Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 May 2005

Vol. 180 No. 7

Maritime Safety Bill 2004: Report and Final Stages.

Before we commence, I remind Members that a Senator may only speak once on Report Stage except for the proposer of the amendment, who may reply to the discussion thereon. Report Stage amendments must be seconded.

Government amendment No. 1:
In page 5, to delete lines 7 to 15, and substitute "AND CODES OF PRACTICE FOR VESSELS, TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN ACTS ON OR WITH VESSELS,".

This is simply a drafting amendment to the Long Title of the Bill to avoid unnecessary detail. Anyone who examines the Long Title will agree it is too long. The inclusion of "any codes of practice for vessels, to prohibit certain acts on or with vessels" is a refinement that makes much sense.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 5, line 30, to delete "section 39” and substitute “section 36”.

This is a drafting amendment which is required to make the correct cross-reference to section 36 of the Bill which was inserted on Committee Stage. The reference to section 39 is an inadvertent error; it should read section 36.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 35 are related and will be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 3:
In page 6, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"3.—Sections 33 to 37 (inserted by section 44(11) of the Act of 2000) of the Act of 1992 are repealed.".

This amendment inserts a new section 3 in Part 1 of the Bill, which will replace the existing section 35. It covers the necessary repeal of three additional sections of the 1992 Act, namely sections 35, 36 and 37, which are being replaced by new sections 20 and 21 to be inserted in the Bill by amendments Nos. 21 and 22 and new section 33 to be inserted by amendment No. 30. It is fairly straightforward.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 6, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"4.—The expenses incurred by the Minister and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the administration of this Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.".

The amendment inserts a new section 4 in Part 1 of the Bill, which arises from concerns expressed on Committee Stage in this House about resources to implement the Bill. It makes clear that any expenses of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in preparing and promulgating codes of practice under Part 3 of the Bill and generally operating the Bill and of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government under section 4(7) in administering this Bill when enacted will be funded by the Exchequer. Such a provision is a standard provision in legislation that extends the powers and functions of Ministers and has arisen out of the Committee Stage debate.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 7, to delete lines 10 to 12, and substitute the following:
"local authority, but excluding waters under the control or management of a harbour authority or Waterways Ireland;".

This is merely a drafting amendment correcting a typographical error in the definitions section of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 6, 10 and 11, 13 to 17, inclusive, 21 to 24, inclusive, and 34 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 6:
In page 8, to delete lines 23 to 26.

These amendments are simply consequential to amendments Nos. 21 and 22 which insert two new sections in the Bill, namely sections 20 and 21. Its purpose is to restate in updated terms sections 35 and 36 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1992 as inserted by subsection 44(11) of the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act 2000, relating to careless or dangerous navigation or operation of vessels.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 8, line 28, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

The Bill in its Long Title claims to be a Bill for regulating and controlling the use of recreational craft. However, while it permits this to be done, it does not require it to be done and this amendment reflects that. Amendment No. 8 is a drafting amendment. The words "regulating or controlling the operation of craft" might be interpreted to limit in some way the matters that can be dealt with by the by-laws. In any case, there is a grammatical problem with the existing lines six and seven which refer to the operation of craft by local authorities, which is clearly ambiguous. On Committee Stage, the Minister asserted it was necessary to define the scope of the powers but in our view this is not correct as the scope is spelled out later in the actual section itself.

Amendment No. 9 seeks to insert on page 9, between lines 13 to 14 "such other matters as in the opinion of the authority are concerned are ancillary or related to the foregoing matters". This amendment aims to give some flexibility to the Act to ensure the by-laws can be comprehensive. For example, a by-law prohibiting a person from being carried in a pleasure craft which is unlawfully operated might be held to be outside the scope of the requirement that the by-laws regulate the operation of craft. Accordingly, there is a good case for a general "catch-all" clause. This is not to give local authorities carte blanche, but provides some extra flexibility.

I second the amendment.

I have taken advice on this since it was debated at length with Senator O'Meara on Committee Stage. My advice is that it is a matter for the relevant authority to decide whether there is a need to make by-laws under section 4 of the Bill. The making of by-laws is a lengthy process involving public consultation of at least one month and should only be undertaken if there is clear need.

Given the many important tasks which the relevant authorities must undertake, it would clearly be a waste of effort and resources to require them needlessly to make such laws. I am satisfied that any authority needing to make such by-laws has full powers to do so under section 4. This is a clear advance over the current position for all such authorities. If one examines the current position, local authorities can only make by-laws with regard to property they own, while under this Bill, they can go much further. It may not be necessary for certain local authorities to make by-laws whereas if we accept the amendment and delete "may" and substitute "shall", there would be an onus on local authorities to make by-laws which could be unnecessary.

