Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Navigation Bill 2012 and its consequential amendments bill, which update and modernise the Navigation Act 1912. Even though they are not directly connected, this bill will be debated together with the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012 and its consequential amendments bill, which provide the legislative framework for the implementation of the national marine safety regulator.

Let me begin by discussing the Navigation Bill 2012. The original Navigation Act from 1912 is regarded as one of the major achievements of Prime Minister Andrew Fisher, who was, I might add, the first member for my electorate of Wide Bay. It certainly was a big achievement for the relatively new Federation of Australia at the time. In 1912, when the bill was debated in the House, the minister at the time, Frank Tudor, noted that not only was it the longest bill ever submitted to the decade-old Australian parliament but it was practically the longest bill on maritime activity and shipping introduced to any parliament. If you look at its replacement bill, while it has some volume it is tiny compared with much of the legislation that comes into the parliament these days. It does not compare too honourably to the Fair Work Bill, which was quite thick, or taxation law et cetera. Those sorts of things obviously take a lot of space these days. But, in its day in 1912, the Navigation Act was the longest piece of legislation that had been introduced into the parliament. The 1912 bill was a long time in the making. It was originally drafted in 1903. It was read for the first time in 1904, before being withdrawn, and then a royal commission was established to investigate how shipping in Australia should be regulated. In 1905 a conference of colonial parliaments was proposed and in 1907 that conference was finally held. A bill was introduced in 1907 and again in 1908 and again in 1910, but it was not until 1912 that Australia finally got there. After lengthy debate and comprehensive amendments, the Navigation Act 1912 was passed. It took nine years from the drafting stage until the bill passed the parliament, but it has to be acknowledged that there were in fact eight changes of government during that period. I guess that is unthinkable in modern political terms. But it is also perhaps significant that this was the era when the Titanic sank and it would undoubtedly have brought considerable community interest into making sure that navigation and maritime law in our country were appropriate to meet the needs of that time.

The minister should be pleased that the rewrite of the act has only taken around three years to come together—about a third of the time it took the original act to be drafted and passed. In the minister's second reading speech from 1912, he stated that the bill largely followed the United Kingdom's Merchant Shipping Act. However, the minister noted the large number of amendments to the UK act—81 in the 50-odd years between 1840 and 1894—which resulted in it being extremely difficult at the end of that time to find out exactly what the law was, unless members of the House of Commons or those interested in the act knew exactly what amendments had been made. Now we face the same situation, where the Navigation Act of 1912 has been amended so many times that, after 100 years, it is indeed in need of an update.

The Navigation Act 1912 is Australia's primary piece of legislation for regulating ship and seafarer safety, shipboard aspects of protection of the marine environment, and employment conditions for Australian seafarers. It gives effect to Australia's port state control responsibilities and implements a range of international conventions covering matters such as the safety of life at sea, training and certification of seafarers, prevention of collisions at sea, watertight integrity and reserve buoyancy of ships, and regulations to determine gross and net tonnage of ships.

The Navigation Bill 2012 will rewrite the Navigation Act 1912 with modern language to reflect contemporary conditions and practices in the shipping industry. It will remove a number of unnecessary and outdated provisions and enhance ship safety and protection of the marine environment. It will also introduce greater flexibility to allow regulation to remain contemporary with the national and international standards as they develop over time. The bill also encompasses the Lighthouses Act 1911, one of Australia's oldest laws, which will be repealed if this bill is enacted.

The minister in his second reading speech has mentioned a number of the archaic provisions contained in the Navigation Act 1912, such as those which make it an offence to take a lunatic to sea without telling the master, and provisions exempting the master of a ship from prosecution if he shoots a seafarer. Additionally, the rewrite of the Navigation Act 1912 will give effect to the International Labour Organisation's Maritime Labour Convention, which was passed through the parliament late last year, as the bill incorporates the conditions of the Maritime Labour Convention. I understand that industry is supportive of the rewrite of the Navigation Act 1912 and acknowledges that the current act is out of date and does not accord with modern industry practices.

I acknowledge that Shipping Australia has raised concerns about the harshness of the penalties imposed by the bill in their submission to the consultation process. The bill does establish a number of civil and criminal penalty provisions. In some cases, lengthy prison sentences can be imposed. However, I note that the explanatory memorandum of the bill states that the penalties for offences in the bill are intended to reinforce the deterrent effect of the bill and give courts the discretion to respond meaningfully and proportionally to breaches. Breaches of the Navigation Act can have serious consequences for the environment, the community and, of course, the lives of seafarers.

The coalition will not oppose the Navigation Bill 2012. We recognise that the efforts to modernise, streamline and clarify existing provisions to ensure that it reflects contemporary maritime industry practice should be supported.

