Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak on the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Amendment Bill 2006 on behalf of the opposition. This bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 to ensure the Commonwealth can effectively respond to threats of serious marine pollution arising from maritime incidents. This bill also provides a great deal of clarity to the current terms of the legislation to ensure that those in the maritime industry know their obligations and responsibilities. It also ensures that officers of state governments and the Commonwealth are able to make confident and quick decisions in environmental emergencies.

One of the key features of this bill is the specific clarification that the act is to complement the state and territory law where there is not a conflict. Firstly, this removes any confusion as to the Commonwealth government’s powers under the act and, secondly, it provides for a cooperative approach to managing Australia’s waters. The bill also provides a determination that the powers of the Commonwealth over the exclusive economic zone correspond with the powers over the coastal sea as determined in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act and that the definition of ‘high seas’ corresponds with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It also provides a determination that directions issued by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AMSA, will prevail over the directions of any other person.

The bill also provides a broadening of the areas at sea at which action can be taken against a ship that poses a threat of significant pollution. This allows for more extensive measures to be taken to prevent harm to our waters. Clarification of the persons to which directions can be made by authorities and an explanation as to how that direction can be given to any person who can ‘prevent, mitigate or eliminate’ the risk of a spill and the circumstances under which they may be directed. What this does is give greater alignment with international standards. It also allows for a strong provision for recovery of costs from offending vessels and gives further clarification and simplification of provisions by removing unnecessary clauses and streamlining the text of the bill.

As the explanatory memorandum further sets out, the bill provides a clarification to the extent and scope of intervention powers in relation to prevention of pollution by extending powers for direction in relation to tugs, places of refuge and persons other than shipowners, masters and salvers. It outlines a revision of penalties for noncompliance with a direction given under the act and also has a provision for responder immunity from liability for decisions made with due care. It provides for reimbursement on just terms for the use of requisitioned property, including compensation for damage or loss occurring while property is under requisition.

These are sensible measures and they have the support of the Australian Labor Party. What Labor does not support, though, is the Howard government’s continuing failure to embrace a shipping policy that supports the viability of the Australian maritime sector more broadly. This policy neglect and lack of leadership have a number of consequences, not least of which is the threat that flag of convenience vessels present to our marine environment. Anyone who has read the report Ships of shame would know exactly what we mean when we talk about flags of convenience and the ships of shame. Australia has a unique and sensitive marine environment. Pollution can greatly upset the health of our waters and marine life. Strong regulation is necessary to ensure the preservation of healthy waters. We have been extremely fortunate that a disaster involving a flag of convenience vessel has not caused an environmental catastrophe in Australian waters. With increasing numbers of poorly maintained flag of convenience vessels plying the Australian coastline, Labor fears it is a matter of when, not if, a major maritime environmental catastrophe occurs.

AMSA is tasked with managing ecological disasters arising from maritime incidents and cannot do so without the power to employ any necessary action to prevent an environmental disturbance. We hope that, with the passage of this bill, AMSA will be better equipped to undertake this task. But we are most concerned that disasters are prevented in the first place. The prevention, mitigation and elimination of risks to our marine environment are core responsibilities of the national government. But rather than support a domestic shipping industry, which would minimise the risk to our coastline, the Howard government has encouraged foreign rust buckets to ply our coastal trade, the vessels that pose the greatest threat to our marine environment—the ships of shame.

As a Queenslander, and like most other Queenslanders, I am intensely proud of my home state. It is one of the world’s great natural wonders and has immense resources and beauty, not the least of which is, of course, the Great Barrier Reef. Should a serious maritime incident occur on the waters surrounding the Great Barrier Reef, a place where flag of convenience vessels actually ply the coast, it would result in a disaster of unimaginable proportions. It would forever destroy sections of this wonderful natural feature that belongs to all Australians. This is not something outside the realm of possibility; in fact, it could happen, and it nearly did. In January this year 25,000 litres of heavy fuel oil leaked from the Global Peace, a Korean owned, Panama registered bulk coal carrier. Rather than leak on the reef proper, though, the leak occurred in Gladstone Harbour in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It was a close call, but I think it demonstrated to people just how sensitive our waters are and the responsibility that we all, and particularly the national government, have to ensuring that we have the right protections in place to protect one of the natural wonders of the world.

It is absolutely critical for Australia to take every possible action to protect our marine environment, firstly, to protect the livelihood of Australia’s hardworking fishers, as well as other industries that rely on a healthy marine environment, such as aquaculture and marine biotechnology; secondly, to protect Australia’s great tourism industry, which sees thousands of people each year visit Australia to appreciate our crystal clear waters and our beautiful marine life; and, lastly, to preserve our oceans for future generations to appreciate and enjoy. I believe the Great Barrier Reef is entrusted to us and that an Australian government should do everything possible to protect it.

The risk posed to the Great Barrier Reef and the Torres Strait region from shipping has been recognised by the government, and new arrangements for emergency towage have recently been instituted. An emergency vessel will be able to tow disabled ships to a safe mooring. But this post-incident response will do little to repair lasting damage to the Great Barrier Reef, should it happen, or any other marine environment damage as a consequence of a marine incident.

In Labor’s view, this bill fails to address the most significant threat to Australia’s unique marine environment—the threat posed by flag of convenience vessels. These vessels have been encouraged into Australian waters by a government that has adopted an anti-Australian shipping policy framework, a policy framework that encourages flag of convenience vessels, not Australian shipping employing Australian workers. Australian vessels are well maintained, they are of good quality and they have good crews who are trained and know what they doing. They are operated by well-skilled people.

Australian crews have a vested interest in ensuring that the Australian coastline is protected. That interest is not necessarily shared by the masters and crew of flag of convenience vessels that ply our coast. This fact has not dissuaded the Howard government from issuing single and continuing voyage permits in the style of a drunken sailor. The Howard government’s anti-Australian shipping posture has cost Australian jobs. It continues to threaten the Australian environment and continues to threaten Australian jobs. This bill, while containing some very worthy measures, does not signal a change of policy on the part of the government. A more universal and comprehensive approach is needed if we are going to provide real protection to Australia’s beautiful coastline. For that reason, I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for administering anti-Australian shipping policies that favour foreign Flag of Convenience vessels and put the marine environment at unnecessary risk.”

See this speech in context