Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 makes a number of small but in some cases quite significant changes to four acts, particularly to the Navigation Act. While I do not intend to mention all the amendments contained in this bill, I will make specific reference to a few of them.

A review of the level of penalties imposed by the Lighthouses Act and the Navigation Act has shown that many of the penalties contained in those acts have little or no deterrent effect, as they have not been revised for a considerable period of time. The bill will increase penalties to a more appropriate level.

For example, the current maximum penalty in the Lighthouses Act for damaging a marine navigational aid is only $220. As someone who holds a master class 4, I understand that it is a very severe event and a $220 penalty is really quite ridiculous. The consequences of such damage may be an accident, such as the grounding of a ship which is relying on that aid for its navigation. This in turn may result in major environmental damage and possible loss of life. The bill will provide for a more appropriate and graduated series of offences for damaging a marine navigational aid. If the damage is the result of deliberate conduct, the maximum penalty will be imprisonment for ten years; if the damage is the result of reckless conduct, the maximum penalty will be imprisonment for seven years; if the damage is the result of negligent conduct, the maximum penalty will be a fine of $22,000. A similar approach of providing a graduated series of penalties for each particular offence has been adopted throughout the bill.

Military forces around the world now routinely operate some ships on a charter basis rather than owning the ships. Such ships are not operated any differently to ships that belong to the military forces. An example is the Incat-owned vessel, HMAS Jervis Bay, which was chartered by the Royal Australian Navy and used to ferry people and goods between Australia and East Timor during the East Timor crisis.

Military ships traditionally are not subject to the laws applying to merchant ships. This is recognised in the Navigation Act, which exempts ships belonging to the Defence Force of Australia or to foreign military forces from its application. To recognise modern chartering arrangements, the bill will extend the exemption provision to apply not only to ships belonging to military forces but also to ships operated by military forces.

Ship pilots provide a very important function in advising on the navigation of ships in areas where navigation is hazardous. The bill contains a number of amendments relating to pilotage.

Section 186D of the Navigation Act currently provides for the making of regulations relating to pilotage. That regulation-making power is being extended to pilotage providers—that is, the persons or organisations who assign a pilot to a ship. The sorts of matters that may be covered by regulations include the duties of pilotage providers.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act has requirements for compulsory pilotage in northern areas of the waters of the Great Barrier Reef. There are no requirements for compulsory pilotage in the Navigation Act. The regulation-making power in section 186D is to be further extended to allow regulations to be made declaring areas where pilotage is compulsory.

The master of a ship remains responsible for the ship at all times, even while a pilot is on board or the ship is subject to vessel traffic management arrangements, such as vessel traffic control within a port or other directions from another person not on board the ship.

Amendments to section 410B of the Navigation Act are intended to remove any doubt that, where a ship is subject to compulsory pilotage under an Australian law, the owner and master of the ship are responsible for any loss or damage caused by the ship. The pilot and the pilotage provider are immune from any civil claims for loss or damages that may arise.

This amendment will not mean that pilots will not take due care while they are working as pilots. The amendments do not provide any immunity from prosecution under criminal law. Further, in order to perform the duties of a coastal pilot, a person must be licensed by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. A pilot’s licence may be cancelled, suspended or restricted in a number of circumstances, including if a pilot has demonstrated incompetence or misconduct relating to the performance of his or her duties as a pilot. A pilot who does not perform his or her duties in a competent manner therefore places his or her means of livelihood at risk.

As well as clarifying the immunity for pilots, the bill inserts a new section 411 into the Navigation Act to specifically provide that the master of a ship is not relieved from responsibility for the conduct and navigation of a ship by reason only of the ship being subject to vessel traffic management arrangements.

Where certain conditions are met, an unlicensed ship may be granted a continuing voyage permit to engage in trade between Australian ports. Subsection 286(4) of the Navigation Act provides that such a permit may be cancelled by the minister, but the minister must have given the master, owner or agent of the ship at least six months notice of his or her intention to cancel the permit.

This provision is being amended to allow a continuing voyage permit to be cancelled in a much shorter time period if the minister considers that such cancellation is in the public interest. The permit holder will be given an opportunity to show cause why the permit should not be cancelled and will be able to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the review of a decision to cancel a permit.

While abuse of alcohol or other drugs on ships is not a significant problem, it is important that there be provision to detect any such abuse, as even one crew member of a ship being unable to perform his or her duties may have catastrophic results. The Navigation Act already provides for breath testing to determine blood alcohol content but, because of inconsistency in the use of terms within the act, the necessary associated regulations to determine precisely how breath testing is to occur have not been able to be made. This bill will ensure that terminology is consistent.

The Navigation Act is also being amended to allow for the taking of mouth swabs to enable testing for the presence of drugs.

The last amendment which I will mention is an amendment to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act, which will require Australian chemical tankers to prepare and carry a marine pollution emergency plan for noxious liquid substances. Carriage of such a plan on board a chemical tanker will provide a ready reference for the crew in case of a pollution incident involving hazardous liquids.

The requirement to carry a marine pollution emergency plan for noxious liquid substances is in accordance with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Ships are already required to carry similar plans setting out procedures in cases of pollution by oil and the management of shipboard waste.

This bill continues the government’s efforts to enhance Australia’s shipping safety and pollution prevention regimes. I commend the bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum.

See this speech in context