Tuesday, 15 October 2019

 The PRESIDENT (13:16): I have a message from the Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Fisheries Act 1995, the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988, the Marine Safety Act 2010 and the Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014 and for other purposes’.

 Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services) (13:17): I move:

That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Ms MIKAKOS: I move, by leave:

That the second reading be taken forthwith.

Motion agreed to.

 Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services) (13:17): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Marine and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2019.

In my opinion, the Marine and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

Gippsland Lakes Fishing Access Licences

Part 2 of the Bill sets out a scheme to cancel the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licence class of fishing licence by 1 April 2021. The scheme affects ten licence-holders, who may elect to surrender their licences early by 1 April 2020. The Bill sets out the process by which licences may be surrendered, will be cancelled and under which affected licence-holders will be provided with a compensation package.

Other fishery access licence holders are not affected by the scheme.

Regulation of pilotage service providers and pilots

The purpose of pilotage services is to support and facilitate the safe passage of ships within the port waters of Victoria. Pilots provide navigation services and, as marine safety workers under the Marine Safety Act, have various safety duties.

A person who is not a marine safety worker and who supplies pilotage services to an owner of a vessel is a pilotage services provider. Under the Marine Safety Act 2010, pilotage services providers have general safety duties. This includes ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, that a pilot provided by the person is medically fit qualified, competent and able to carry out the activity for which the pilot has been provided.

The Safety Director regulates pilotage service providers but does not currently have the power to refuse to register a provider if the Safety Director considers that the applicant is unlikely to be able to comply with the general safety duty. The Bill provides a discretion to the Safety Director to refuse a registration on the grounds that the applicant does not have the competence and capacity to provide pilotage services safely.

Clause 9 of the Bill applies a zero blood alcohol concentration to pilots providing any service, extending the current zero limit that applies when piloting domestic commercial vessels to all vessels (including international vessels and vessels undertaking interstate journeys, for example, to which a maximum concentration of 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres of blood currently applies). The Bill also provides for the cancellation of pilot licences where the pilots are inactive.

Clause 14 of the Bill requires pilotage service providers to report safety incidents to the Safety Director to improve levels of information available to the Safety Director and compliance monitoring and enforcement of marine safety laws.

Marine safety duties

Clause 11 of the Bill amends the Marine SafetyAct to make it clear that volunteers are not marine safety workers and thus subject to the higher penalty that apply to those workers, compared to recreational boaters.

The Marine SafetyAct also imposes safety duties on persons who design, manufacture and supply certain marine vessels and safety equipment and persons who maintain, repair or modify vessels and on pilotage service providers. However, transport safety officers do not currently have power to enter premises associated with the design, manufacture or supply of vessels and equipment or the provision of pilotage services for compliance and investigatory purposes. Part 5 of the Bill amends the Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014 to enable transport safety officers to enter those premises to conduct compliance monitoring and enforcement.

Human rights issues

Cancellation of the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licence class

Section 20 of the charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public and are formulated precisely.

The cancellation of the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licence class of fishing licence, provided for in Part 2 of the Bill, engages the section 20 right.

Statutory rights are inherently subject to change and, for this reason, are less likely to be found to be proprietary than other rights. This conclusion is even more likely where what is being considered is a statutory licence, where the nature of the right is such that there is no reasonable expectation of its lasting nature. The existing provisions in Division 2 of Part 4 of the Fisheries Act 1995 make it clear that licences are granted under that Act on the basis that they can be varied or have conditions imposed upon them, and can be suspended or cancelled in accordance with that Division, and are therefore inherently contingent.

However, if the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licences are considered proprietary in nature licence and cancellation therefore results in the deprivation of property, the process for cancelling licences and associated compensation provisions are precisely set out in the Bill and are not arbitrary in nature.