I will now turn to the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012. As I mentioned earlier, this bill, together with its consequential amendments bill, introduces a new national law for maritime safety that will commence from 1 January 2013 and establishes the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AMSA, as the national maritime regulator to provide for the consistent regulation of domestic shipping. The bill establishes a system of vessel identification and the issue of certificates in relation to vessel identification, vessel survey, the commercial operation of vessels and seafarer competency. The bill also creates an offence where a certificate is required and not held or held and not complied with, and establishes general safety obligations on persons involved in the operation of a commercial vessel, or who may use the vessel as a conveyance, to take reasonable care for their own safety and the safety of others. It also establishes a system within which to conduct compliance and enforcement activities and provides for the consistent application of nationally agreed standards across Australia.

The principle of the establishment of a national maritime safety regulator has been agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments, and the specifics of the regulations contained in this bill were agreed to by the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure, comprised of transport ministers from all jurisdictions, last month. I trust that the states and territories will enact appropriate legislation in their own jurisdictions as necessary to fully implement the national maritime safety regulator.

The national maritime safety regulator is one part of the three national transport regulators that are presently being established. The South Australian government has recently passed laws establishing the National Rail Safety Regulator, and the new Queensland government is presently considering legislation to implement the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. Harmonisation of laws in these three areas will, it has been estimated, provide productivity benefits of $30 billion over the next 20 years as the 23 current regulators will be consolidated into three national regulators. Currently there are eight different marine safety regulators in Australia, each implementing their own rules and regulations, and there are, in fact, many instances where those rules and regulations vary. People find that a vessel that can operate legally in one state cannot, when it crosses the borders, meet the new state's requirements. The bills will mean that Australia will have one national maritime safety law replacing 50 pieces of state and federal legislation.

Under the bills AMSA will be established as the national regulator and existing state and territory regulators will deliver national law functions under the delegation of AMSA. State and territory agencies will be responsible for the effective day-to-day operation of the national law. These jurisdictions will retain responsibility for the regulation of waterways, the management of ports and associated issues such as classifying waters, setting speed limits and regulating alcohol consumption. The bills will mean that companies that operate nationally will not have to comply with multiple safety regulatory regimes. Designers and builders will have to comply with one certification system rather than applying for recertification in each jurisdiction. The national law will cut through red tape for business involved in the industry.

In addition to the national law being supported by all jurisdictions, extensive industry consultation has been undertaken, and I understand that, broadly speaking, industry is supportive of a national maritime safety regulator. I note that some concerns have been raised by smaller groups and I trust that the department, AMSA, and the minister will work constructively with these organisations to ensure that a positive outcome is reached, particularly as regulations are prepared to support this legislation. It is important when considering national law in such a complex area that we get it right to prevent any unintended consequences that could have a drastic impact on these industries.

I understand that in May the scuba clubs wrote to the minister outlining their concerns about some aspects of the national law, and at the time the minister's office advised that the way dive clubs will be treated under legislation will be decided after further consultation. Generally, community group vessels will not be subject to regulation under the national law. Only those community group vessels used for a commercial purpose or to undertake commercial activities will be regulated under the national law. The minister has informed me that these purposes or activities will be articulated in the regulations and stakeholders will be consulted on the development of the regulations, which I understand will be starting as soon as the laws have been passed.

To the extent that dive clubs are community groups the same rules will apply as outlined previously. In other words, it is intended that through the regulations the dive club vessels operated in connection with commercial activity—for example, where nonmembers pay a fee—or for commercial purposes will be subject to national law standards. However, the regulatory treatment will be tailored to the risks involved in the activities. Activities assessed as low risk will be subject to low-level regulations. These vessels are, of course, now regulated by the states, and the minister has assured me that it is anticipated that the level of regulation is unlikely to be significantly different under the national law to what applies at the current state level and, hopefully, in some cases it may be less. The legislation is due to take effect in six months. I remind the minister of his commitment to ensure that the concerns that have been raised are addressed promptly and in time for the legislation to be effectively implemented.

In conclusion, the coalition will be supporting the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012. The bill has the support of all state and territory governments and has received broad industry support. The bill will reduce industry red tape and will harmonise the contradictory laws which are currently in place by replacing eight regulators and 50 acts with one national law. This bill has been under preparation now for quite some time. It has taken some years for it to go through the COAG process, but we know that that is a somewhat slow-moving process. I am pleased that in this area, where there has been so much overlapping regulation and so much duplication, this legislation is a significant step forward to helping achieve uniformity of regulation across the nation.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to stand to speak on the Navigation Bill 2012, the Navigation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012, the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012 and the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012. I have been watching with some interest the progress towards this day for a number of years. This suite of bills brings together for me a number of the characteristics of this government: firstly, an absolute commitment to Australian shipping and a place for Australian shipping not only as a builder of ships but also in a country that can stand tall in the international shipping world. It once again looks to the future. Secondly, it considers, in the drafting of this suite of bills, the flexibility that is needed as things change in the industry. This is well and truly—particularly relative to the bill that it replaces—a suite of bills that looks at the future and the position of our shipping industry very well.

