Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

MARINE SAFETY (MISUSE OF ALCOHOL) BILL 2006 (No. 22)

Second Reading

[6.40 p.m.]

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Minister for Police and Emergency Management - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

The current regulatory regime for operators of vessels who have consumed alcohol simply makes it an offence to operate certain vessels whilst intoxicated. It does not specify a quantitative measure of alcohol in the breath or blood. This has made enforcement of the regulatory regime extremely difficult for both Tasmania Police and Marine and Safety Tasmania - MAST - who in the past have encountered circumstances in which accidents, death, injury and/or offences, have been committed by people who were operating vessels and who appeared to have been significantly affected by alcohol.

Both the Recreational Boating Safety Review conducted by MAST in 2000 and the national survey conducted by the National Maritime Safety Committee in 2004 provided evidence in support of the introduction of testing for alcohol of vessel operators. Further, in 2004 the minister introducing the New South Wales Marine Safety Amendment Bill, Mr West, stated that:

'Alcohol consumption can lead to diminished judgment, slower reaction in response times, reduced depth perception, reduced night vision and focus, and accelerated onset of hypothermia if a person who has consumed alcohol falls into the water.'

The contents of the bill have been the subject of wide consultation. Public, intergovernmental and interdepartmental consultation has been undertaken. The concerns expressed by a few individuals and industry have been assessed and where valid, the legislation amended accordingly.

The bill has been drafted to cross-reference as many provisions as possible from the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970. This will ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication of provisions, particularly those relating to equipment, certification and certain procedures and processes. The bill also seeks to include offences for vessel operators which are similar to those which apply to motorists. The Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Regulations 1999 will also be amended so that as many provisions as possible apply for the purposes of this legislation. This strategy will benefit members of the public and police, who are already familiar with the provisions contained in road safety legislation.

Under this legislation, the permitted concentration for all recreational and fishing vessel operators will be 0.05 grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath, or 100 millilitres of blood. Allowing fishing vessel operators to have a concentration of 0.05 grams of alcohol or less in their body acknowledges the concerns of the Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council that for many fishermen, the fishing vessel on which they work is also their home.

Commercial operators and marine farming operators will be subject to a zero limit. This reflects the fact that they provide public transport and other professional services on waterways, and as such must comply with the highest standards of professional conduct. This is consistent with the standards that apply to operators of passenger transport vehicles under the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970.

The legislation only applies to vessels with engines. The engine need not be installed; it is sufficient if it is aboard the vessel and is capable of being temporarily mounted. Other types of vessels may be prescribed in regulations, should the need arise. The bill also includes provisions which define who is in charge of a vessel, who is operating a vessel, and includes provisions relating to the status of pilots and masters of commercial vessels.

The key offence provisions contained in the bill are:

(a) a prohibition on operating a commercial vessel if a person has any alcohol in their breath or blood;

(b) a prohibition on operating any other vessel, if a person has a breath or blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.05 per cent;

(c) a prohibition on an owner or person in charge of a commercial vessel, causing or allowing another person who has alcohol in his or her breath or blood, to operate that commercial vessel; and

(d) a prohibition on an owner or person in charge of any other vessel causing or allowing a person who has a breath or blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.05 per cent to operate that vessel.

Appropriate defences have been included in the legislation.

The bill provides for random testing and for the testing of people who are operating or have just ceased operating a vessel, where it is suspected that they have alcohol in their breath or blood. The bill also provides for the testing or blood sampling of people who police reasonably suspect were on board a vessel which was involved in a maritime accident. This provision will assist the coroner with his or her inquiries, and is designed to overcome the problem where a maritime accident occurs and police are unable to immediately ascertain who the operator was at the time of the accident.

Most other offence provisions are similar to those contained in the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970. These include the offences of failing or refusing to submit to procedures and directions of a police officer; objecting to the analysis of a blood sample; and doing something to alter the concentration of alcohol in the person's blood, before they have submitted to the procedure.

The bill also makes provision for a person who refuses or fails a breath test, breath analysis or blood-sampling to be taken into custody, conveyed to an appropriate place and detained in order to enable a requirement to submit to a breath analysis to be carried out. It is also an offence for such a person to escape, attempt to escape, obstruct or hinder his or her conveyance. The provisions relating to testing and analysis procedures are also similar to those contained in the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970.