For example, Part 2 of the Bill sets out in clear detail the process by which licences will be cancelled, makes provision for early surrender, and provides for the compensation that a licence holder will be entitled to in each scenario. The provisions for surrender and cancellation, limitation of the State’s liability to licence holders except as provided for in the Bill (including the right to compensation calculated in accordance with the Bill) are contained in new Division 6 of the Fisheries Act, inserted into that Act by clause 6 of the Bill. The processes by which a person may elect to surrender their licence, information to be provided to the licence holder and calculation of compensation are provided for in new Schedule 5 to that Act, inserted into that Act by clause 7 of the Bill.

The compensation provisions in clause 7 the Bill provide for a sum of $371,000 (for licence cancellation), $60,000 (for commercial fishing equipment) and a further amount calculated on the basis of 3 times the average catch value taken by the licence holder over a 5-year survey period indicated in the records held by the Victorian Fisheries Authority to be paid to a licence holder who elects to surrender their licence by 1 April 2020, in which case it is cancelled on that date. A licence holder who elects to continue to hold their licence until it cancelled on 1 April 2021 as a result of the operation of the new provisions is entitled to compensation of 80 per cent of that sum.

Clause 5 of the Bill also amends section 60 of the Fisheries Act, which provides for certain licences suspended or cancelled under that Act to be able to be transferred following cancellation. The amendment exempts a licence suspended or cancelled under the scheme established by the Bill from the operation of section 60, thereby ensuring that such a cancelled licence cannot be transferred.

Given that the clauses of the Bill, and the circumstances in which any deprivation of property in relation to the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licence class of fishing licence will occur, are clearly and precisely formulated, in my view there is no impermissible limitation of the property right under section 20 of the charter because any deprivation of property would be in accordance with law. To the extent that the provisions may limit the right to property, they are reasonable and justified.

I also consider that the notice provisions relating to cancellation of licences and the option to surrender a licence early are consistent with the section 24 charter right to a fair hearing. The compensation that a licence holder is entitled to, and the process by which licence holders are given notice of the ability to elect to surrender early, are (as noted) set out in clause 7 the Bill, with associated provisions contained in clause 6. Clause 7 also contains provisions that provides a licence holder who seeks to surrender their licence but makes an invalid election may make another valid election in accordance with the processes contained in the Bill.

New section 153T of the Fisheries Act, inserted into the Act by clause 6 of the Bill, also provides for an exception to the offence in section 36(2) of the Fisheries Act relating to the possession of commercial fishing equipment, which would otherwise apply on cancellation of a licence. A licence holder is exempt for a period of 12 months from cancellation of their licence in relation to commercial fishing equipment possessed in the course of carrying out activities under their licence if the person has evidence of ownership immediately before that date.

The purpose of the provision is to ensure that licence holders will not commit an offence immediately upon their licence being cancelled. The effect is to provide affected licence holders with a reasonable time to enable them to dispose of property comprising commercial fishing equipment following cancellation of their licence.

The provision engages the section 25(1) charter right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with law because, if the prosecution has proved that a former licence holder is in possession of commercial fishing equipment, the former licence holder would need to point to evidence that the exception applies in order to escape liability. The provision places an evidentiary onus on the accused in respect of matters that are particularly within the knowledge of the former licence holder. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of ownership of commercial fishing equipment possessed in the course of carrying out activities under their licence, which will be particularly within the knowledge of the licence holder, the burden of proof shifts back to the prosecution.

I also note that the licence holder is required to have evidence of ownership, which is a more flexible concept than specifically requiring the production of records and is intended to enable licence holders who may have owned equipment for a number of years but who may not, for example, have purchase receipts, to satisfy the requirement. I therefore consider that the likelihood of an innocent person being convicted to be minimal, and that any limitations on charter rights arising from the provisions are reasonable and justified.

Clause 4 of the Bill also amends section 58A of the Fisheries Act to extend the exemption in that section to Division 6 of Part 8 of the Act. Section 58A otherwise requires certain licences cancelled under the Fisheries Act to be returned to the Victorian Fisheries Authority if licence has been cancelled or suspended under the Act within 14 days after the cancellation or suspension comes into effect. The effect of the exception is to make conduct that would otherwise be an offence lawful, as the provision is primarily aimed at ensuring that licences or permits are returned to the Authority in the circumstances prescribed in section 58, which are not relevant to the licence cancellation scheme in the Bill.