Thirdly, it also brings forward something that this government has been doing consistently for four years now—that is, starting to remove the unnecessary duplication of regulation that we have in this nation when people cross state borders. Over the last year I have watched the government deal with the duplication of regulation for business names, for the registration of medical practitioners and for the sharing of information among police forces—a whole range of areas where this government has stepped in to take out some of that unnecessary duplication which has grown over time, largely because we started as a federation of states, but which still in 2012 is something that plagues many businesses around the country. This suite of bills is literally 100 years in the making. The main bill, the Navigation Bill 2012, essentially replaces the Navigation Act 1912, an act which celebrates its 100th birthday this year. It is one of the oldest acts in parliament and, as we heard from the previous speaker, one that took some nine years of development and was one of the largest acts of parliament of its day. It was still being drafted in 1912 when the Titanic sank, and the drafting was altered to incorporate safety recommendations that were internationally agreed to following that disaster. It is an extremely important act. It is the key legislative vehicle to give domestic effect to Australia's port control responsibilities and implements a range of international conventions covering matters such as safety of life at sea, training and certification of seafarers, prevention of collisions at sea, watertight integrity and reserve buoyancy of ships, pollution prevention standards for ships, safety of containers, salvage and regulations to determine gross and net tonnage of ships. These are things that most Australians would not give a thought to on a day-to-day basis; but, if you think about it for any length of time, you realise it is an act of parliament that underpins much of the safety of personnel and our environment. It is the primary legislation that regulates ship and seafarer safety, employment conditions for Australian seafarers and, importantly, the shipboard aspects of protection of the marine environment, so it is an extremely important act.

As you would expect, it has been amended over the years many times. It has often been the case that it was done on an ad hoc basis—a fix here, a fix there, a change to meet new international conventions. As a result, it is a strange mix of modern and archaic concepts. The archaic provisions are gone from the new act. As has been mentioned a number of times, we no longer necessarily need the master of a ship to be told if someone who is coming onboard is, to quote from the old act, 'a lunatic'. It would no longer be right for the master of a ship to be able to shoot someone and be immune from prosecution. And yet those provisions had remained in the act. They are now gone.

But the changes go much further than that. They are a genuine rewriting of the act, casting it in modern, plain language. Perhaps that is also partly the reason why it is much shorter than the old one. I know that when most of us start looking at an old act the urge to pick up the red pencil comes out. It has well and truly been done here. It is cast in plain, easily understood language. It reflects contemporary conditions and practices in the shipping industry. It removes unnecessary and outdated provisions. It enhances ship safety and protection of the marine environment. It introduces greater flexibility to allow regulation to remain contemporary with national and international standards. In doing all of that it provides confidence and certainty for the shipping industry.

It also encompasses another act which is even older than the Navigation Act 1912, and that is the Lighthouses Act 1911. That, of course, is an act that is about aids to navigation, but navigation has changed quite considerably since that initial act was drafted, as you can imagine. Again the act has been altered and amended over time, but the new provisions have been modernised and are flexible enough to encompass all the new ways of navigation including satellites, global positioning systems and traditional beacons and lights. Those provisions will be encompassed in the new Navigation Bill 2012. The old Lighthouses Act 1911 will be repealed once the new act comes into play. The bill took about three years in planning, public and whole-of-government consultation and extensive drafting. Through the commitment and cooperation demonstrated by all stakeholders, we now have a bill which will well and truly set the shipping industry up for the future.

Shipping is an incredibly important part of Australian life. Australia's shipping is now the fourth-largest in the world but, at the same time as it has been growing, the number of Australian ships operating has been in drastic decline. In 1996, 16 years ago, we had 55 ships. Today we only have 21, with just four operating internationally. This government has introduced legislation recently which demonstrates its commitment to regrowing this incredibly important part of our national life. We are an island, as we know. We are a country where 99.9 per cent of our exports are moved by ships. That again makes this particular industry incredibly important.

And yet it has operated for quite some time under some interesting restrictions. The Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012 works to remove some of the regulatory burdens that the shipping industry faces. It creates one of the three national regulators that will replace 23 existing regulators of rail, heavy vehicles and ships. It introduces a new national law for the regulation of domestic commercial vessel safety and establishes the Australian Maritime Safety Authority as the national marine safety regulator. This will make a remarkable difference. It has come about through consultation through COAG—again a very comprehensive negotiation process—because it effectively removes a great deal of state regulation and replaces it with the national one. The reduction in red tape and the productivity benefits of this reform are calculated to be around $30 billion over 30 years. The bill means that Australia finally has one national maritime safety law replacing 50 pieces of legislation in seven jurisdictions, one national maritime safety regulator replacing seven state and territory regulators, and one national system for commercial safety allowing the seamless movement of domestic commercial vessels and crew around the country. I want to talk about exactly what that means. For example, if you look at crew qualifications between jurisdictions, a seafarer may be issued a certificate from the Australian Maritime College in Tasmania following an oral examination, but if he decides to seek work in Western Australia he must be issued with a new Western Australian certificate when he crosses the border, involving the payment of a $335 fee. Nationally recognised qualifications and a single certificate will allow a smooth transfer of labour across state borders.