Police will be provided with the authority to take certain action and direct persons to do or not do certain things for the purposes of enforcing the legislation. However, the exercise of police authority in this legislation is subject to limitations. There are also provisions for a police officer to require a person to state the person's name, age and address. A person who refuses, fails or states a false name, age or address is guilty of an offence under the bill and may be arrested without warrant. All other matters will be dealt with by summons.

The penalties which may be imposed for offences committed under this legislation include fines and/or imprisonment, and for certain offences, disqualification from operating a vessel of such a class or description as the court determines. The bill provides that a restricted mariner's certificate may be applied for by a person who is subject to a disqualification order under the legislation. The arrangement and application process which applies to restricted mariners' certificates is similar to that which applies to restricted driver licences under the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 and Road Safety ( Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970.

The evidentiary provisions are similar to those contained in the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970.

In conclusion, the Marine Safety (Misuse of Alcohol) Bill is comprehensive and contemporary marine safety legislation that will not only bring Tasmania in line with most other States, it is consistent with the blood/breath alcohol limits imposed in road safety legislation, and will also assist achieving the Tasmania Together goal of having a community where people feel safe and are safe in all aspects of their lives.

I believe that this initiative will lead to fewer injuries and deaths on our waterways, and that a significant majority of Tasmanians are supportive of the proposals. The legislation also brings into force the recommendation made in 2000 by then Coroner, Ian Matterson, who stated that 'it would be appropriate to enforce restrictions similar to those that currently apply to drivers of motor vehicles'. The recommendation related to the death of one of five people who died in a boating accident off South Bruny in November 1999. I commend the bill to the House.

[6.48 p.m.]

Mr GUTWEIN (Bass) - It is my pleasure to place the Opposition's position in relation to the Marine Safety (Misuse of Alcohol) Bill 2006. It should be put on the record that it is currently an offence under the Marine and Safety (Safe Operation) Regulations 2003 and by-law 30 of the Marine and Safety (Motor Boats) and Licences By-Laws 1998 to operate most boats whilst intoxicated. However, the issue that this legislation seeks to cover off - and it is a very important issue - is that there has not been a way to measure alcohol in the breath or blood of somebody operating a marine vessel, so it has been difficult to enforce the legislation. I say quite firmly at the beginning of my contribution that we will be supporting this legislation as obviously there is little point in having legislation in place which specifically prohibits someone from operating a boat whilst intoxicated if there is no measure available in relation to the level of that intoxication.

As is normal practice for this side of the House when considering legislation that is brought in by the Government, we have contacted a number of groups who will be impacted by this legislation. I am pleased to report that all those I spoke with are 100 per cent supportive of the bill before us. I do not want to draw too much on the minister's second reading speech but, at the risk of repeating something that has already been said, it is worthwhile once again placing on the Hansard the comments of the New South Wales minister when introducing their marine safety amendment bill. He stated:

'Alcohol consumption can lead to diminished judgment, slower reaction in response times, reduced depth perception, reduced night vision and focus, and accelerated onset of hypothermia if a person who has consumed alcohol falls into the water.'

Under this legislation, for all recreational fishing vessel operators, the permitted concentration of alcohol will be 0.05 grams in 210 litres of breath or 100 millilitres of blood. However, commercial operators and marine farming operations will be subject to a zero limit. A zero limit is consistent with the standards that apply to operators of passenger transport vehicles under the Road Safety, Alcohol and Drugs Act 1970 and reflects the fact that they provide public transport and other professional services on the waterways and as such it is necessary for them to comply with the highest possible standards.

The bill has also been drafted to cross-reference as many provisions as possible from the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 and seeks to also include offences for vessel operators which are similar to those that apply to motorists. The Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Regulations 1999 will also be amended so that as many provisions as possible apply for the purposes of the legislation before us. This will also benefit members of the public because of the similar provisions contained in the road safety legislation. I think that while quite sadly each year we still see too high a number of people testing positive to random breath testing, most people recognise and understand the amount of alcohol that they can consume and drive a vehicle, and importantly they also recognise the penalties that apply.