In my view, in clarifying the extent of operation of the section 58A offence, the Bill does not limit the right to be presumed innocent because the Bill relates to the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licence class of fishing licence. In that context, the prosecution would not be able to prove an element of the offence, that a licence to which the offence applies had not been returned. There would be no need for the accused to point to evidence to this effect. However, even if that were the case, it would be an easy matter for a former licence holder to do if it became necessary. I therefore consider that, to the extent that the provisions may limit the right, they are reasonable and justified.

Suspension and cancellation of inactive pilot licences

Clause 12 of the Bill inserts new Part 4.6A into the Marine Safety Act 2010 to provide for the suspension or cancellation of relevant inactive pilot licences, where a pilot is inactive or no longer intends to be available to act as a pilot. The Safety Director may, by notice in writing to a licence holder, suspend or cancel the licence if satisfied that the licence holder has not acted as a pilot for at least 12 months or does not intend to act as a pilot. Prior to suspending or cancelling a licence, the holder of the licence or permit must be given at least 28 days in which to make a submission about why the licence should not be suspended or cancelled.

As explained above, statutory rights such as those arising from registration or a licence to participate in a regulated industry are inherently subject to change and, for this reason, are less likely to be found to be proprietary rights. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the provisions for suspending or cancelling a licence under the Bill may not amount to a deprivation of property. However, if they do limit the section 20 charter property rights, it is clear that such a deprivation would be in accordance with law and I consider that, to the extent that the right may be limited, it is not impermissibly limited and the provisions are reasonable and justified.

I am also satisfied that the process set out in new Part 4.6A is fair and transparent and does not limit the section 24 charter right to a fair hearing.

Insofar as a pilot may be required to provide personal information if the pilot makes a submission explaining why their licence should not be cancelled or suspended, the section 13 charter right to privacy is neither unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with and the right is not, therefore, impermissibly limited. I am also satisfied that the right not to impart information, which forms part of the right to freedom of expression under s 15 of the charter, is not impermissibly limited. A licence holder may choose whether or not to make a submission to the Safety Director. In any event, the provision is intrinsically connected to its purpose and a pilot will have a reasonable expectation that information will need to be provided to the Safety Director if the pilot does in fact intend to continue to act as a pilot. I consider the provisions are reasonable and justified in the context of the regulatory scheme.

Registration as a pilotage service provider

Insofar as the effect of the provisions in clause 13 of the Bill relating to the registration of a pilotage service provider requiring the Safety Director to grant a registration if satisfied that the applicant has the competence and capacity to carry out pilotage services safely engages the right to privacy in section 13 of the charter (as the applicant will need to provide various information in the applicant’s application), the process is again neither unlawful or arbitrary. An applicant in a regulated safety industry will have a reasonable expectation that such information will need to be provided to the regulator, and no less restrictive means of achieving the objective of the provisions is available. As such I consider that, insofar as the right may be limited, any limitation is reasonable and justified.

Insofar as the provisions may engage the section 15 charter right to freedom of expression, the provision is again intrinsically connected to its purpose and I consider that no less restrictive means are available to achieve the intent of the provisions, which is to regulate pilotage service providers. A person engaged in a highly regulated industry will also have a reasonable expectation that information, including personal information, may need to be provided in appropriate circumstances. I again consider that insofar as the right may be limited, any limitation is reasonable and justified.

Extension of zero blood alcohol concentration for pilots

As explained above, clause 9 of the Bill extends the requirement for a zero blood alcohol level for pilots of all vessels by amending the definition of prescribed concentration of alcohol in the Marine (Drug. Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988. Section 28 of that Act provides that it is an offence to be the pilot a vessel while more than the prescribed concentration of alcohol is present in the pilot’s blood or breath.