It also affects construction standards. A vessel built in one jurisdiction for operation in another requires certification during construction by a surveyor from the receiving jurisdiction. This only applies if the ship is travelling domestically. For example, a company based in Tasmania builds catamarans. The catamarans are all built to the national standard and subject to survey during construction. The vessels sold around the world with supporting documentation based on the national standard for commercial vessels are accepted without question. But if that catamaran should be sold domestically, additional documentation and physical inspections are required by the gaining jurisdiction's maritime authority. If you build a catamaran in Tasmania and move it from state to state you have to get additional documentation, but if you take it overseas it can happily travel around the world. This new national maritime regulator removes that quite onerous regulatory burden.

It also means that meeting the requirements of different jurisdictions in relation to the issue of certificates will be removed, saving considerable time should the owner of a vessel decide to move interstate or take the vessel across the state border. Another example is of a Tasmanian company operating a fishing vessel around the nation, including in waters at the top end of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Every time one of that company's vessels crosses waters between the Northern Territory and Queensland the company must apply for new seaworthy certificates from the respective maritime transport authorities. For that particular company seven staff are employed just to support the administrative work required to cross a dotted line when it comes to a state border in an ocean.

This is a very important suite of bills. It recrafts an act which has served us well for a long time, but is now increasingly a patchwork of archaic and modern concepts. It recrafts that into a modern bill with associated bills that look to the future and recognise the reality of the shipping industry in Australia. This suite of maritime bills prepares our regulatory framework for growth in the Australian shipbuilding industry itself. You can imagine the increased complexity for Australian shipbuilders as we increase our shipbuilding capacity if the regulation had continued as it was, requiring such an onerous regulatory burden every time our ships cross a border. They are important pieces of legislation which have been many years in the making. I congratulate the minister and the department for some extraordinary work. New legislation which requires such extensive consultation with all the state jurisdictions is very difficult to achieve. That is one of the reasons why drafting such legislation takes three or more years. It demonstrates an extraordinary commitment to looking to both the future and our Australian shipping industry. I commend the bill to the House.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to comment on the bills being debated in cognate, including the Navigation Bill 2012 and consequential amendments to marine safety legislation. It will not surprise many people to realise that the Navigation Act is 100 years old. It has been amended many times and as a result apparently is a mix of archaic and modern concepts. It must be a cracking read.

At the National Shipping Industry Conference 2009 the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport announced the government's intention to rewrite the act—a fitting task, one would think. Many provisions of the act were taken from the British Merchant Shipping Act 1894 which included laws which have been around since the 18th century. One can only surmise what some of those laws were. Apparently they included making it an offence to take a lunatic to sea without telling the master, something the Labor Party should perhaps have been informed about previously. But it is good to know they are focusing on the big issues of ensuring that lunatics are no longer on the high seas.

The Navigation Act 1912 is Australia's primary piece of legislation for regulating ship and seafarer safety, shipboard aspects of protection of the marine environment and employment conditions for Australian seafarers. The bill gives effect to Australia's port control responsibilities and implements a range of international conventions covering matters such as safety of life at sea, training and certification of seafarers, prevention of collisions at sea, watertight integrity and reserve buoyancy of ships and regulations to determine gross and net tonnage of ships. If the legislation were simply about the restriction of lunatics it may well be fitting in itself.

The Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill introduces a new national law for maritime safety that will commence on 1 January 2013 and establishes a national maritime regulator to provide for the consistent regulation of domestic commercial shipping. This is part of a suite of reforms agreed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2009. They are intended to adopt nationally consistent laws in maritime and rail safety and for the heavy vehicle industry. This will apparently reduce the regulatory burden on a business and will consolidate the existing 23 regulators into three national regulators. Frankly, the reduction of regulators by itself is always a good move. These reforms are expected to provide productivity benefits of some one-and-a-bit million dollars per year, or $30 million over 20 years. As a general rule the merging of regulators into national regulators—the merging of many into few—makes sense. Nationally consistent laws in the maritime, rail and heavy vehicle industries also makes sense. There is scope in terms of maritime safety, maritime law and navigation law for other areas to be widened as well. The electorate of Fadden, which I represent, is of course home to the Gold Coast Marine Precinct, that has some of the nation's great luxury boatbuilders. These include the likes of Maritimo and also the great tinnie producer, Telwater Marine, which produces 10,000 tinnies there, as well as a number of other yacht builders and boatbuilders.

