Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Thursday 13 July 2006

MARINE AND SAFETY AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 2006

Mr DEAN (Windermere ) - I rise in support of the bill. I guess if we were to look at Kings Wharf at Launceston we could probably come to the conclusion that this might well have been called the Les Dick bill, because I think there are something like 11 derelict vessels moored on or near Kings Wharf and I understand that nine of them are owned by Mr Dick.

Mr Finch - Four.

Mr DEAN - I was advised of a much larger number than that, but there are a number of them. I think, for those who have been to Launceston -

Mr Wilkinson - Five of the others were owned by the honourable member for Rosevears, I think. That is the balance.

Mr DEAN - I think it would be an experience for you to go down to Kings Wharf and have a look at some of the derelict hulks that are there rusting away; the Leader used the word 'eyesore' and that is, very clearly, what they are. I have been looking at a bill similar to this coming in now for a long period of time and so have many other people, Mr President, and I think Launceston is a very good example of where this legislation would clean up that area around the Kings Wharf. The other problem we have is that it is probably a tragedy in waiting. During a recent, fairly rough period one of those vessels did break loose and it created some mayhem for a while until it was recovered and once again moored. What I am saying, Mr President, is that in a flood or in some bad weather they could run adrift and they could cause quite a lot of damage.

I think it is fairly important for this legislation to be accepted and for the policing of it to commence fairly quickly, and the quicker the better. I have spoken to Mr Dick about some of these issues previously and one of the questions he raises - and I think the member for Rosevears might go and listen in some more detail - is that some of those vessels may be seen to be heritage vessels and should be retained for some heritage value; I do not know really as I am not an expert in that area. It may well be that some of those vessels would meet the criteria but then I would be surprised if many of those at Kings Wharf did. I think it would be quite difficult for boats to be listed as heritage. I do not know if they ever can be.

Ms Thorp - I do not know. Certainly there are vintage boat clubs and vintage boat races. There are criteria to determine their age, just like vintage cars.

Mr DEAN - It is interesting. If we look at the law as it currently is, as I understand it, you can go in and tie up a vessel and abandon it and there is not really much that can happen to you. That is the sad situation; there is not much chance of recovering mooring fees or any other fees that might be had in relation to some of those vessels. I do not know of anywhere else in this State that it has happened to the same degree that it has at Kings Wharf.

Mr Parkinson - There are some strange boat owners up that way.

Mr DEAN - There are just a few issues here. It has often been said that local government should be held responsible for those vessels and that they should have a responsibility to remove them. Mr President is nodding his head, saying that should be case. It should never be the case. Local government are a bit like the police: after normal closing hours, police seem to pick up everything and I think that local government is pretty much the same; if there is nobody else there to accept the responsibility it is normally given to local government. The member for Rowallan would agree with that, would you not?

Mr Hall - Yes.

Mr DEAN - It should never and could never be a responsibility of local government and this bill gives absolute and total responsibility to MAST, which is the proper organisation to have that responsibility, in my view. I think I am right in saying that the bill will allow all vessels over 15 metres to be deemed commercial vessels and, if so, they must have a current certificate of survey. If they do not they will be considered unseaworthy. It may well be argued over time as to whether they meet that criteria, as to whether they are seaworthy or not. I think that is where the Cotswold Prince came into question in relation to the seaworthiness of that vessel. I think that was a part of the whole thing that was being argued there and Mr Dick satisfactorily argued his case and, at the end of the day, was able to take possession of it and sold it, sailed it across to India or thereabouts, across to the other side anyway.

Mr Parkinson - He nearly did not make it to Western Australia.

Mr DEAN - You are right, he had to pull into Western Australia and have some repairs done to it and work done to it. I was talking to Mr Dick about that trip and he reckoned it was a hair-raising trip, some parts of it, but he said at the end it was a largely enjoyable trip.

Mr Parkinson - He nearly had to complete the journey on his own.

Mr Wilkinson - Without the boat?

Mr Parkinson - Without the crew.

Mr DEAN - I question whether or not MAST will be sufficiently funded for undertaking their responsibilities as part of this act because, when it comes to involvement with ships, the movement of ships, there will be a lot of financial impost, I would suggest, on MAST in their responsibilities now under this act. Therefore I seek from the Leader a position that there will be adequate and suitable funding of MAST to enable them to undertake their responsibilities.

I understand also that where a vessel is shown to be unseaworthy, a reasonable period of time will be given to bring that vessel back to a seaworthy condition. I wonder what is a 'reasonable time' under this act because when you are talking about vessels it could be four or five years, in fact, and that would probably be reasonable.

Mr Parkinson - It is specified under 38B, 'such reasonable period as may be specified in the notice'.

Mr DEAN - That is so, but I am asking what will be a reasonable period of time when you are looking at some of those vessels.

Ms Thorp - It would vary vessel to vessel, would it not?

Mr Parkinson - I don't imagine MAST would allow an inordinate length of time; the whole idea is to control the vessel. If you are going to give an owner a notice - through you, Mr President - to make the vessel seaworthy within a reasonable period of time - reasonable in the circumstances is the way it is always interpreted in the event of a dispute. If there is a dispute over it generally these things get resolved in court.

Mr DEAN - Yes, but I might say there have been many complaints raised in relation to these vessels and it has caused and created problems over a very long period of time. The infamous ratepayers association continually raise that subject. One vessel in particular has been rusting away for 30-odd years.

I do not want to say anything further, Mr President. I support the bill. It is a good bill and hopefully it will restore some respectability to the area around Kings Wharf and I am not aware of anywhere else around the State where there are difficulties. I look forwarded to it being implemented at the earliest possible time.

Return To Main Page.

Return To Speeches.