Regarding amendment No. 8, the words "regulating" or "controlling the operation of craft" are essential policies and principles limits for any by-laws to be made under section 4. This is fully in accordance with the constitutional provisions for secondary legislation. The sole purpose of section 4 is to allow relevant authorities to make by-laws to regulate or control the operation of certain craft and other related activities. I am advised that section 4 should not be open-ended. The Oireachtas is responsible for primary legislation. Secondary legislation, whether it be introduced by the Minister by way of an order, must be within the framework of the primary legislation. We must state reasonably clearly what local authorities can do within principles and policy parameters.

I am advised that if this amendment No. 9 was accepted, it would not be in accordance with the constitutional provisions for secondary legislation. As I said earlier, the Oireachtas has responsibility for primary legislation, set out in the principles and policies limits within which secondary legislation may be made. I am advised there can be no question of open-ended powers for relevant local authorities to make by-laws at will. I reflected earlier that if I thought any amendments would improve the Bill, I would be happy to accept them. I am advised that this amendment would not improve the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 11, line 21, to delete "or of section 35 or 36 of the Act of 1992" and substitute ",20 or 21”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 11, lines 42 and 43, to delete "or 8 or section 35 or 36 of the Act of 1992" and substitute ",8, 20 or 21”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 12, line 22, to delete "in" and substitute "in or on".

This is a drafting amendment to cover persons on waters, for example, on boats, as well as persons in waters, for example, swimming.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 13, line 8, to delete "section 35 or 36 of the Act of 1992" and substitute "section 20 or 21 involving the careless or dangerous navigation or operation of a craft”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 13, lines 12 and 13, to delete "section 35 or 36 of the Act of 1992" and substitute "section 20 or 21 involving the careless or dangerous navigation or operation of a craft"”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 13, lines 39 and 40, to delete "section 36 (inserted by section 44(11) of the Act of 2000) of the Act of 1992" and substitute "section 21”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 14, lines 9 and 10, to delete "section 35 (inserted by section 44(11) of the Act of 2000 of the Act of 1992" and substitute "section 20”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 14, lines 12 and 13, to delete "section 36 (inserted by section 44(11) of the Act of 2000 of the Act of 1992" and substitute "section 21”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 18, line 10, to delete "unsafe" and substitute "in such a defective condition as to be unsafe".

This is a technical drafting amendment that is necessary for section 19(1) of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 18, to delete lines 13 and 14 and substitute the following:
"until such time as the vessel—
(i) if it is a pleasure craft (within the meaning of section 20 of the Act of 1992) is made to his or her satisfaction seaworthy, or
(ii) if it is a vessel other than a pleasure craft or being a pleasure craft and he or she considers it necessary, is made seaworthy to the satisfaction of a surveyor of ships (within the meaning of section 724 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894) by a certificate issued in that behalf by the surveyor and produced to him or her.".

This amendment is needed to amend section 19 of the Bill as inserted on Committee Stage so that in general, the seaworthiness or otherwise of vessels may be determined by a surveyor of ships who is expert in such matters. An exception is provided for in the case of pleasure craft, however, where a member of the Garda Síochána or an authorised person could decide, without reference to a surveyor of ships, how such a craft could be made seaworthy and released from detention. If a person stops a vessel because it appears unseaworthy, it may be necessary to get the opinion of a surveyor in order to convince that person that the vessel is seaworthy.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 18, line 17, after "detention" to insert "and any survey of the vessel".