One matter that I would like the minister to clarify is the matter of which type of vessel this legislation will apply to. Now, I know that in the information that has been provided states that only vessels with engines or those capable of carrying an engine, if that engine is capable of being temporarily mounted, are subject to this legislation. However, one matter that the sailing club that I spoke with in the north of the State wanted clarified was whether or not an 18-foot skiff, and I think that is the correct term, with no provision for an engine to be mounted would be covered under this legislation. My reading of it is that an 18-foot skiff would not be covered. So you could be on an 18-foot skiff under sail, drunk as a lord and this legislation would not pick you up. I am just wondering whether that is correct or not and perhaps you could just clarify that.

Mr Llewellyn - We have got a way around that.

Mr GUTWEIN - Very good. I thought that you might have. I have listed here the key offence provisions and I think that it is probably worth placing my understanding of them on the record. Firstly, there is prohibition of operating a commercial vessel if the person has any alcohol in their breath or blood. I do not think too many people would have any problem in supporting that provision, just as we do.

Secondly, there is prohibition on operating any other vessel if the person has a breath or blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.05. Thirdly, there is a prohibition on an owner or person in charge of a commercial vessel causing or allowing another person with alcohol on his or her breath or in their blood to operate that commercial vessel. Once again, there is definitely no argument from this side of the House. Finally, there is prohibition on an owner or person in charge of any vessel causing or allowing any other person who has a breath or blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.05 to operate that vessel.

The penalties provided are embodied in the legislation and the minister has covered those. The bill provides for the random testing of people operating or who have just ceased operating a vessel, when it is suspected that they have alcohol in their blood. I am wondering if the minister might just explain in his summing up how he envisages this being policed and whether or not the police launch would be used and whether we would be having random boat testing occurring on the Tamar, for example, at any time in the future? If you could just explain how you see it being policed and whether or not you believe that you have sufficient resources to effectively police this legislation. In summing up, I would also like you to also explain clause 9, which specifies that the act does not apply to a vessel under the control of the Australian Defence Force or a warship, naval auxiliary or other vessel operating exclusively in the non-commercial government services of a foreign country, with non-commercial government service including scientific research activity.

That is my understanding of the legislation. I wonder if you could explain the reasons for this and whether or not it is similar in regard to the way that we would treat a motorist if they were operating a vehicle on our roads and were in the employ of another country. I do not believe we would; I think we would treat them exactly the same. The reason I raise it -

Mr Llewellyn - There is a similarity. Remember we debated the emergency bills in relation to foreign vessels. There is a parallel there probably.

Mr GUTWEIN - But not in relation to the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act. Anybody driving a vehicle on our roads who blew over 0.05 would be charged. Perhaps in summing up, Minister, you could explain that. That was my understanding. The reason that it was of interest to me, especially in relation to non-commercial government service, including scientific research activity, is that whilst, certainly in the north of the State, we do not have a lot of non- commercial government vessels or research vessels in the Tamar River, we do have a number of them tying up here at different times at the wharves in Hobart. I was wondering whether or not there was a specific reason why we would exclude, for example, the captain of a French ship who might have had too much champagne and drove into the docks at a speed that he should not have. Under this legislation we would have no provision to breath-test him. I am casting no aspersions on the French, none whatsoever. Could you explain the rationale behind that?

The other matter that I wanted to raise - and perhaps you could again comment on this - was that we have seen an increase in the use of illicit drugs, and in the latter part of last year we began a random drug testing regime on our roads. What perplexes me is that this legislation does not allow for the testing of anyone for illicit drugs, unless there is a crossover provision that I am not aware of. Certainly in all the information that you have provided it does not cover that. We have certainly seen an increase in the use of illicit drugs and we know from the random testing that has occurred on our roads that people are driving motor vehicles with illicit drugs in their systems. I was wondering if you could put on the record your rationale or at least an explanation, if I am incorrect and that this bill will allow for random drug testing, as to why the Government at this stage is not going to use any of the oral testing methods for illicit drugs. Minister, if you are able to explain those measures in summing up, I cannot see any reason why we would be seeking to take this into committee. Of key importance to me personally is a very clear explanation in regard to the matter of the illicit drugs and whether or not we will be testing for them. With that, the Liberals will be supporting this legislation.

[6.59 p.m.]

