Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks on the Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Bill 2006. In doing so, can I say that the opposition believe that this bill presents Australia—and appropriately so—with the opportunity to significantly improve our nation’s marine environment. It is about implementing domestically the outcome of international processes. In that context, the legislation reflects a very public statement about the importance of the United Nations processes. What we are effectively doing through the legislation that is before the House this morning is enabling us to put in place a unilateral regulatory regime which is not, in essence, an Australian initiative but one which reflects the success of the United Nations with respect to the establishment of conventions which try to make sure that across the world we are doing a better job of protecting the marine environment. I say that because the bill effectively bans the use of toxic compounds found in antifouling paints on ships. I also note in the background material that Australian paint manufacturers were consulted with respect to the legislation and the outcome of the United Nations processes.

Pursuing this legislation is exceptionally important to Australia, an island nation, because it is about trying to prevent the growth of algae, barnacles and other marine organisms, thus enabling a vessel to travel faster through the water. While this practice provides an economic gain, it also comes at a substantial economic cost. Australia should pay strict attention to these issues because of the importance of our commercial fishing industry. Also, one of the service sectors, the tourism industry, creates huge numbers of jobs domestically and also huge export earnings.

For that reason, over the last 20 years, with the full support of Australia, there has been continued scientific research. We have some very valuable scientific institutions in Australia. I refer not just to those in universities but also to CSIRO and ANSTO, which require and deserve government support. Those organisations create a capacity for us as a nation to participate in international processes which pursue scientific research. Such research has shown that antifouling paints pose a substantial risk of toxicity and other chronic impacts on marine species and habitats as well as the food chain as a whole.

Therefore, it must be understood that in some ways legislation is the end result of a lot of hard work, both domestically and internationally, which leads to our putting in place reasonable standards with respect to the operation of the shipping industry—in the context not just of our own coastal activities but of international activities. The effects of these paints have been reported on such ecologically and economically important marine organisms as oysters and molluscs.

As the shadow minister for tourism can I say that this matter is exceptionally important to the tourism industry. Just think about our coastal tourism opportunities and the need to make sure that antifouling paints, which are highly damaging, do not destroy our marine reef environment. That is one of the selling points not only in terms of domestic tourism but in terms of international tourism. Unfortunately, at the moment we have to make sure that we preserve our tourism opportunities because we are operating in a very tough global market. Recent indications suggest that the Australian tourism market is a little bit flat. We obviously have the difficulties of long haul and how we actually attract tourists to Australia. One of the biggest challenges coming out of Tourism Australia’s promotional advertising at the moment is not just attracting additional numbers but attracting the high-yield, wealthy tourists who are prepared to spend big dollars in some of the key tourist attractions around Australia.

That takes me to our world famous Great Barrier Reef. Interestingly, it was estimated in a report by the Queensland Tourism Industry Council two years ago that it contributed in excess of $5 billion to Queensland—and that is $5 billion out of an annual $11 billion annual Queensland tourism industry. So it can be seen why this legislation is important when almost half of the annual Queensland tourism dollars come from areas such as the Great Barrier Reef, which must be protected.

I also welcome the announcement by the government yesterday—and I note that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is in attendance—with respect to improving our salvage capacity in Northern Australia. I think this also represents a statement of the success of our committee processes in the House of Representatives. Some years ago the transport committee had a reference on the issue of salvage in Australia. It was about trying to make sure, because of the high cost of maintaining these large salvage vessels, that there was government support to enable us to keep these vessels in operation around the Australian coast.

I acknowledge the implementation by the government of those recommendations as reflected in the minister’s statement to the House on this initiative during question time yesterday. It is about protecting our coast and it is also about protecting the Australian tourist dollar. When you consider these issues, we obviously as a nation have a lot of tourism assets. Therefore, it is imperative that we use legislation like this, which builds on international initiatives, to remove from use all antifouling paints. As far as I am concerned, that has to be an unquestionable objective.

It is not just an objective that we, Australia, as an island nation have to pursue. It is also a responsibility in our own backyard. We, with New Zealand, largely have responsibility for the Pacific region. We also have to make sure that similar legislation and standards are pursued in areas such as Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Fiji—just to name a few of those nations which we have to assist, through Pacific forum activities, in implementing similar standards. I ask the minister for transport to pursue the capacity of his department to assist these island nations in the Pacific to achieve similar standards and regulation.

The issue of the marine industry has been identified as important. We have to make sure that we avoid worldwide and national pollution from toxic antifouling paints in the globe’s oceans by implementing a ban through international activity and cooperation. It is for that reason that we now have the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships of October 2001. The convention can only commence 12 months after ratification by 25 states. That reminds me of the operation of the ILO in that, unfortunately, all too often nations, including Australia in more recent years, are a bit slow in ratifying ILO conventions.

I remind the minister that there is a very important ILO convention going to standards of seafarers on ships and to their conditions of employment and entitlements with respect to decent places of employment. It was approved by the ILO just over 12 months ago. The Australian government voted in support of that ILO convention, and I seek information from the minister and his response today as to where his consultation with state and territory governments is up to in respect of the implementation and ratification of that new ILO convention. The convention brought together a range of other seafarers’ conventions into a modern, forward-looking convention, approved by the ILO, as a result of decent tripartite work by workers, government and employer representatives. It is a statement of why nations such as Australia have to be active participants in United Nations activities.