While that Act also contains provisions requiring a pilot to undergo breath or blood tests in specified circumstances, no change is made to provisions in respect of testing. If the provisions in the Bill nevertheless engages and may limit the right to privacy in section 13 of the charter, I consider any limitation reasonable and justified to protect the safety of that person and, importantly, the safety of other users of Victoria’s waterways. In any event, test carried out under that Act are in accordance with law, are undertaken in specific circumstances and are not arbitrary.

Pilotage service provider incident reporting

Insofar as the provisions in clause 14 of the Bill introducing a new requirement for pilotage service providers to report safety incidents to the safety regulator may involve disclosing personal information and engage the section 13 charter right to privacy, in my view the right to privacy is neither unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with and that, insofar as the provisions may limit the right, any limitation is reasonable and justified.

Insofar as the provisions may engage the freedom of expression (section 14 of the charter), the provision is intrinsically connected to its purpose and I consider that no less restrictive means are available to achieve the intent of the provisions, which is to improve compliance monitoring and enforcement of marine safety laws. As explained above, a person engaged in a highly regulated industry will also have a reasonable expectation that information, including personal information, may need to be provided in appropriate circumstances. Insofar as the right is limited, I again consider that any limitations are reasonable and justified.

Power to enter marine premises

Clause 17 of the Bill amends the definition of marine premises in the Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014 to include premises associated with the design, manufacture or supply of a recreational vessel or marine safety equipment, and premises owned or occupied by pilotage service providers for the purpose of providing pilotage services.

The effect of the amendment is to extent the application of provisions in that Act enabling transport safety officers to undertake activities for compliance and investigatory purposes to conduct compliance monitoring and enforcement, including entering marine premises without warrant or consent.

Under Division 2 of Part 2 of that Act, a transport safety officer who enters marine premises may exercise a number of investigatory powers, including searching, inspecting and examining the premises, making inquiries at the premises and seizing any thing (including a document) at the premises if the officer reasonably believes the thing is evidence of an offence against the Act or a transport safety or infrastructure law. An officer may also require a person at the marine premises to give the officer reasonable help to exercise certain of the officer’s powers. It is an offence not to comply unless the person has a reasonable excuse.

The exercise of powers mean that a person may be required to temporarily remain at a place, for example to provide reasonable help to a transport safety officer. However, the powers are limited to requiring help to enable the officer to exercise specific compliance and enforcement powers for investigative purposes and do not authorise the detention of individuals. Insofar as the powers limit the freedom of movement of individuals (section 12 of the charter), I consider them to be reasonable and justified given the purpose of the transport safety scheme, which (in this case) is to best secure marine safety, so far as is reasonably practicable. Such powers are necessary to monitor compliance with the regulatory scheme, and to detect non-compliance.

I consider that, insofar as the powers interfere with the section 13 charter right to privacy, such interference is in accordance with law and is not arbitrary. The powers are essential to the investigative and compliance functions of Victoria’s marine safety regulator. They are exercisable in constrained circumstances, are directed at important regulatory purposes and are subject to a range of safeguards, including procedural requirements. The powers of entry, and powers on entry, are available in respect of premises used for the specified commercial purposes in which individuals have a limited expectation of privacy, namely premises which transport safety officers reasonably suspect to be marine premises. An officer who enters a place that is not marine premises is required to leave immediately.

The processes under that Act for entry and search under warrant also apply to the extended definition of marine premises, but are subject to the safeguards of the warrant process. Any interference with privacy is again in accordance with law and is not arbitrary. I consider that the provisions and any limitations on charter rights are, in each case, reasonable and justified.

Provisions relating to seizure may in certain circumstances amount to deprivation of property. However, I consider they do not impermissibly limit the section 20 property rights and are again reasonable and justified. The circumstances in which property can be seized, secured, forfeited or otherwise interfered with are clearly specified and constrained, including by reference to the reasons for which powers can be exercised and, as noted, a range of safeguards are provided.

In relation to the imposition of an evidentiary onus on the accused with respect to the offence of failing to give an officer reasonable help, which may limit the section 25(1) charter right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with law, I consider this is reasonable and justified. The reasonable excuse will be within the knowledge of the accused, and it will be relatively easy for the accused to offer evidence of it. Once the accused has pointed to evidence that a reasonable excuse may exist, the burden of proof passes back to the prosecution.

