Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Bill 2006. I support strongly the main thrust of this bill, which is to protect the marine environment via the implementation domestically of a significant international initiative—the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships 2001, known as the AFS convention.

Protection of our environment must be paramount to ensure the survival of flora and fauna and endangered species for conservation reasons for future generations to enjoy and for recreational purposes. Our marine environment is no exception. Combining education and regulation can empower people to save and protect the delicate ecological systems from disaster. I am reminded of a saying by John Muir, which I will now quote: ‘When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.’

I spoke recently in this chamber on another bill and talked about the current catch cry, which is climate change. I have to say that, while we are all talking about climate change —which is undoubtedly a very important subject and should engage every one of us—we are continuing to foul our waterways and our land. Many millions of people around the world rely on the sea as their main source of food. Many of course rely on fish and other marine life, including seaweed, as a staple diet. There are many reasons why we need to protect our seas, and this bill in part addresses some of the concerns.

I understand that, through the bill, Australia will introduce into our law the international convention. The various regulations that form the convention will be implemented through the bill. They are in addition to and more comprehensive than the current state and territory laws in this area. The 1998 Australia’s Oceans Policy also addressed these issues.

Implementation of the 2006 bill will mean, under the terms of the AFS convention, that a country which is part of the convention is required to prohibit or restrict the use of harmful antifouling systems on ships flying its flag or entering its ports. All Australian ships of 400 tonnes or more will be looked over before the ship is put into service. All ships of gross tonnage of 400 tonnes or more will be asked to carry an antifouling certificate, and ships of 24 metres or more but weighing less than 400 tonnes which are engaged in international voyages will have to carry a declaration of antifouling systems signed by the owner or by an authorised agent. Toxic compounds such as tributyltin, otherwise called TBT, and the application or reapplication of all organotin compounds that act as biocides in antifouling systems will be banned. In simple terms, this convention will prohibit the use of harmful antifouling paints which are prone to killing off delicate marine life and can also negatively affect and impact human health.

In order for ships to travel efficiently through the water, though, their hulls must be free of barnacles, algae and other marine growth. These things are always a matter of balance. In the past, though, this build-up of unwanted sea organisms was prevented through the use of antifouling paints which were applied to the ships’ hulls. Although they were deemed safe at the time, it was later discovered that these paints continued to exist in the water and were harmful to and even killed sea life. Further, people who consumed large quantities of seafood were at times being adversely affected. It is unacceptable that this toxicity would be a threat to the ecological environment and to human health, and of course it could lead to very negative economic factors. Here in Australia, although we have an abundance of different kinds of foods, fishing is a very important industry and one that we need to continue to protect. On the north coast of my electorate, we have a very significant industry exporting live crayfish overseas. To continue to have good catches we must make sure that the environment allows these creatures to thrive and, indeed, to survive.

So protection of our marine life is vital not only for reasons of conservation—just to make sure that the species continue—but also for the many people who rely on the sea for their food source, for the many in Australia who rely on the sea for their income production and for tourists who enjoy regular boating and outings such as fishing, scuba diving, snorkelling and swimming. Most of us in Australia at some stage participate in the variety of wonderful water sports that is available to us. Our tourism, particularly in Western Australia, is reliant on our natural beauty, the ruggedness of our natural landscapes and the wonderful oceans that surround us. One boat passing through water near our protected Ningaloo Reef at Exmouth or at Australia’s great pride the Great Barrier Reef could have detrimental effects on the natural beauty of those areas. In many cases, once the damage is done it cannot be reversed.

I support the fact that this sanction would apply not only to Australian ships but to any ships that choose to enter Australian waters and dock at our ports. Australian ships and their owners would have a national code to follow, making the rules strict but simple, and there is no doubt that everyone would benefit. The worldwide decision to ban harmful paints is based on scientific evidence, on factual evidence, and it has been investigated, I understand, by the government departments responsible and international organisations. Based on the evidence of these findings, Australia must adhere to this decision in order to keep up with the increasingly high international standards in this area. I am told that many other countries are going to follow Australia’s example and consider signing up to this convention, which is good news.

The electorate of Pearce, which I represent, is a large electorate, part of which runs along the Western Australian coast from Lancelin down to Mindarie Keys, and all along that coast there is significant marine life and significant marine and water based activities. Lancelin is a major centre for export crayfishing, and that industry is very profitable for people in my electorate. We need to make sure that we continue to protect those species.

Two or three years ago, I had occasion to move a motion in this House to protect the patagonian toothfish. On that occasion the risk was that it would be fished out by illegal fishing activities in the Southern Ocean, and I am pleased that the government and the minister took steps to address that matter. We would not want to see that industry threatened by the use of harmful paints and harmful antifouling methods.

As a nation, we always need to be mindful of our role in doing more to save and protect our environment, particularly our oceans, and to conserve energy and resources. Within the electorate of Pearce, down those coastal strips we have a number of volunteers who work to preserve the vegetation along the dunes—again, a very sensitive area. I am grateful to the many volunteers within the electorate of Pearce who take great interest and care in looking after the natural environment, whether it is the sea, the many rivers within the Pearce electorate or the land itself.

I am always pleased to see schoolchildren participating in these projects, and the government’s Green Corps program is well supported within the electorate of Pearce. In that program people are working to make sure that the care of our environment is something that is undertaken by all citizens. So it is very much a partnership between government and the communities. With measures like this, it takes government to lead, it requires government action and it requires us to bring forward legislation, so today I am very pleased to support wholeheartedly this measure involving conservation of our water and marine life, and trust that the importance of their conservation will be recognised as this bill passes through both houses.

See this speech in context