One of the key areas of concern for these boatbuilders, whilst these issues of debate and legislation are important, is the issue of grey imports. These are boats flooding in from overseas which are not required to meet Australian manufacturing standards, are not required to have Australian manufacturing plates certifying their met standards, are not required to meet Australian safety standards and, of course, have only tier 1emission standards engines. The rest of the world—the rest of the world meaning the United States, Europe and, I believe, even Somalia—is moving to tiers 2 and 3 emission standards for inboard engines over 37 kilowatts. Australia has not moved into that area to do that. Therefore, a large number of boats and engines over that power rating that only meet tier 1 standards are coming into Australia.

At present there are regulations in terms of motor vessels, and there is an overarching piece of legislation that allows regs to hang off motor vehicles, but there is nothing that covers motor vessels. So whilst the coalition will support the government as they seek to have nationally consistent laws that line up in maritime, rail safety and the heavy vehicle industries, I think there is also space for the opposition and the government to commence a dialogue on how we deal with other areas of the boating industry to ensure that boats and engines that are imported into Australia in that pleasure craft space comply with Australian manufacturing law, comply with Australian standards and comply with Australian safety requirements and, of course, have a tier 2- or 3-emission engine. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss these issues with the minister. The current bills on the table enjoy the coalition's support.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday was a historic day for the shipping industry here in Australia, when we saw reforms that had been worked on for the last five years passed through the Senate. Having passed through the Senate, and also having been through this House, that legislation will now obviously become law and put into effect those very important and long-overdue reforms. These are reforms which all speakers have made the point about, that they update legislation that is now 100 years old—legislation that is clearly outdated and which should have been updated a long, long time ago.

It was interesting to hear the member for Fadden say that the coalition will support this legislation, because they did not support the reforms which were voted on in the Senate yesterday and they did not support those reforms when they were in this House. So I am pleased to hear that at least they support this legislation, the package of bills that is before us today—the Navigation Bill 2012 and cognate bills.

It is a package of bills, because this legislation sets out to do a number of things. Whilst I certainly will not go into detail about all of them, there are some comments I want to make. The most important aspect of this legislation is that a national maritime regulator is established under the national law bill. Not only is a national maritime regulator long overdue but it will create much more efficiency in the shipping industry here.

The national maritime regulator is one of three national regulators that replace 23 existing regulators for rail, heavy vehicle and ships across this country. The national law bill introduces a new national law for the regulation of domestic commercial vessel safety and establishes the Australian Maritime Safety Authority as the national regulator. The objects of the bill are to promote continuous improvement in marine safety, to promote public confidence in the safety of marine operators, to ensure effective identification and management of safety risks and to reduce the regulatory burden without compromising safety. It is all about making our shipping industry more efficient.

The national law bill is a component of the national transport reform package, which I mentioned a moment ago, and there has been other legislation in respect of the road transport sector. That was debated in this parliament only last month and, again, it complements this legislation. It has also now been agreed to by this parliament. The policy basis for this legislation arises from an agreement reached at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 19 August 2011. So this is legislation that has the support of each of the states and territories. And understandably so, because having three national transport regulators instead of 23, which is currently the case across the three sectors, will result in significant improvements to efficiency and to productivity. Across those three transport sectors those improvements are estimated to save about $30 billion over the next 20 years. That is not insignificant—$30 billion is a lot of money, and it is money that would not be able to be saved if we did not undertake and commit to the reforms across all of the three transport sectors.

This bill means that Australia now has one national maritime safety law replacing 50 pieces of legislation in seven jurisdictions, one national maritime safety regulator replacing seven state and territory regulators and one national system for commercial vessel safety, allowing the seamless movement of domestic commercial vessels and crew around the country. Clearly it makes sense to have one national regulator. It also makes a lot of sense to have one national set of laws so that as vessels move from one state to the waters of another state they are subjected to the same laws and conditions.

The state and territory agencies will still be responsible for the effective day-to-day operation of the national law under delegation from the national regulator. The jurisdictions—that is, the states and territories—will retain responsibility for the regulation of waterways, the management of ports and associated issues such as classifying waters, setting speed limits and regulating alcohol consumption. I think it is quite appropriate that each state and territory have that responsibility remain with it. I note that vessels which operate internationally, foreign vessels and vessels which maintain certification under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea will be regulated by the Commonwealth under the Navigation Act 2012 and are outside the scope of this bill. Defence vessels and recreation vessels are also outside the application of this bill. Interstate vessels that are currently regulated under the Navigation Act 1912 will be covered under the national law from its commencement.

