Gerard P. Craughwell urges rapid MAIU probes, warns on 'MAI' term

I rise to agree with my colleague Senator Higgins there. I do think in any Marine Accident Minister I think speed is of the essence to get answers to understand what happened. That is truly important. The Lucas case raised certain issues with respect to interviews with respect to the removal of items from the scene of the accident, with respect to an investigation into, if I recall correctly, an investigation into the life jackets that were used. I may be wrong on that, but as far as I recall, that is the situation. I do think we have to treat volunteers differently, but I do think that investigations must be immediate. Both the loss of 116, notwithstanding the fact that there was a significant legal advice on 116, the rest of the world depends on the report of any accident to help them change the methodologies that they use to change the procedures and practices that are in place. The reports need to be got out, comprehensive and published very quickly, but I would agree with most of what my colleague Senator Higgins has said in this case. I do think it would improve the bill. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. First of all, I want to thank the Senators for their contributions. I just want to say a few things to you. This amendment here deals with a number of points in relation to the search and rescue operations, including the conduct of an investigation in this context, the expertise of investigators, cooperation between the MAIU and the SAR bodies, the exemption of volunteers from certain requirements in the bill, and the collaborative development of safety recommendations. Firstly, I would like to remind the house that the MAIU is an independent unit whose purpose is to determine the cause or causes of marine accidents and to make recommendations which seek to improve the maritime safety in the future. As an independent unit, the conduct of an investigation is the matter for the chief investigator or his or her designated investigator in charge. The chief investigator is guided in this regard by the IMO's Casualty Investigation Code. It would not be appropriate, in my view, to prescribe in legislation the particulars regarding how an investigation to an accident involving search and rescue operations is conducted. I stated before, and it remains my view, that it is not desirable to provide in legislation for the specific qualifications and experience of individual investigators. Section 9 of the bill requires that the MAIU be staffed by the investigators who possess their requisite qualifications and experience in order for the MAIU to deliver on its functions. The chief investigator will be responsible for ensuring the MAIU can effectively perform its marine accident investigation functions, including by ensuring its staff develop and maintain the appropriate mix of skills and training across the unit. There is nothing in the bill precluding the MAIU from developing written protocols and memoranda of understanding with search and rescue bodies in relation to how they work together within the confines of respective remits. However, such arrangements are not appropriate for legislation. It is a matter for the chief investigator to determine whether such protocols are needed and what arrangements should be set out therein. In relation to exempting search and rescue volunteers from certain requirements within the bill, I am concerned that this would weaken the ability of investigators to collect crucial evidence. I would remind senators that the purpose of the MAIU is not to proportion blame or determine liability, but to seek to identify the cause of the accident in order to develop safety recommendations. In my view, it would not be appropriate, nor would it be in line with our EU obligations regarding independence for the MAIU to be required to develop recommendations in consultation with search and rescue organisations. I would like to highlight, however, that in section 33 of the bill requires that the MAIU share a draft report with anyone who is likely to be adversely impacted by its publication. The bill provides that the MAIU should take any observations submitted in accordance with this section into account before publishing its report and may incorporate the observations into its findings or recommendations in the report or make such comments on them in the report as it see fits. Given the reasons I have stated, I trust the senators will understand that I have decided not to accept the amendment. Thank you. Thank you very much, Lasko Herr. Look, Minister, I am not going to delay on this. I am just extremely concerned where there is vague language when we are talking about regulation. The word MAI should never appear in anything. It should be very clear. There should be a duty on those to carry out whatever instruction in whatever section of the legislation there is. MAIU gives an opt-out to people. It allows for a situation when something does happen that people will say, oh, well, the minister never made an order in that particular instance. So I do believe that what is being proposed here is valid and should be looked at again. I will leave it at that. Thank you. Firstly, I want to reiterate that the purpose of part five of this bill is to allow us to regulate offshore service vessels for the carriage of industrial personnel to service the offshore wind industry. There appears to be some confusion between the regulation of these vessels to service the offshore ORE industry and the recent government approval of the LNG terminal. There are two entirely separate issues. No concerns were raised around the definition for offshore industrial activities in the bill containing references to the hydrocarbon energy sector, but this is to reflect the definition used in the SOLUS Convention. I would like to clarify that different rules and certification applied to ships involved in the carriage of dangerous goods, such as LNG, which is not the case here. The vessels to be certified under this bill would be used to carry industrial personnel to service the offshore wind industry. With regard to using the term MAI in relation to the SOLUS Convention, I want to restate that it is our intention to apply the SOLUS Convention in full to ships that fall within its scope, which is generally larger ships on international voyages. This is an obligation we must meet as a party to the Convention. However, some of the vessels, such as the smaller crew transfer vessels that will operate back and over to the wind farms, do not fall within the scope of the SOLUS Convention, as they will be operating on domestic voyages. I would like the flexibility to be able to apply the provisions of the SOLUS to these smaller vessels as far as practical, and that is why we need to use the word, the term MAI instead of SHAL here. We need to be able to determine the most appropriate safety standards for the vessel based on its size, purpose and area of operation. It will not be practical to apply the SOLUS Convention in full to small vessels that are not captured by the Convention. In addition, it is practical to have the option to have different sets of rules for different types of vessels, but it will be determined during the drafting process as far as rules are required and whether a single set can be used to cover a range of vessels. As such, the use of the term MAI is practical for that purpose. The Senator also wishes to make it mandatory for any rules to include survey equipment requirements. Offshore service vessels cannot be provided with a certificate under section 48 of this bill without first having undergone the appropriate survey. I can confirm that any rules drafted under this section would set out the detailed survey requirements. For these reasons that I have set out, I do not accept the amendments. Thank you.