This further amendment to section 19, as inserted on Committee Stage in the Seanad, ensures that the reasonable survey costs incurred by the authorities will be recoverable as a condition for the release of the vessel that has been seized and detained under section 19 on grounds of unseaworthiness.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 18, between lines 17 and 18 to insert the following:
"20—(1) A person shall not in Irish waters navigate or operate a vessel without due care and attention to persons in or on those waters or on land, within the State, adjacent to those waters.
(2) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or both.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 18, between lines 17 and 18 to insert the following:
"21—(1) A person shall not in Irish waters navigate or operate a vessel in a manner (including at a speed) which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the condition of the vessel or class of vessel, the nature, condition and use of the waters and the amount of maritime traffic, or number of people, which or who then actually are, or might reasonably be expected then to be, on or in those waters) is dangerous to persons in or on those waters or land, within the State, adjacent to those waters.
(2) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and
(a) where the contravention causes death or serious bodily harm to another person, is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine not exceeding €100,000 or both, and
(b) in any other case, is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both.
(3) Where, when a person is tried on indictment or summarily for an offence under this section, the jury, or in the case of a summary trial the District Court, is of opinion that the person was not guilty of an offence under this section but was guilty of an offence under section 20, the jury or court may find the person guilty of an offence under that section and the person may be sentenced accordingly.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 18, between lines 17 and 18 to insert the following:
"22—Sections 20 and 21 do not apply to a crew member, other than the skipper, who is not helming a pleasure craft (within the meaning of section 20 of the Act of 1992) which is a yacht or sailing boat powered wholly or mainly by sail.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 18, between lines 17 and 18 to insert the following:
"23—In a prosecution for an offence under section 20 or 21 it is a defence for a person to show that
(a) he or she was acting under direct instructions from the person in command or in charge of the vessel concerned or a person in charge of him or her and it was not unreasonable in the circumstances to so act, or
(b) he or she had been instructed by that person to perform a task which he or she could not reasonably perform or had not been adequately instructed to perform.”.
Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are related and will be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 25:
In page 18, line 21, to delete "a person" and substitute "such a crew member or person on board the vessel".

These two related amendments address the points raised by Senator Kenneally on Committee Stage about the scope of section 20 of the Bill, which was inserted at that Stage. The amendments make it clear that section 20 specifically targets reckless behaviour and other bad behaviour by any person in command or in charge of a vessel who endangers the crew of or other persons on board the vessel. Existing sections 35 and 36 of the 1992 Act are now to be comprehensively updated and restated by amendments Nos. 21 and 22 outlawing careless or dangerous navigation or operation on any vessel. These provisions are designed to protect all other persons using waters generally, as well as other vessels, against such bad behaviour.

I thank the Minister of State for responding to what I said on Committee Stage. Could he confirm whether the provisions also apply to those whose recklessness causes injury or is a danger to those in other vessels?

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 deal with careless or dangerous navigation or operation of a vessel.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 18, line 22, to delete "person" and substitute "crew member or person".
Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 19, line 17, to delete "offence or annoyance" and substitute "serious offence or serious annoyance".

We all subscribe to the notion that no one should be allowed to cause offence or annoyance. The definition of offence or annoyance in the Bill is possibly too broad. There is a provision in the Public Order Act regarding serious offence or serious annoyance, which would suffice as a replacement for the words "offence or annoyance" on page 19 of the Bill in terms of taking the criminal offence element out of the interpretation.

I second the amendment.

I see where Senator McCarthy is coming from regarding the insertion of the word "serious" before "offence" and "annoyance". I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that it does not lessen the seriousness of the offence in any way. Inserting the word "serious" would qualify both offence and annoyance and is not necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 22, line 20, to delete "in, on or adjacent to Irish waters" and substitute "in or on Irish waters or on land, within the State, adjacent to those waters".

This is a necessary drafting amendment to clarify that, in taking enforcement action under section 30, a member of the Garda Síochána or any authorised person may only enter land in the State.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 23, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"32.—Proceedings for an offence under this Part may be prosecuted summarily by the Minister.".

This amendment inserts a new section 32 and fills a vital gap in the Bill by empowering the Minister to prosecute summary offences under Part 3 of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 23, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"33.—Any costs of the Minister incurred in or on connection with the prosecution of a person for an offence under this Part for which a person is convicted may be recovered by the Minister as a debt due and payable to the Minister by the convicted person.".

This relates to a new section 33 and is designed to replace section 37 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1992 by providing for recoupment of the Minister's costs in connection with the successful prosecution of persons for any offence under Part 3 of the Bill and not only offences under sections 20 and 21, which replace sections 35 and 36 of the 1992 Act and to which section 37 of that Act applies. Entitling a Minister to recoup such costs is clearly appropriate.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 23, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"34.—This Part does not apply to—
(a) a warship, naval auxiliary or other vessel in the service of the Defence Forces or the navy or military of another state, or
(b) a vessel being used for coast guard, customs or police or rescue purposes.”.

This new section 34 arises out of the detailed discussion about the scope of the Bill held in this House on Committee Stage. It is recommended by the Parliamentary Counsel and colleagues in the Attorney General's office to rule out frivolous or vexatious litigation. This makes clear that Part 3 of the Bill is designed to promote the safe operation of all vessels other than a limited number of dedicated vessels, namely, those in the service of the Defence Forces and the customs, coastguard or rescue services, for which there are separate provisions in place to ensure proper practices are followed.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 23, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"‘operate' in relation to a vessel, means—
(a) doing anything which relates directly to the helming, steering, sailing or navigation of the vessel or,
(b) operating nautical equipment relating to the vessel’s intended purpose or use at sea or in waters (including the opening or closing of any part of the vessel or raising or lowering any ramp or gangway to facilitate the boarding onto, or disembarkation from, the vessel of passengers or vehicles);”.