The Maritime Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Consequential Amendments) Bill provides for consequential amendments to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990, the AMSA Act, and the national law bill. The objective of this arrangement is to align the national law, general safety obligations and offences with workplace health and safety duties and offences once the WHS Act has been enacted nationally.

Schedule 1 of the bill amends the AMSA Act to include definitions defined in the national law and to reflect the agreement on commercial vessel safety reform that the Commonwealth reached in the Council of Australian Governments agreement. The bill will ensure that the AMSA board membership includes at least one member with knowledge of or experience relevant to non-SOLAS-convention commercial vessel operation and/or construction. Schedule 2 of the bill repeals the existing offences and penalties for the general safety duties in the national law and replaces them with provisions that correspond substantially with the provisions of part 2 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. Schedule 2 will take effect when all law that corresponds substantially with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 is enacted in all states and territories.

I want to make a few general comments about the shipping industry in this country, and they are comments that I touched on when I was speaking to the reforms only two weeks ago. Those reforms, as I said at the outset, have now been passed by both this House and the Senate. According to the Australian Logistics Council, the national freight task in this country is expected to double to 1,000 billion tonne kilometres by 2030 and to 1,400 billion tonne kilometres by 2050. We live in a country where we export a lot of our product. We are fortunate to have an abundance of mineral resources. We sell those resources outside this country, but we do not ship them because we have hardly any ships left in this country. In fact I understand that less than half a per cent of our exports are carried by Australian flag vessels.

It is high time that we got behind our shipping industry in this country. It is high time for several reasons. Firstly, we have a product to export, yet we have no means to carry it. It makes logical sense to value-add to that product by having a shipping industry and a shipping fleet capable of continuing the work that we generate in this country. Secondly, we know full well that a shipping industry, like any industry, has to abide by regulations and the laws of the sea. We have had too many experiences where that has not occurred, including in our own waters, and we have seen the destruction and damage that is caused by that. By having professional, well-regulated, well-trained shipping crews, that is not likely to happen. It is in our environmental interest, if nothing else, to ensure that that happens. We also have obligations to the rest of the world when our ships are in international waters or when any ship carrying our produce is in international waters. If we are going to live up to those obligations, it seems to me that we ought to be in total control of the process.

We have an opportunity to do something that we have neglected to do for a long, long time, which is to revive the shipping fleet of Australia. In doing so we will add to our national prosperity and we will also be more in control of our future affairs. A good example of that, where we literally see money being wasted, is the demurrage costs that we pay to foreign vessels whilst they sit in our coastal waters waiting to be loaded. I understand that in 2008, which is the last year I have figures for, we paid about $1.8 billion in demurrage costs just to have those vessels sitting out in our coastal waters. Even if it were our ships sitting out there, at least that money would be going into our own industry and not into someone else's.

There are very many good economic reasons to revive and support the Australian shipping industry. The four pieces of legislation that we are dealing with today are part of that process. It is legislation that has been worked on for some time, it is legislation that has the agreement of the industry, it is legislation that has the agreement of the states and it is legislation that will add to the national economy and national prosperity. For those reasons I commend the legislation to the House.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Navigation Bill 2012, the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012 and cognate bills. These measures are an important step at streamlining, modernising and clarifying existing laws to reflect contemporary maritime industry practice. They are also a necessary step to legislate the extensive Council of Australian Governments, COAG, reforms and will give effect to international agreements incorporating the conditions from the International Labour Organisation's Maritime Labour Convention. It is a curious incident in the history of Australian parliamentary democracy that the primary bill governing Australian navigation is the oft-amended Navigation Act 1912, now a 100-year-old act that still contains a jumble of both archaic and modern concepts. The initial act was based on provisions contained in the British Merchant Shipping Act 1894, which included laws such as the offence to take a lunatic to sea without telling the master. The act is Australia's primary piece of legislation with regard to the regulation of ship and seafarer safety, employment conditions for Australian seafarers and some aspects of marine environment protection. As such, the coalition welcomed the announcement at the 2009 Natship conference by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to review this legislation and rewrite the act. Following the passage of the coastal shipping reforms, about which I have spoken in this House previously, and the consequent introduction of the Australian international second register, the conditions of the International Labour Organisation's Maritime Labour Convention have been codified into law, and this rewrite will give effect to that convention.

There are provisions in this bill for significant penalties for breaches of the conditions of the bill, which are included as a deterrent effect and which also provide for redress through the court system to respond proportionally to any breach. It is very important to note that any breach of the Navigation Act 1912 can have very serious consequences for the Australian marine environment, as well as for the community and the lives of seafarers themselves. From this premise, the industry must accept their duty to follow the provisions which protect these stakeholders, for which there are three key categories of offences: offences involving intentional misconduct, which carry the highest maximum penalty under these measures, and reckless or negligent conduct, which attracts relatively lower penalties. In addition, as an alternative to criminal prosecution proceedings, the bills creates civil penalty provisions.

