the Falie are not historic vessels. They may be, in the hearts and minds of South Australians, but not for the purposes of this bill. Heritage vessels that we have are the PS Oscar W, the MV Archie Badenoch, ST Yelta, FV Tacoma, PS Industry, PS Marion and the Morgan paddle steamer, which is the PS Canally, which is going through a full restoration and which has applied for heritage listing.

The One and All is not listed as a heritage vessel and is already captured as a commercial vessel under the survey. The current allocated recurrent funding is half a million per annum. The Falie is not in survey. If it is opened up for business as a tourist attraction and is a permanently moored vessel, it would fall under scheme O. Any proposed standard for it will be developed during the three-year transition period which will be subject to public consultation and a unanimous ministerial council agreement.

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not think that I was asserting that either of these vessels were in the heritage category, but that they are historic; however, you have covered for the purposes of that. There is a heritage category, which I think my learned leader has asked questions about for the paddle steamers. I think, with that information and what we were provided at the briefing, it seems you are going through a transition period as to how you are going to manage those in the future.

I notice that you listed the Tacoma, which of course is a very important fishing vessel in South Australia. In fact, there was a recent television program on the Tacoma recently, on the weekend, I think—

Mr Whetstone: Saturday.

Ms CHAPMAN: —about its history, its building and development, and its magnificent contribution to the fishing industry, particularly out at Port Lincoln. I am pleased to see, at least on the television program, that it is apparently still afloat and much loved in its current state as a historic vessel. I would certainly be hoping, minister, that the government are doing everything possible to ensure that these vessels are properly looked after and kept in a fit and proper state, and that funding is assuredly given to provide for them.

I think I heard you say some figures for the current commercial surveying costs for the One and All, and I think you have explained that the Falie has moored—probably for good reason; I do not think it will ever be safely presented again unless a lot of work is done it, sadly. Nevertheless, is the provision of costs currently budgeted for the One and All?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised there is an ongoing, recurrent amount budgeted for of half a million dollars.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have concluded part 4 and I am sure, Mr Chairman, you will be delighted to hear I am moving to part 8, and I think my learned leader has a question first.

Mr WHETSTONE: Schedule 1, part 8, division 2: what will be the impact on volunteers using their private vessels for data collection for a government department?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: None, I am advised.

Mr WHETSTONE: If that private vessel is used to collect data for a government department for doing bird counts, tree count, that type of thing, it will be exempt?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is not captured, that is the advice I have.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just a final question regarding the impact on a community vessel. If we are looking at surf lifesavers, they have three different types of vessels—powerboats, jetskis and paddle-driven canoe types—will they be affected? Will they have to have a coxswain's certificate to be able to operate those boats and do they have to be surveyed?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: As long as they do not exceed the two nautical miles of the watermark then they are not captured, and the advice I have received is that they generally do not go further than two nautical miles anyway.

Ms CHAPMAN: Under division 2, as I understand it, are the opportunities for parties to be exempt, and it may be from bird counting and all sorts of other things that might be obliged to be done. Under clause 146 it says, 'Offence of breaching a condition of exemption (all persons)' and it carries a 60 unit penalty, and on the figures you have just announced that is thousands of dollars by the sound of it, so I would just like to know what that relates to because it seems to me that that is covering not just the owner and master and so on who have separate obligations, but would capture volunteers?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is not that they are exempted. The advice I have received is that they are not captured by the act deliberately.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did you say 'all persons' doesn't—

Ms Chapman: So 'all persons' doesn't include volunteers?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If they are privately owned or surf lifesaving, then they are not captured, is the advice I have received. That is correct. However, I want to clarify a point. Volunteer marine rescue vessels, I am advised, which are under section O not owned by individuals, are captured as commercial vessels under the national law. This includes the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard, the South Australian Sea Rescue Squadron, the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, Cowell Sea Rescue Squadron, Victor Harbor and Goolwa Sea Rescue Squadron and the Whyalla Sea Rescue Squadron.

Volunteer marine rescue vessels operate in adverse weather conditions and undertake high risk search and rescue operations. Their activities include rescuing a person overboard and could include towing other vessels, which creates a greater risk of capsizing. Because of this, I am advised the vessels should be inspected for stability and seaworthiness and that they are fit for purpose, and their crew needs to be competent. As scheme O vessels, the intention is to develop a nationally consistent regulatory treatment for the standard of these vessels. There are two distinctions, and I think the two nautical mile barrier is the distinction.

Ms CHAPMAN: So if I volunteered as a friend of the One and All and went out on that ship as a volunteer, would I be captured in any way under these obligations?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised no.