A transport safety officer also has the power, under section 22 of the 2014 Act, to require production of documents, devices or other things and answers to questions. Section 23 of that Act provides that a person is not excused from answering a question or providing information or a document under Part 2 of the Act on the ground that the answer to the question, or the information or document, may tend to incriminate the person or expose the person to a penalty. The section 25(2) charter minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings include the right to be free from self-incrimination. Evidence obtained compulsorily may offend this right. This is also an important element of the section 24 charter right to a fair hearing.

However, section 23 of the 2014 Act contains a use immunity (which extends to both direct and indirect, or derivative, use) which protects the privilege and ensures that neither the person’s answer, nor evidence obtained as a consequence of that answer, can be used against that person in criminal proceedings other than a proceeding arising out of the answer being false or misleading.

Exceptions to these immunities (in section 23(3) of that Act) apply where the information or document that is obtained directly or indirectly as a consequence of the answer is information or a document that is required to be kept under the regulatory scheme, or is contained in such a document. Pre-existing documents and information required to be kept under a regulatory scheme are generally afforded less protection under the privilege against self-incrimination and are documents or information that a person is required to keep and produce as a consequence of their election to participate in a regulated industry. Ensuring they are available and able to be used in criminal proceedings is essential to achieving compliance with the marine safety scheme in Victoria. To the extent that the exceptions may limit the section 24 and 25 charter rights, I consider that they are justified and reasonable.

Hon. Jaala Pulford MP

Fishing and Boating

 Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services) (13:17): I move:

That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Motion agreed to.

Ms MIKAKOS: I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Incorporated speech as follows:

We know Victorians love their fishing, with Victoria being home to an estimated 830,000 recreational fishers who contribute around $2.3 billion to Victoria’s social and economic wellbeing each year.

In recognition of this, the Andrews Government, in its first term, committed $46 million to growing recreational fishing in Victoria under the Target One Million program. Following the success of this initiative, the Andrews Government has renewed this plan and committed a further $35 million towards Phase 2 of the program. This is the largest injection of funds into fisheries on record.

A part of Phase 2, the government has committed to ending commercial netting in Gippsland Lakes with a compulsory buy-out of the remaining licences. This will return the lakes system to recreational fishing and boost local tourism and jobs. It will also facilitate future stock rebuilding for species such as black bream and flathead.

To deliver this initiative, it proposed that the Fisheries Act 1995 (the Act) be amended to phase-out the ten Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licences over a two-year period with all Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licences cancelled by 1 April 2021.

This is an important initiative that has substantial benefits. However, the Government acknowledges that commercial fishing has a long history in the Gippsland Lakes, with many of the current licence holders having a direct multi-generational family connection to fishing in the area. The Government also recognises that this decision impacts on people’s livelihoods and their families and that commercial fishing for some of the licence holders is more than a just a business or workplace.

To help offset these impacts, the Bill will provide affected licence holders with a fair and clear exit strategy.

The Bill will create a new Division in the Fisheries Act that will apply specifically to the cancellation of the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licence class and will detail the process and timing of cancellation, and the compensation to be provided (and when). Similar legislative amendments were used to achieve the phase-out of commercial netting in Port Phillip and Corio Bays.

The Bill will provide that Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licences are to be phased-out over a two-year period, with all affected licences cancelled by 1 April 2021. However, affected licence holders may elect to surrender their licence before then, with the surrender to take effect on 1 April 2020 (i.e. the licence holder ceases fishing on 1 April 2020).

The Bill states that compensation will be offered to licence holders on surrender or cancellation of their licence. Compensation for the surrender of a licence by 1 April 2020 will comprise of:

1. $371,000 for the licence—which is the market value of the licence as assessed by the Valuer General; and

2. an allowance of $60,000 for redundant fishing vessel(s) and all commercial fishing equipment (noting that vessels and equipment continue to be the property of the licence holder); and

3. compensation for loss of income, based on three times the average annual catch value taken under each licence over the five-year period between 1 April 2012–31 March 2017. This amount will differ by licence holder as it is based on their individual previous catch history.