Following a considered process to rewrite this act, I trust that these bills will be a meaningful step to reform Australian navigation. These bills reflect Australia's commitment to international cooperation by giving effect to a range of international conventions which cover many areas including safety of life at sea, the prevention of ship collisions, the regulation of watertight integrity and reserve buoyancy of ships, determinations about gross and net tonnage of ships, and of course training and certification of seafarers, which I will touch on in more detail later.

The coalition supports the passage of these bills through parliament as they are a necessary modernisation of navigation regulations. However, I do note that there are still significant concerns within the industry relating to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, and with these bills making that organisation the overarching national regulator—which will apply to all of Australia—these concerns must be addressed.

The Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012 and cognate bills serve to establish a national maritime regulator to streamline Australian intergovernmental regulation of marine safety, which aims to provide constituent regulation of domestic commercial shipping across the nation.

The primary intentions of the bill are to establish the existing Australian Maritime Safety Authority as the so-called national regulator for the express purpose of performing necessary functions and exercising powers of the provisions of the bills; establish a national system for the identification of vessels and the issuance of certificates; establish offences for noncompliance with certificate requirements or for where appropriate certificates are not held; determine general safety obligations for those involved in commercial vessel operations and for those who may use the vessel to ensure proper safety procedures are followed; create a system for compliance and enforcement activities; and have provisions for consistent application of nationally agreed standards across the country.

At present, there are currently eight separate marine safety regulators when you consider the Commonwealth, the six states and the Northern Territory. These bills will mean that there will be only one regulator, AMSA. Moreover, these bills will supersede 50 pieces of legislation across seven jurisdictions which currently govern maritime safety law. This means that interstate vessels which are currently regulated under the Navigation Act 1912 will be covered under the national law. On the ground, the responsibility for the effective day-to-day operations of the law will lie with the state and territory agencies. Of course, each jurisdiction will still be responsible for paying their fair share in order to fund AMSA, such that the Commonwealth will pay the most, with each respective state donating an appropriate amount.

I recently had a meeting with a constituent who is very concerned about the watering down of conditions under Marine Order 3 for marine engineers. This process is still ongoing, with the consultation draft being released on 8 December 2011, which preceded information sessions and 202 written submissions. There were concerns that the new issue of Marine Order 3 would come into force on 1 July 2012. However, the Chief Executive Officer of AMSA, Mr Graham Peachey, has indicated that they will delay the implementation, and, importantly, further consult with industry before declaring a new issue of Marine Order 3. This enables any remaining issues to be addressed, and I would like to update the House on the grave concerns held by marine engineers.

My constituent made a very considered submission to the Maritime Operations Division of AMSA regarding these changes. In his submission, he outlined his experience: he has completed a Bachelor of Naval Architecture with first-class honours, completed a three-year marine engineering cadetship and passed very difficult AMSA oral exams, steam and motor class certificates, as well as realising many other qualifications and expertise through many years in the Royal Australian Navy and merchant navy. Clearly, this constituent is very experienced and knows the industry back to front. He is extremely concerned on three fronts. Firstly, that the significant reduction in sea time to 26 weeks for a trainee marine engineer will produce trainees with a serious lack of necessary experience. This reduction is also relevant to the lack of distinction between diesel engines on small near coastal craft and a variable speed bluewater vessel, which may run on diesel or gas turbines or be steam propelled. As a result, there are concerns that, in failing to distinguish between an engineer's training on one or both of these ships, they may lack the necessary experience in maintenance—which can only be achieved through an adequate amount of seafaring experience with other qualified marine engineers. Secondly, he is concerned that an oral safety exam will no longer be mandatory. Fundamentally, theoretical knowledge and the ability to sit written examinations does not translate to operational knowledge. He notes that a three-hour long written exam is very stressful for a candidate, but such stress reflects how a candidate may react in an emergency situation on board a vessel, should one occur. This is absolutely crucial to ensure the safety of the candidate, their shipmates and the machinery for which a candidate is responsible. Today's measures will make AMSA the national regulator. I trust that for all issues that will fall under its purview AMSA will take at face value all concerns from industry, workers and unions. I am confident that it will retain its commitment to constructive relations with stakeholders in government, industry and the community.

I and my coalition colleagues will always consider the merits of a bill on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the general welfare of Australia and its citizens is maximised. These bills today are a step to increase efficiency in the regulation of navigation and maritime safety national law by streamlining and modernising the existing law. It is expected that these reforms should provide productivity benefits of $30 billion over the next 20 years. It is of course not for that reason alone that I support these bills, but certainly I am confident that all stakeholders in this area—seafarers, industry, the environment and the community—will benefit in many ways.

However, I point to the lack of consistency and I would suggest that that is the confused way this government has introduced other purported reforms into this House, in particular from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Fortunately, the Transport Workers Union has not managed to destroy the substantial intent of these bills.

