Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, the work being done has a tangible and immediate impact in reducing run-off at the farm level into the Barrier Reef. Many would indicate that that is perhaps a greater problem for the Great Barrier Reef than accidents at sea. I support anything that assists the Barrier Reef, whether it be Reef Rescue or this legislation. But, as is typical with the Labor Party, you have to be very careful about legislation that they bring forward.

I note that a strict liability offence is created in clause 269E so that no intention is necessary for the offence to be committed. This makes it clear that in prosecuting an offence under the proposed act the prosecution does not have to establish that the master knew of or was reckless about the fact that the ship was in a mandatory reporting area. Perhaps this is appropriate, as a ship's master is very often best placed to provide evidence as to whether this section was contravened. Nevertheless, many of us on this side of the chamber as a matter of principle have concerns about the creation of these strict liability offences. In some cases it is difficult for a master or somebody in a position of responsibility to account for all of the issues that he is responsible for at any given time.

Mr Acting Deputy President, you might recall, as I am sure other senators will recall, debates in this parliament about proposals to introduce strict liability offences for aircraft captains in circumstances where they could not possibly be expected to be able to take responsibility for what happens. There was a big issue at the time about strict liability offences for airline pilots. Again, legislation introduced by this government, no matter what its intentions, is always pretty light on detail and management. But there was quite a substantial debate on that. I think the legislation was blocked in the Senate, if my memory serves me correctly. Eventually those proposals were defeated.

I just mention that to say that there is always a bit of a concern about strict liability offences. But this is a different circumstance. The strict liability in this bill is only in relation to an offence where a vessel is in a mandatory reporting area, and perhaps a vessel that is in a mandatory reporting area like the Great Barrier Reef is usually there for quite some time. It would seem incomprehensible that a master could have any excuse for not knowing that he was there or not undertaking the mandatory reporting processes. As a general principle, there are concerns about strict liability offences, but in this instance perhaps it is relevant.

I also want to draw the Senate's attention to the provisions of the bill that place quite substantial requirements in many instances. I am just pausing to get my notes in relation to the particular offences that I wanted to mention to the Senate and which I want to raise in the Committee of the Whole. I note that there is a provision about Australian ships causing pollution or damage in the marine environment outside Australia. That is in proposed subdivision C of the bill. Section 267ZZK provides that the proposed subdivision C applies to all ships, including those generally excluded by section 2, from the operation of the Navigation Act. The following subclause provides that a master of an Australian ship must not operate the ship in a negligent and reckless manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment in seas beyond Australia's territorial sea or EEZ. That is an interesting provision.

When I was the minister for fisheries in the Howard government, our government put a lot of work into trying to regulate provisions that would protect the rare Patagonian toothfish. With a lot of effort and the engagement of new vessels to enforce Australia's law, we were able to clear out pirates who were pillaging the rare Patagonian toothfish stocks within Australia's waters and our EEZ. But on the high seas it was not that easy. I know of a number of instances where Australia, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada looked very seriously at what the world could do to regulate shipping on the high seas. It is easy to regulate it within the exclusive economic zone of any country, but it is much more difficult of course on the high seas. There is a United Nations convention on the law of the sea that in some way mentions that, but the difficulty in enforcing anything on the high seas is fairly obvious. So I am interested in how Australia can legislate for Australian ships on the high seas causing pollution. I am intrigued to find out in the committee stage how that will apply.

There is also another matter that I want to explore further in the committee stage, and that is the involvement for the very first time first time of fishing vessels in these sorts of laws. These laws have in the past applied to the big tankers carrying lots of oil and various items that could in fact have caused major damage to the Great Barrier Reef and other parts of Australian waters. But, for the very first time, this legislation seems to involve fishing vessels, and that is what I want to explore in committee. (Time expired)