❓ Question regarding potential maritime liability of Fisheries vessels operating at night without navigation lights. Minister argues skippers are responsible for safety, regardless of legal entitlement, especially with modern electronic surveillance.
AnsweredQoN 696Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I remind the minister of the answer he provided to me the other day about Department of Fisheries vessels being authorised to run at night without the required navigation lights. Will the minister inform the House of the potential liability that arises at maritime law if one of those Department of Fisheries vessels running at night without lights is involved in a collision at sea? The PRESIDENT: I trust that the minister will give a brief and considered response. Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I will be precise in my answer although it is not an easy question to be precise about. Hon George Cash: I think it is very easy to be precise about the answer. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We were trying to not get the bush lawyer’s response. However, it looks as though we are not succeeding. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
The PRESIDENT: I trust that the minister will give a brief and considered response. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will be precise in my answer although it is not an easy question to be precise about. Hon George Cash: I think it is very easy to be precise about the answer. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We were trying to not get the bush lawyer’s response. However, it looks as though we are not succeeding. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will be precise in my answer although it is not an easy question to be precise about. Hon George Cash: I think it is very easy to be precise about the answer. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We were trying to not get the bush lawyer’s response. However, it looks as though we are not succeeding. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
I will be precise in my answer although it is not an easy question to be precise about. Hon George Cash: I think it is very easy to be precise about the answer. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We were trying to not get the bush lawyer’s response. However, it looks as though we are not succeeding. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon George Cash: I think it is very easy to be precise about the answer. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We were trying to not get the bush lawyer’s response. However, it looks as though we are not succeeding. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We were trying to not get the bush lawyer’s response. However, it looks as though we are not succeeding. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
The PRESIDENT: I trust that the minister will give a brief and considered response. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will be precise in my answer although it is not an easy question to be precise about. Hon George Cash: I think it is very easy to be precise about the answer. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We were trying to not get the bush lawyer’s response. However, it looks as though we are not succeeding. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I will be precise in my answer although it is not an easy question to be precise about. Hon George Cash: I think it is very easy to be precise about the answer. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We were trying to not get the bush lawyer’s response. However, it looks as though we are not succeeding. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
I will be precise in my answer although it is not an easy question to be precise about. Hon George Cash: I think it is very easy to be precise about the answer. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We were trying to not get the bush lawyer’s response. However, it looks as though we are not succeeding. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon George Cash: I think it is very easy to be precise about the answer. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We were trying to not get the bush lawyer’s response. However, it looks as though we are not succeeding. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We were trying to not get the bush lawyer’s response. However, it looks as though we are not succeeding. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not easy to be precise because, as Hon George Cash will recall, I indicated in my answer on that occasion that the marine safety division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had advised the Department of Fisheries that, rather than providing an authorisation for the practice, it had simply determined that, in the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute were that activity to take place. Any skipper, whether of the Department of Fisheries or not, has a primary and heavy responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her vessel and the people on that vessel. That is maritime law that goes back centuries. The skipper has to satisfy him or herself that the practice being carried out, whether entitled by law or not, is safe. If a skipper were to carry out an action to which he was entitled by law but which was unsafe, the skipper would be culpable in those circumstances. Fisheries skippers have undertaken an expression of that responsibility. Provided that a skipper can be satisfied that by running without lights there is sufficient visual or electronic surveillance to make that practice safe, it is a justifiable practice. Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon George Cash: Would that provision also apply to skippers on other vessels? Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon KIM CHANCE: It would because the skipper’s responsibility rests with that practice. Whether the Department for Planning and Infrastructure would make the same decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute is another question. Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon George Cash interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon KIM CHANCE: Many of these laws were put in place before the current level of electronic surveillance was available. It is quite possible - Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! This is not a debate. Does the minister wish to finish his comments? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. With the kind of electronic surveillance equipment that is available today, it is quite possible for a skipper to safely navigate in complete darkness. The existence of running lights is of no assistance to the skipper of the vessel being navigated. They are of assistance to other vessels that might run into that vessel. It is not the act of navigating the vessel that requires the lights; it is the act of ensuring that no other vessel is in close proximity. Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon George Cash interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete the answer. Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe that the actions taken by the Department of Fisheries and, by implication, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure are responsible actions because I do not believe that Fisheries or the skippers running Fisheries’ vessels are acting in a way that creates danger for other marine users or staff on Fisheries’ vessels. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2.00 pm
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.