On 14 March 2012, I spoke on and opposed the introduction of the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and its consequential amendments bill. I opposed those bills because, as I said at the time, they would create a new layer of bureaucracy and add to jurisdictional creep between state and federal legislation, decreasing flexibility in the industry and increasing red tape. Those bills did not streamline or modernise regulation; they merely added another layer with which companies and employees had to comply. Further, on 28 May 2012, I spoke on and opposed the Shipping Reform (Tax Incentives) Bill 2012 and associated bills. I said that they were yet another example of this Labor government using the long arm of governmental bureaucracy to intervene in and overregulate an industry to the detriment of the Australian economy.

So you can imagine my surprise that the Australian Labor Party has actually introduced bills that attempt to genuinely reform the industry, bills that will implement measures for the future health of our economy. The point is this: those on the opposite side of the House try to claim that we on this side oppose bills unnecessarily or that we are more interested in opposing for political gain. This is patently not true. The coalition will always consider the details of every bill. We always assess whether the seen and unseen consequences of a bill are beneficial to our country. And we have followed this process today.

These bills should decrease the level of bureaucracy, will ensure a more effective and appropriate national law and enforcement process, and will not only be beneficial economically but further act to protect our community and environment. For these reasons, I support the passage of these bills.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their comments and their contributions to the debate on the Navigation Bill 2012 and the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012. These bills represent the most significant overhaul of the regulation and management of Australia's maritime industry since 1912. Between them these bills provide the primary legislative means for the Australian government to regulate international ship and seafarer safety, ensure shipping is conducted in a manner which protects our marine environment, give effect to Australia's obligations under various International Maritime Organisation conventions and create a national safety system for domestic commercial vessels by establishing the Australian Maritime Safety Authority as the single national maritime regulator.

Shipping is a crucial part of the Australian transport system. Each year almost 4,000 ships transport goods to and from Australia, carrying 99 per cent by volume of Australia's imports and exports. This constitutes the world's fourth largest shipping task. The increase in demand for Australia's exports and new resource developments means that Australia's sea freight task is likely to double by 2025. The safety and efficiency of the shipping industry is, therefore, critical to Australia's economic prosperity. For these reasons it is important that the 100-year-old Navigation Act be replaced with a contemporary legislative framework for maritime regulation. It is also important that vessels operating in Australian waters all operate under one system with one set of rules.

It is a credit to all states and territories that the national law bill is the result of a cooperative national reform effort. All jurisdictions have actively participated in developing this bill. The national law bill replaces eight existing federal, state and territory regulators with one national marine safety regulator and a single national law, providing clarity and consistency for Australia's seafarers and commercial vessel owners, together with the single national regulators in rail safety and heavy vehicles.

This will lead to a benefit to the national economy of $30 billion over 20 years. This is real productivity reform. This is real microeconomic reform, moving from 23 regulators down to three, achieved by this government, funded by this government, driven by this government, in cooperation with the state and territory governments. This is indeed a proud day, the day when this legislation is adopted. I congratulate the fact that the opposition are also supporting legislation, meaning that this has bipartisanship, which just emphasises how significant this legislation is.

The practical impact of these bills is that the conduct, obligations and safety standards required of vessels in Australian waters will be clear, consistent and consistently applied. This means that companies or people who operate national businesses, have vessels in multiple states or rely on domestic commercial vessels for their livelihoods will not have to grapple with different safety, regulatory or administrative requirements. Yesterday, the Senate passed the most significant reform of Australia's shipping industry since the 1920s. That reform should be viewed in combination with these bills to mean that this week this parliament is dealing with the most significant reform of the maritime sector since Federation. This, together with the shipping bills, will ensure that our country has a strong and prosperous maritime future. A competitive, growing and safe Australian shipping industry is good for our economy, our environment and our national security.

I want to pay tribute to all those who have been involved in this process: the state and territory governments, the unions and maritime industry sectors, and AMSA—the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. I wish particularly to single out the work that has been done by my department through the Deputy Secretary, Andrew Wilson, and Karen Gosling. Karen will be leaving the department shortly for a much quieter life in retirement. I wish Karen well. This is a legacy that she has left just prior to her departure. I thank Pauline Sullivan also.

I also want to pay tribute to two people in my office—one former and one current. Craig Carmody has driven this reform through my office under circumstances which have been difficult, getting on top of the detail of such a complex series of legislation and liaising on a day-to-day basis with the sector. I often think that as ministers and members of parliament we get the credit but it is the staff who are doing the hard yards. Mr Carmody's predecessor, Malcolm Larsen is now with AMSA. I think he can get a great deal of credit for being there as this enormous reform project began.

This is a proud day and I commend these bills to the House. I congratulate all those who have been involved in this reform.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.