Mr MORRIS (Lyons) - The Greens of course will be supporting this legislation. I think the big question that really needs to be raised is: why has it taken so long? The bill that this mirrors is a 1970 act, the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act, and here we are, 35 years later, enacting legislation that applies in a similar manner to most watercraft. There is every reason why we should be doing what we can to protect Tasmanians from being harmed by the actions of irresponsible persons. We know that alcohol in excess does impair the judgment, the reaction time et cetera of persons whilst operating machinery. A lot of this has come from Coroner Ian Matterson's comments in a coroner's report into an accident off South Bruny in 1999, where he says it would be appropriate to enforce restrictions similar to those that currently apply for drivers of motor vehicles. So here we are, six years later. While it has taken us 35 years to realise that this legislation was necessary, even the six years since the comments by Coroner Matterson seem to be rather a long time. Nonetheless, we welcome the legislation and we support it.

I just had some answers given to me about one area that I had concerns about. I was going to go into committee, but I can avoid doing so now. That relates to the ability of someone, if they see the police coming, being able to drop anchor and claim that their vessel was secured. The police have the provision of having a vessel just being operated but, if they cannot utilise that provision, then they have suggested to me that they would offer to tow the boat ashore. This would make sure that the person operating it, if they appeared to be in excess of 0.05 or in the case of a commercial vessel have alcohol in their blood, would at least get back to dry land safely although not necessarily be charged with an offence. I think that leads to another point that I will make in a little while.

What we have here essentially is a mirroring of the laws as they relate to driving a motor vehicle, but we have to consider that there are some differences between being on dry land and being on the water. Basically, you cannot just catch a taxi if you happen to suddenly realise that you have done the irresponsible thing and you are no longer capable of driving your boat. There are some differences. However, that is not to say that the legislation necessarily needs to be different at this stage, only to say that I think the legislation may require amending at a later stage.

As my colleague from Bass, Mr Gutwein, has raised, there is the issue of drugs other than alcohol. He is quite right that consideration should be given to the ability of random testing for other drugs because there is the ability of drug use - that can be both legal and illegal drugs - to impair someone's ability to operate machinery. That will be something that will need to be considered. I would imagine that we will see an amendment to this bill to reflect that, given that we are mirroring those laws in relation to the roads. I do not really see what is different about drug use in relation to driving a car, as opposed to drug use in relation to driving a boat. After all, alcohol is also a drug and that is what we are dealing with. We just seem to be leaving out the vast bulk of them. I will not be surprised if we see an amendment in the next year or two. In fact, at this stage we would probably welcome an amendment. I could almost ask why that is not included here? Could you answer that, Minister?

There are a couple of other points I wanted to look at here. It was very interesting to see that in relation to penalties, clause 41(2) says:

'The court must, regardless of any other penalty it may impose for the offence -

(a) impose the fine that is specified in column 3 of the table for the offence; and

(b) disqualify the person for the period that is specified in column 4 of the table for the offence.'

But then it goes on:

'(3) However, if the convicted person satisfies the court that there are special circumstances why the specified fine or period of disqualification (or both) should not be imposed, the court may impose a lesser fine or period of disqualification (or both).'

I imagine there are going to be lots of attempts to satisfy the court that there are special circumstances. There is a potential financial gain, or period of disqualification lessening, for arguing a case under 41(3). That is not to say that the court should not have some discretion, but certainly the way it is written at the moment is an open invitation for someone to seek to have their fine or period of disqualification reduced. That is something that will have to be seen over time, as to how that may be. Again, I presume that it more or less mirrors the road situation.

It is interesting to see that for commercial vessels anyone who has less than 0.05 is subject to up to a two penalty unit fine and up to three months' disqualification, right through to over 0.2 of 10 penalty units fine and a period of disqualification of 15 months. That 15 months disqualification maximum does seem perhaps fairly light for what would potentially be a very serious quantity of alcohol in the blood, given that it is more than 0.2. The non- commercial penalties are basically one step less so that if it is 0.05 but not more than 0.1 then it is up to a two penalty unit fine and three months' disqualification - it seems fairly light, given the potential seriousness of the offence - through to a maximum of an eight penalty unit fine and a 12-month disqualification, for basically drinking as much as you possibly can consume. The maximum that a non-commercial operator can get is a 12-month disqualification. I think that also applies for subsequent offences, so even if a person offends they can only have their operator's certificate disqualified for 12 months. So presumably if they get their certificate back again, they can go and do the same thing and again. There is not the ability that I could see for the court to take that into consideration. If a person habitually offends, they still cannot get more than the maximum of a 12-month suspension. Again, whilst I am not suggesting that we should change the legislation at this point, I am suggesting that that is something that needs consideration in the light of experience of operating this legislation. That that penalty may prove to be not adequate if we find that there are people habitually drinking more than is permitted under the law and facing the courts on a regular basis.