The Bill provides that licence holders who wish to continue fishing until 1 April 2021 will be offered cancellation compensation in early 2021. The cancellation package will be calculated in accordance with the same metrics as the surrender package. However, the overall amount offered will be reduced by a factor of 20% to encourage licence holders to exit the fishery early.

The Bill will also establish an exemption from the regulation which prohibits the possession of commercial fishing equipment without a fishing licence, for a 12-month period following the surrender or cancellation of the licences (whichever is sooner). This will provide fishers with time to sell the equipment. Following the amnesty, it will be illegal for individuals to be in possession of commercial fishing equipment without a fishing licence. The Victorian Fisheries Authority will arrange for the collection and disposal of any remaining equipment at the conclusion of the amnesty, at no cost to the fishers.

The commitment will cost around $8.8 million, depending on when fishers exit the fishery and will recognise individual investment and loss of income to licensees. Rural Finance (RF) will be engaged to administer the compensation payments. This provider has experience in administering previous buy-outs.

The approach balances the need to allow sufficient time for affected fishers and businesses to make decisions about when to exit, with the early realisation of the expected economic benefits of improved recreational fishing.

Commercial bait, eel and mussel fishing will not be impacted by this commitment and will continue to be permitted in the Lakes. Victorian and Commonwealth offshore fisheries that use the Lakes as a port will also remain unaffected, ensuring that prawns and other species sold into the food market continue to be available to consumers.

The Bill will implement a range of measures to improve marine safety laws.

In 2018, the Department of Transport reviewed the regulatory scheme for pilotage service providers and sea pilots. The Department recommended a range of measures to reduce marine safety risks and improve public confidence in the safety of shipping operations by making changes to the operation of the regulatory scheme for pilotage service providers and pilots.

The Bill will amend the Marine Safety Act 2010 to give the Director, Transport Safety more discretion when considering applications for registration of new pilotage service providers. Applicants for registration will need to demonstrate to the Director, Transport Safety that they have the competence and capacity to provide services safely.

The Bill will also improve the powers of the Director, Transport Safety to regulate inactive sea pilots. The amendments provide power to suspend or cancel a pilot licence if the person has not acted as a pilot for a period of at least 12 months or does not intend to act as a pilot. This amendment will ensure that the skills of a pilot are current, and that inactive pilots be required to go through a refamiliarisation process if intending to resume providing services.

An amendment will introduce a requirement for pilotage service providers to report marine incidents that involve pilots that are employed or engaged by that provider to the Director, Transport Safety. This reporting requirement will complement existing reporting by owners and masters of vessels and improve the level of information available to Transport Safety Victoria to support compliance monitoring and enforcement of marine safety laws.

The Bill will amend marine drug and alcohol laws to ensure that sea pilots are required to have a zero blood-alcohol concentration when providing pilot services on any classification of vessel.

The Bill will amend the definition of marine safety worker to exclude a person who is a volunteer. This will ensure that volunteers involved in undertaking boating activity events that fail to fulfil their duty to take reasonable care will not be subject to much higher penalties to those that apply to recreational boaters. The amendment will make marine safety laws fairer and more consistent with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 with respect to the treatment of volunteers.

The Bill will provide additional powers to the Director, Transport Safety and Transport Safety Officers to ensure that those officers are able to efficiently and effectively enforce the general safety duties under the Marine Safety Act 2010. The Bill will enable those officers to enter the premises associated with the design, manufacture or supply of vessels and equipment and the premises of pilotage service providers for compliance and investigatory purposes.

In conclusion, the Bill will make important changes to Marine and Fisheries Legislation, improving outcomes for recreational fishers and boaters, providing fair compensation to affected licence holders, and improving the safety of shipping operations.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (13:18): I move, by leave:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until later this day.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until later this day.