This amendment also arises from the detailed discussion here on Committee Stage about comprehensive and rigorous maritime safety provisions. This amendment is recommended by the Parliamentary Counsel and the Office of the Attorney General to fill a major gap in the law. It makes clear the meaning of the term "operate" in connection with any vessel to establish whether a person has any responsibility for anything untoward that involves the vessel and results in a loss of life or injury to persons. Thus, the term "operate", as now being defined for the provisions of Part 3, would cover any reckless operation of essential vessel equipment or failure to operate such equipment properly or at all when full and proper operation is required, for example, as tragically occurred at Zeebrugge when the hull doors of the ferry Herald of Free Enterprise were left open, causing the ferry to capsize with a considerable loss of life.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 33:
In page 28, line 20 after "with" to insert "the".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 34:
In page 31, to delete lines 1 to 11.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 35:
In page 31, to delete lines 12 and 13.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 38, to delete lines 16 to 40.

This amendment is required to delete section 40, which is superseded by Part 4 as inserted on Committee Stage in the Seanad. The deletion was listed in the Seanad's list on that Stage but was overlooked during the proceedings.

Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank the Minister and his officials for doing fine work on this but there is one issue I wish the Minister of State to consider that may have been raised with him previously. Upon examining section 16 concerning authorised officers, it occurred to me that there is specific reference in all other legislation to the role of the harbour master. As both the Minister of State and I know, the harbour master is crucial to the general operation of harbours in ensuring the implementation of Acts.

I have received representations about a difficulty arising from this Bill because harbour masters are not specifically mentioned. I ask the Minister of State to examine this matter with a view to determining whether further work is needed before it is introduced in the Dáil. A risk concerning certain ambiguities surrounding the role of the harbour master or the dilution of this role by the Bill exists, in particular where the harbour master is appointed by some form of harbour authority and must have his or her position sanctioned by the Garda or the Minister. There are problems of transition that may just be housekeeping, which can be dealt with quickly. I have not examined this Bill in great detail but there may be more significant problems.

Our harbour masters are referred to in all relevant legislation, from primary legislation to by-laws. I fear that a smart Alec will challenge the harbour master's role and find we have left a gap in the Bill. This is my residual worry. The harbour master is recognised internationally as the appropriate person for the role. If one arrives in a port in the Mediterranean, the south of England or the west of Ireland, the person in charge is the harbour master. A harbour master is appointed by local authorities to manage harbours under their jurisdictions and by-laws. Rosslare, where the local authority appoints the harbour master, is another example of what I am talking about.

Does this legislation have an implication for the Sea Pollution Acts, the Waste Management Acts, European directives or the role of the harbour master? It is important to put this on the record. The Minister of State and I have trust and confidence in the fantastic work harbour masters have done around the country. Is it not important to underline and reinforce their authority and our trust and confidence in them by having them mentioned in the Bill? This significant legislation will be welcome.

I also welcome this legislation, as is proper for anything that deals with safety on the sea. I did not have an opportunity to speak because my colleague Senator Feighan took this Bill through the Seanad previously. As good as this legislation is from bureaucratic and administrative points of view, there is a serious problem with people who are now preparing for the summer by purchasing jet skis. These young and not-so-young people have the waterways of Rossnowlagh, Downings and Portsalon in mind.

How far does this legislation extend to stopping these activities at their source? Perhaps there are provisions within the legislation to monitor people who sell jet skis. Will there be provisions to monitor who ends up with the jet skis and whether they are under age or over age? Where is the enforcement in this Bill? There are good and competent people jet skiing and I have no problem saying I know some who act in a responsible manner. They do not jet ski on waters where the public is swimming at the time.

I ask the Minister of State to keep in mind the fact that there are no regulations governing jet skis and no identifiable numbers on such vehicles which indicate their ownership. There are no mandatory training courses for jet skiers to complete, yet jet skis are as dangerous as cars. Not all car drivers are irresponsible, but some are. Some car drivers decide to wake their neighbours at 3 a.m., some drivers do doughnuts and hand brake turns at Mount Errigal at 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. However, they are only a small percentage of car drivers.

Similarly, there is a small percentage of jet ski users who are irresponsible. My concern is that there are no mandatory training courses for users and no adequate regulations governing the purchase and ownership of jet skis and the same is true of power boats. It might be possible to cordon off areas off the Atlantic coast for people who wish to use jet skis in a competent and responsible manner.