After all, there has been a bit of a culture - maybe more than a bit of a culture - about drinking and operating boats. I notice the survey showed that some 63 per cent of people who were surveyed supported this type of legislation, so that is a reasonably good support for it, but it shows that there are a number of people out there who possibly do not support the legislation and I suspect that they are ones who might be likely to run into trouble.

Perhaps, Minister, you could inform the House of the regulations, which is clause 61. I understand this is a fairly standard section for regulations but I gather you might already have a set of draft regulations. I have asked this question before: if you have a set of draft regulations, why do you not allow us to see them or have them incorporated in the package of information that is given to us? I note that on page 2 of the fact sheet the legislation also provides that other types of vessels may be prescribed in the regulations should the need arise. Here we are potentially talking about vessels that Mr Gutwein mentioned, presumably vessels that do not have motors or are sub-four horsepower, which I gather are not included. Perhaps you could clarify whether vessels that have motors of less than four horsepower, where you currently are not required to have a licence to operate, whether they are excluded at the moment. You certainly could not impose a column 4 disqualification period on someone who does not have a licence. I guess this is where the legislation might be extended by regulation, should the need arise, to rowing-type boats, rafts or perhaps small dinghies that currently, I presume, are not covered by this legislation.

I think that those are the main points I want to raise here. I congratulate you, Minister, on bringing in this bill; we welcome it. Things that reduce the number of lives lost through avoidable accidents are always welcomed by the Greens, as long as we do not go to ridiculous levels. In this case I think this legislation probably should have been brought in in 1970 when we had the bill for drink driving. However I suspect there probably would have been a lot of resistance to it at that point in time, just as there probably was - and in fact I vaguely recall that there was a lot of resistance at the time to having drink driving legislation for motor vehicles. The fact that there appears to be very little resistance to this at the moment does show that we have, as a society, moved on quite a lot and that there is now great acceptance that driving a boat has a lot of similarities to driving a car and people should be protected from irresponsible behaviour.

The last point I want to raise is that this only applies to the operator or whoever is in charge of the boat. It seems to me that again there is a bit of a difference between driving on a road or being on the water. If you have one person in the boat who manages to stay legally operating it but you end up with the rest of the passengers on the boat drinking to excess, it seems to me there is still quite a risk of injury to them. I do not see how you can resolve that here -

Mr Llewellyn - Do you mean they might jump overboard?

Mr MORRIS - Fall overboard is what I am thinking. I am not suggesting that we should try to control people from having a good time on a boat or enjoying a drink, when it is secured. I will be interested to see whether over time we still end up with a problem of passengers losing their lives in those circumstances. It is something to watch. I am just pointing out one of the differences between being on dry land and falling over and falling over in the water. With that, we offer our support.

[7.16 p.m.]

Mrs NAPIER (Bass) - I want to ask a couple of questions, given that I take an active interest in boating. One is in relation to how it is intended this will be implemented. I am conscious that MAST officers try to have an active presence, particularly at the beginning of the season. They are often around ramps. They check on the seaworthiness of a vessel, whether appropriate equipment is being maintained, whether the person who is going to be the operator of the boat has appropriate licences et cetera. How is it anticipated that this particular piece of legislation would be implemented by police? Is there to be a communicative link between MAST officers and police? Separate from that, what is the budget allocation that has been identified for the implementation of this piece of legislation? On how many occasions is it anticipated that police would be out there checking up on what the activities of the recreational boating community are likely to be? What are the benchmarks that are to be achieved by water safety police in terms of the number of offences that they are likely to have to try to identify?

I also want to ask a question that I know is not specifically about this bill, but I am interested about the Marine and Safety Authority Amendment Bill 2006, which is a MAST bill, that dealt with abandoned, unseaworthy and sunken vessels. That bill, as I recall, was dealt with I thought before the last election - or a similar bill was passed before the last election. Is the minister aware whether that particular legislation has been proclaimed? It might not be that he can answer that one now because I accept that MAST is not his specific responsibility. MAST is the responsibility of the Minister for Transport, but I am sure there is someone here who can explain that, given that he is the head of MAST. What is the time in which you anticipate this particular bill is likely to be proclaimed and brought into action? Will it be for this summer?

