MARINE AMENDMENT BILL 2000 Second Reading Speech

Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

MARINE AMENDMENT BILL 2000

(This an uncorrected proof of the daily report. It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such.)

Mr Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The Marine Act came into operation on 16 March 1982 to regulate shipping within the Territory and to provide for the application of the uniform shipping laws and codes in common with the states. Over the 18-year period to date, marine legislation has served the Territory well. We have seen steady growth throughout all sectors of the maritime industry including boat building, ship repair, commercial fishing, pearling, aquaculture, marine tourist charter activities, and hire and drive boat operations.

The Uniform Shipping Laws Code together with the Shipping and Navigational Constitutional Agreement ratified by the premiers on 29 June 1979 bind the Commonwealth, states and territories, and continues to underpin state and territory marine legislation. Under the shipping and navigation agreement, the Commonwealth was responsible for Australian and foreign trading vessels engaged on international or interstate voyages whereas the states and territories were responsible for trading vessels engaged on intra-strait and coastal voyages. States and territories are also responsible for fishing vessels and pleasure craft operating anywhere on the Australian coast.

My Department of Transport and Works keeps our marine legislation under constant review in support of the Territory’s maritime industry taking into account developments nationally. A number of the amendments contained in the bill are in parallel with actions being taken by the Commonwealth and the states in the interest of national uniformity of marine legislation. Further strengthening of uniformity can be expected over the next 2 years wehn a National Marine Safety Committee completes its task by developing uniform marine safety standards to be administered by all jurisdictions on a consistent national basis. The Territory is an active participant in the development of these uniform standards.

In the meantime, the amendment bill before us today provides a firm foundation on which to build the future national marine safety reform that will emerge over the next 2 years. The amendment bill proposes repeal of some 33 sections of the current act. It will eliminate some 66 elements of red tape. For example, sections 36 to 50 of the existing Marine Act dealing with seamen’s agreements and wages, sections 52 to 56 dealing with crew welfare, and sections 57 to 63 dealing with seamen being wrecked at sea or left behind in port are out of date by modern mercantile marine practices and are no longer required. These matters are now covered by separate industrial awards and enterprise bargain agreements entered into between ship owners, ship operators and unions. Sections 64 to 68 that deal with discipline, breach of duty, and neglect of duty on the part of seamen engaged on ships will also be repealed for the same reasons. Ship owners and operators and maritime unions have been consulted on the proposed removal of these outdated provisions of our marine legislation. They have raised no objections. Indeed, owners and operators are delighted with the prospect of having this red tape removed.

An amendment proposed in the bill is to provide a definition for fish in line with the uniform shipping laws code. The meaning of fish in the act will include turtles, dugong, crustacea, and molluscs and any other living resources of the sea or the seabed. However, this amendment will have no impact on the protection of species under the Territory’s Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The definition of fishing vessel has been expanded to include fishing support vessels. At present, fishing support vessels previously called carriers and mother vessels were classified as trading vessels and where such vessels engaged in interstate voyages, their owners or operators became subject to the Navigation Act and had to obtain single voyage permits from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority in Canberra. By including these vessels within the definition of fishing vessels, they remain under the Northern Territory Marine Act thus giving owners and operators much more flexibility in carrying out interstate voyages in support of fishing fleet operations.

The bill also meets concerns of the pearling, crabbing and aquaculture industries by rationalising the manning requirements for and safety equipment to be carried by fishing vessels less than 6.2m long operating in conjunction with the mother vessel and within 5 nautical miles of the mother vessel, or that are operating within 5 nautical miles of the coast. Further, the definition of Northern Territory waters has now been aligned to the meaning of the coastal waters, Northern Territory Powers Act 1980, of the Commonwealth. A number of amendments to section 75 of the act dealing with the safety and survey of vessels in the Territory are proposed.

When the Marine Act came into force in 1982 there were no air cushion vehicles in the Territory. We now have ACVs being operated in our waters. It is necessary that they comply with marine survey standards for the safety of passengers and crew. A requirement in the regulations for hire and drive vessels 7 metres or over in length, to be placed in survey, under section 75 has been included in the act. This removes a potential conflict between the requirements of the regulations and the requirements of the act.

Penalties for breaches of the legislation have not changed since the act came into force in 1982. The opportunity is being taken under this amendment to change the designation of penalties from dollars to penalty units and to update them so they are in line with current monetary values. In some cases, where safety of life is prejudiced, the increase in penalties is significant. In the case of section 97, sailing unsafe ships, and section 186 failing to comply with a detention order, penalties have increased from 5,000 to 1,250 penalty units or $125,000. For sections 109 failure to render assistance to a vessel involved in a collision, section 111 failure to assist persons in danger, and section 113 Part II failure to render assistance in response to a distress call, the penalties have increased from 2500 or 1,250 penalty units or, as I said, $125,000. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]