The convention can only commence after ratification by 25 states. Unfortunately, as of 30 June 2006 only 16 countries have ratified the convention, representing 17.3 per cent of the world’s merchant shipping by tonnage. Perhaps we can do something in our own backyard with regard to assisting in the eventual ratification by getting some of the smaller Pacific islands to do something about implementing this legislation in their own parliamentary processes.

It should be noted that the use of environmentally harmful antifouling paint compounds on ships has largely been phased out with respect to Australian ships, and I congratulate industry on that achievement. The convention and the Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Bill 2006 will reinforce this initiative by effectively—and appropriately so—prohibiting almost all ships and floating platforms with such compounds from Australian ports, shipyards and offshore terminals.

The issue of platforms is important when you think about the importance of the oil and gas industry and the need for us to go offshore more than ever and do deep sea exploration, which is highly expensive. In pursuing this exploration and hopefully creating a sense of security with further downstream processing to create synthetic diesel through the conversion of gas to liquids, we also have to be aware of potential harmful effects of these paints on our coastal environment.

I also note that the bill implements an agreement with the Australian Transport Council, which is a body comprising state and territory and Commonwealth ministers, on emergency response arrangements that provide for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to be a single national decision maker in intervening on incidents involving threats of significant pollution, covering all ship types and all waters. This is a welcome achievement. It is about a greater sense of cooperation at state and territory level with the Australian government. There must always be a coordinated national response so as to make sure that all available resources are devoted to attending to these incidents, should they occur at some unfortunate point of time in the future. This obviously will strengthen Australia’s capacity to respond to serious pollution threats. It goes hand in glove with the government’s initiatives on the issue of salvage because it is about also trying to minimise the impact of marine incidents, which is obviously welcomed by the opposition. In fact, it is something we have campaigned for through our parliamentary activities.

Yet what is concerning from the opposition’s point of view—and this is a very serious issue because I think it is related not only to the potential problems of pollution of our seas but also to terrorism—is that the Howard government has done nothing to abandon its anti-Australian shipping policy framework, and this is a challenge to the government. The bill does not strengthen in any way the safety standards of vessels of foreign nonparties that are transiting Australian waters. We have raised this in the past and we will continue to raise it because it says to us that the government has weaknesses in this fight to protect our environment and there are potentially serious gaps in our important campaign to protect Australian borders in the fight against terrorism.

Under the coalition—and I think the minister is aware of our view—the use of single and continuous voyage permits has skyrocketed so that the risk to the Australian marine environment posed by poorly maintained, rusted vessels plying the Australian coastline is as bad as ever. These vessels, known as flag of convenience vessels, fly the flags of other nations because it is cheap: there are low registration costs, low or no taxes—sometimes subsidised by government—poor standards and cheap crews. On the issue of crewing, I am reminded again that, as I have said earlier in this debate, we need to expeditiously ratify the new ILO convention setting out a user-friendly statement of the modern requirements of the seafaring workforce—what any decent nation like Australia would expect not only for our own seafarers but also for seafarers coming from overseas plying the Australian waters, more than ever not just on international trade but also on our local coastal trade. We expect those standards for Australian seafarers; we also expect them for international seafarers, more of whom are now actually being trained in our own Maritime College, in the seat of Bass in Launceston in Tasmania. This is imperative. Even though, because of government policy, we now have to cop flag of convenience processes, we have to put in place the convention to at least try to guarantee decent working conditions for these workers from beyond Australian shores.

About one-fifth of the world’s 83,000 ships fly a flag of convenience, but this flag of convenience shipping represents more than half of worldwide ship losses. That is an interesting statistic. On the basis of international statistics, these flag of convenience ships are clearly a challenge to protecting our marine environment and to protecting Australia in the fight against terrorism. The time has come to suggest to the Australian government that they have to raise the white flag on their silly shipping policy in Australia. They have to stop the misuse of the continuous and single voyage permit provisions of the Navigation Act and do something about opening up the trade to Australian coastal vessels. Many of these vessels which are from beyond Australian shores are held together by little more than rust and the ingenuity of their underpaid crews, and I challenge the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to suggest otherwise. The facts speak for themselves.

The pillaging of threatened fish stocks and global pirate fishing operations worth more than $1 billion were documented in a report sponsored by the Australian government, the International Transport Workers Federation and the WWF, the global conservation organisation. This report, entitled The changing nature of high seas fishing: how flags of convenience provide cover for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, identifies a link between illegal global fishing operations and nations offering cheap registration services or flags of convenience to fishing vessels. I urge the minister to have some regard for this report.

Interestingly, in addition to threatening the world’s fisheries by catch, the incidental capture of non-targeted species by pirate fishing operations is a serious threat to sea turtles, albatross, sharks and a range of other species, according to the report. As has been said by previous speakers, the overfishing of the world’s marine resources should be of concern to the government. It should also be of concern economically—for example, in our northern waters—because of the activities of a range of shipping operations from countries such as Indonesia.

The opposition support the bill. It is a sensible measure. I condemn the government for administering antishipping policies in Australia that favour foreign flag of convenience vessels and put Australian marine environments at unnecessary risk. As I said earlier, I request that the minister advise us as to where the ratification is up to with respect to the new ILO convention on the rights of seafarers which was supported by Australian government employers and unions in the ratification process of the ILO. I thank the committee for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

See this speech in context