There is a need for stringent legislation at the point of sale. An individual can purchase a jet ski for €8,000 without any proof that he or she is capable of piloting the vehicle or has taken part in a training course. Currently, a person can buy a jet ski, put it on the back of a tractor, take it to Downings beach and head off into the wild open seas. There is nothing to prevent a person from doing that at present. This can cause grave problems for others in the sea, particularly swimmers. It also leads to a situation where all jet ski users are tarred with the same brush and assumed to be incompetent and inconsiderate.

The novice jet skier is naive and has no idea of waves or when the tide will turn. There should be mandatory courses and strict regulation at the point of sale. Vendors also need to take some responsibility in this area. There are responsible jet skiers and power boat owners who are crying out for stiff penalties for misuse of such vehicles. They are also calling for some regulation between the point of sale and the point of putting a jet ski into the water.

I thank the Minister of State for responding so well to the various points made in this House on Committee Stage. Some people might wonder how we disposed of 39 amendments so quickly but we had a comprehensive discussion on the Bill on Committee Stage and the Minister of State has responded to all of the issues raised during the debates.

The Bill in its original format was 20 pages long, following Committee Stage it was 41 pages long and the final version, containing the amendments passed today, will be approximately 45 pages in length. The subject has been given a good airing in the Seanad. This shows that the system can work very well and we now have a very good Bill.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials, particularly Mr. Tobin, for the back-up information provided to us on Committee and Report Stages of the Bill. It is good to receive that type of information, which makes our job easier. I hope the Bill will pass speedily through the Dáil so this legislation can be enacted as soon as possible.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for the time and effort they put into formulating this legislation. I am aware that the vast majority of the work was done on Committee Stage. I am representing my colleague, Senator O'Meara, for the Report and Final Stages of the Bill and on her behalf, I wish to compliment all those involved.

I wish to deal with the various issues raised in the course of today's debate. Senator O'Toole suggested that there may be a barrier to harbour companies appointing harbour masters as authorised officers. It is, of course, a matter for the harbour companies to appoint the authorised officers, but I would expect the first person appointed would be the harbour master. I will examine this again, as the Senator has requested, but this matter was also raised on Committee Stage and I expressed the view that harbour or port companies would almost certainly appoint the harbour master automatically.

Senator O'Toole raised several other issues during the Committee Stage debate, as did a number of other Senators. I have been in communication with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government regarding eco-friendly detergents, refuse containers at landing sites and Met Éireann using local sea area weather forecasts. I understand a reply arrived just as I left my office. If I am unhappy with that reply, I will pursue these matters further with the Minister.

Senator McHugh referred to the fact that there is no register for jet skis and that one can go to any pier and launch a jet ski. It was the same many years ago with cars on the roads, before licensing was introduced. We must make progress on this issue.

The marine safety directorate of my Department is involved in registering boats and has issued thousands of licences for potting purposes. It is currently developing a registration system to enhance the safety of recreational craft. That system will be known as the small vessel register, SVR. The intention is to design a system for recreational craft and small commercial vessels. Owners of the latter vessels have difficulties registering under the provisions of the Mercantile Marine Act 1955, which is primarily aimed at larger commercial vessels.

I agree with the point made by Senator McHugh that while we do not want to be kill-joys, we also have a responsibility to protect the lives of those using recreational craft and those who may come into contact with them. I am anxious to progress this issue further, while taking into consideration the practical difficulties and the pressure on the officials in my Department.

It was clear during the course of the debate on Second, Committee and Report Stages that this House has had an important input into the Bill. Where appropriate, I have taken on board proposals made by Senators, which have improved the Bill. I thank all of the Senators for their contributions. I am committed to ensuring that the Bill is fully and effectively implemented and water safety will remain a priority on my agenda.

In addition to thanking the Senators and those who took a particular interest in this Bill, I thank the Parliamentary Counsel, Jack Hazlett, and his colleagues in the Office of the Attorney General for all of their work in bringing the Bill to a successful conclusion in this House. I also thank the officials in my Department for their hard work and advice during the passage of the Bill through the House. We now have a Bill that should quickly yield results, such as greater safety and greater public enjoyment of the national assets we have in our rivers, lakes and around our coast. I remind those who use recreational craft of their responsibility to themselves and others. They also have a responsibility to those involved in saving lives. These people put their own lives at risk to save others. I thank the coastguard, including those who work with us in the Department and particularly those who give their time in a voluntary capacity. I hope to ensure this Bill will be enacted before the summer recess.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 4.40 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.
Top
Share