Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Amendment (Improving Safety) Bill 2019. I wish to start by acknowledging Senator Sterle's deep interest in and commitment to this topic and to the Mills family. What happened to Mr Mills was an absolute tragedy. Obviously the flow-on impacts on his family have been extraordinary. They will go on for the rest of that family's lives. It has left a deep, deep scar on that family. In this place, I thank Senator Sterle for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee and continuing to try to address this matter in a positive way. I also wish to acknowledge the initiating role that my colleague from Western Australia Minister Linda Reynolds had in bringing this matter to the attention of this place.

The Mills story, which Senator Sterle has gone through in detail, so I won't repeat it, is a tragic set of circumstances. One thing that became very clear in the self-referred inquiry on this issue to the rural and regional committee was the failure for anyone, but particularly the Maritime Safety Authority, to explain the use of a single headcount. A single headcount in a marine environment, whether it be a count on or a count off, tells you very little. It tells you how many people are or were on a boat at a particular point in time. It doesn't tell you anything else.

The marine order that's involved in this area is also drafted quite strangely. It talks about the officer in charge knowing how many people are on board the vessel at all times. I'm always wary when I see a law drafted in such a way that's almost impossible to comply with. How can a master of a vessel know how many people are on board at all times? That's impossible. What Senator Sterle described was the two headcount process, which is used widely in Australia. It's used on the Great Barrier Reef following some incidents there where divers were left behind. It at least tells you how many people got off and how many people got on, so I do have some significant sympathy with Senator Sterle's argument.

That said, the government will not be supporting this bill, and I'll go through the reasons why not. I want to make it very clear that I think it is important that the Senate inquiry from the rural and regional committee—of which I was an active member in the last parliament; unfortunately duties have dragged me away a little bit from that committee, which I do love—is taken to conclusion. I would certainly encourage the current voting members of that committee to make sure that inquiry does finalise and report.

I think that is an important part of the process here, and I think it's also important that AMSA takes the time, and the process with a variety of stakeholders, to get this right. We need to make sure that what we put in place is going to have the outcome that we all desire here, which is making sure those vessels that are taking passengers on board and going out with the aim of having a good time get everyone home safely. If they don't then the search and rescue that we do have—the quite remarkable search-and-rescue capability right around Australia—needs to be given the chance to act in the most timely way possible. That is the great tragedy of the Mills circumstance. There was a chance—and the Mills family have to live with the fact that that chance was there—to find Mr Mills alive, but it could never be acted upon because of the procedures that were undertaken.

As I say, the government doesn't support the bill in its current form due to some particular issues within the bill and due to some of the specifications it puts in place, but it absolutely does support the principle of getting these regulations right and improving passenger safety. Amending the existing marine order is the preferred option. AMSA is going through a response to recent industry consultation on passenger safety matters and looking to change marine orders, informed by that industry view. My message to AMSA is that they need to make sure they do get this right. The argument that one headcount does anything doesn't wash with me—it is a number at a point in time; it tells you nothing. So, when we see the example of commercial vehicles on the Great Barrier Reef being able to institute, seemingly successfully, a headcount on and a headcount off, I think there would need to be very good evidence provided if you were not going to go down the path that Senator Sterle proposes in this bill. However, I do think the process is important and consultation with industry is important. We need to make sure that, in this very important part of our tourism industry, marine tourism—and, obviously, passenger transportation could also potentially impact fishing and aquaculture arrangements, some of which have a dual tourist-commercial aspect to them—those concerns are examined and taken into account. We have a duty to ensure the regulatory framework supports the safe operations of all vessels so seafarers and passengers return home safely.

As I said, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee's current AMSA investigation is still on. I would certainly hope to see that conclude in some fashion and make some significant recommendations. The work that that committee has already done has been very valuable both in terms of highlighting the issue and in causing AMSA to have a good, hard look at itself. I think there were clearly some terrible failures, particularly in terms of communication with the Mills family after the event, and in the AMSA investigation of what actually happened. They need to also have a look at their internal processes to make sure that those sorts of failures do not happen again.

We as a government do support the kinds of safety improvements that the bill seeks to achieve. But they must suit the operational circumstances of a diverse range of vessels, and that is one area where this bill is a little lacking. There's very clear feedback from industry and experts that the bill's proposed amendments would require vessels to conduct headcounts even if they do not carry passengers and would provide a blanket exemption to others, such as public transport vehicles. We would not want this legislation to lead to unforeseen circumstances where vessels seek to have themselves considered as public transportation when they're not, in order to, for example, gain an exemption. It removes the flexibility given to AMSA, and I understand, Senator Sterle, that you are keen to remove flexibility. However, flexibility is actually still an important aspect of any regulation in practice. The authorities that oversee these regulations do need to be flexible enough to deal with a range of different circumstances.

I think that we need to see what AMSA develops in terms of more robust safety requirements in future. I believe that technology will actually drive us forward on this, and that we don't want to put in place regulations that would enshrine methods that don't have the best safety outcomes, when technology could potentially deal with a lot of these issues in a more effective way.

As I say, I am extraordinarily sympathetic to the Mills family. I'm extraordinarily sympathetic to the arguments Senator Sterle has put forward. I do not believe that there has ever been an adequate explanation presented to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee as to why a single headcount achieves anything. I do not see the point of continuing in that environment; however, I do think we need to allow the process to continue and the changes to come forward, and then we will examine them. I would also encourage the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee to finalise its inquiry. I think that would be a positive step. I think inquiries are not there just to elucidate issues; they're also there to make some recommendations, and I would like to see that inquiry finalised.

In conclusion, once again, my absolute sympathy goes out to the Mills family. I want to acknowledge the work done by Senator Sterle. I want to acknowledge the work done in the origins of this debate by my colleague Senator Reynolds and the current chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Senator McDonald. Whilst we will not be supporting this bill, I do commend Senator Sterle for his efforts.