[7.19 p.m.]

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Minister for Police and Public Safety) - I thank members for their support of the legislation. As members have indicated, it is probably quite a bit overdue in a sense. It is one of these pieces of legislation that, because there has been so much consultation, as the member for Lyons said, there does not seem to be too much objection to it. That is one of the reasons it has taken so long to draft. That was one of the questions that was asked.

In regard to the issue of drugs, this matter has been canvassed. It has been a policy decision of the Government and Tasmania Police not to include it in the legislation at this particular time. The reason for that is that, as you know, we are piloting blood screening tests and so on with respect to drugs. It is likely that those sorts of technologies will improve over time, but one of the aspects of the application of that legislation is that if a person tests positive then there cannot be any charges associated with that test as such. You need to go to the next step and take blood and test that. In the case of people in marine vessels, for instance, if you were perhaps in Port Davey somewhere and there was a random check, to get someone out of Port Davey for blood testing - to a hospital where you could get someone to take blood - is very impractical at the moment. There may well be devices that may be more definite in the future about testing for drugs, but the decision was taken not to include that at this stage. However, I take the points that members make about it, and if there are ways that are appropriate, foolproof and considerate of all the systems associated with it, then we can certainly look at them in the future.

The other issue was mentioned in regard to sailing vessels, and vessels that are perhaps not defined specifically in this legislation - the 18-foot skiff. I think Mr Morris almost answered that in his response when he talked about the regulations. There can be provisions within the regulations to deal with those odd situations. The provisions in the act or in the bill that provide the regulations will enable the regulations to take those matters into account.

In regard to the policing issue which Mr Gutwein mentioned - and Mrs Napier almost repeated the question - some multiple strategies are being developed. People will be tested if necessary on a random basis from police vessels or from some land operations by testing operators at jetties, boat ramps and those sorts of places, like you would with random breath tests.

Mr Gutwein - You're not going to launch a booze barge or something like that?

Mr LLEWELLYN - If we get an attractive enough one we might. It makes for good media - journalists love it.

Members laughing.

Mr LLEWELLYN - In regard to Commonwealth and foreign vessels and so on, I think generally defence vessels are exempt from State marine legislation. An example of that is pilot vessels and so on. Most scientific vessels are commercial, so the legislation would apply to them.

Mr Gutwein - So scientific vessels in the employ of another company?

Mr LLEWELLYN - No, not if they are foreign vessels. They need to be treated exactly the same way, I guess. The problem there is the matter of actually boarding the vessel. If they are a foreign vessel or a Commonwealth vessel, Tasmanian police do not have the authority to board them. If you are looking at the land example, diplomatic cars are in the same situation. It is that provision that is translated into the legislation.

Police do boat inspections at jetties and ramps already for marine offences, so this issue can be addressed there as well. We will be communicating this issue through an advertising campaign to alert people to the fact that they should not do these things now that legislation is in place, or even if it was not in place. We will also be advising people through MAST publications and other publications, such as the fishing magazine and other boating magazines. It will also be on the Internet site. Marine police will be speaking to operators. So I have covered all those points.

Mr Morris - Minister, what about draft regulations?

Mr LLEWELLYN - I think there is a draft set of regulations. I take the point you made and I recall that you made that point before.

Mr Morris - And I will have to make it again.

Mr LLEWELLYN - I am sorry that I have not followed up on that to the extent that maybe we should. If it possible to have the regulations, then it certainly would assist members in their work because they can look at the regulations that are there. By its nature, a lot of acts go through the Parliament that give provision for regulations and then you provide those regulations at a later stage. I think I have covered all the points that members had.

Mr Gutwein - There was one you missed, and it was remiss of me not to raise it but my colleague, Mrs Napier did, and that was the benchmarking.

Mr LLEWELLYN - If you will bear with me, I can act a little bit like a committee. I am advised that already there are provisions for marine officers and other officers to attend jetties, boat ramps and so on as part of a performance measurement. There is a task there, particularly for marine police.

Mr Gutwein - So that would be the individual benchmarks that don't exist?

Mr LLEWELLYN - No benchmarks have been set at this stage. There are no performance measurements at this point in time. That does not mean that there might not be something in the future. I thank members for their cooperation and support.

Bill read the second time and taken through the remaining stages.