Ms CHAPMAN: Not that I think I would be a useful addition, although I have actually been in that category before. My question relates to clause 158 under division 8 of this part. It is on page 90 and it refers to adverse publicity orders. Are these something that judges can issue under our current state regime for marine safety? If not, where does this new thing come from, which is an opportunity for judges to require offenders to have particulars published, I presume in a newspaper? It says here, 'publicise, in the way specified in the order', and notify certain classes. You have to tell all the various people that the judge says you have to, assuming that you have actually been guilty of an offence.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that it is not currently in the Harbors and Navigation Act, but it is a commonwealth law and it will apply when they regulate.

Ms CHAPMAN: So Minister, I assume you have been happy to sign up to this name and shame type approach? I have not seen it in any other legislation; I might have missed it, but I do not recall it being in the national rail legislation; I am not sure whether it is coming in the heavy transport legislation. It just seems to me that this is setting a new era of penalty in this whole obligation to publish.

If it were to make provision for some obligation to notify if there has been a guilty finding of a particular offender—some obligation that that be notified to the national regulator, for example—the way I am reading it (I might be wrong) is that this is an entitlement for a judge to be able to convict the offender and to require that there be a publication—it could be in a newspaper or on television—of the event. Subparagraph 2 makes provision to notify the national regulator, and I perfectly understand that that would occur, because that is the statutory body. Can you just explain why we are agreeing to that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Whether I support it or not is immaterial, because the commonwealth will legislate regardless of what the state does, and if we do not apply it there will be two regimes within our waters and we are doing as much as we can to harmonise them. This is a commonwealth decision. If we do not pass this, there will be two regimes. Within our waters this part will not apply, and in every other state and for commonwealth waters it will apply, so we will still have two regimes. On the philosophical point of whether I support this, it is a national form, and state and territory leaders have signed up to it—Labor and Liberal—so, yes, I do. If you have a particular opposition to it, then that is your right as an opposition.

Ms CHAPMAN: I raised the point because this legislation comes to us not because it is commonwealth law but because persons, including your predecessor, went off to meetings in 2009 and signed up to a commitment, put in each other's identification about what they had agreed to to achieve the objectives you say and beefed up what we currently have. I say that respectfully, that there has been beefing up—there have been extra obligations go in, and there have bit more people captured by it, etc., all in the name of safety, etc., etc.

That does not mean that when ministers go off to these meetings they say, 'We'll just do what the national representative or the national minister tells us to.' That is the whole idea of COAG. It may be something that is not being used a lot, I do not know. Perhaps that is something that the minister could inquire about, as to whether there have been orders for publication and, if so, what identified benefit is achieved by doing that, separate to the obligation to notify the regulator, which I think is perfectly reasonable. Perhaps that indication can be given between houses.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes; I am advised that these sorts of orders apply within the trade practices legislation now. I am also advised that Consumer Affairs has that power now in terms of, for the lack of a better term, dodgy traders. So, that principle has been adopted by this parliament, but, as I said, we are seeking agreements. A ministerial agreement is simply that; it is still an agreement. We are a sovereign state and we are entitled to pass any legislation we see fit as long as it is constitutional.

If we as parliament decide against adopting this measure, then so be it; we will have two regimes. So you will have vessels which are captured under the Corporations Act where you will have this policy apply, and you will have vessels within our waters that are not captured by the Corporations Act, I am advised, not applying. So you will have two regimes. So it is for the parliament to resolve this.

The minister on behalf the government has accepted the commonwealth's proposal, and we have done so. I take your point. It was not the deal at Federation but it is how it is turning out, and both political parties in Canberra have been extending their power more and more, and it is simply about harmonising. We can make a decision. There is no-one in here compelling you to vote a certain way. Every member regardless of party is not recognised by the parliament as a member of a political party. You are recognised by the nature of your electorates, so you can vote any way you see fit.

Ms CHAPMAN: I thank the minister for his little lecture on that. As the minister would be aware, there are a number of models for the uniformity of legislation across the country. This is one which involves the commonwealth passing law and us adopting it as though it were law in our own jurisdiction. It is one of a number of different types of models. In the 11 years that I have been here there have been various models used to produce the harmonisation of legislation. As I say, this is one of them.

I cannot recall seeing publication orders in any other legislation. We have done health professionals, we have done all sorts of harmonisation. It does seem to me that the Trade Practices Act is very different situation. There is an obligation for publication so that potential consumers of trading entities have some notice about misconduct. We can all think of major retailers, for example, where it would be an important punitive and consumer protection benefit in having a publication order. It just seems to me a little unusual in these circumstances.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, tourism operators—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I make the point that I do not think it is justified. To conclude on the matters I would like to raise, minister, we have operated under a state regime for some time, obviously. I would like to have provided, at least between the houses because I accept it would not be at the minister's fingertips, the number and nature of prosecutions and the penalties imposed over the last five years in respect of marine safety. I assume most of these are matters that have been dealt with in the Magistrates Court or District Court unless, for example, it was a murder on a fishing boat, or something of that nature. If that information could be obtained and provided between houses, I would appreciate it.

Schedule passed.

Schedule 2 and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (17:36): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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