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 brief remarks this morning on the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006. In doing so, I want to say at the outset it has the full support of the opposition. The bill is important when you think about my shadow ministerial responsibilities of resources and tourism and also in the context of the fact that we are an island nation and a trading nation. It is important for the environment. I might also say it is exceptionally important from a health and safety perspective in trying to further guarantee the safety of our Australian seafarers and international seafarers at work.

The opposition therefore clearly states that it is a sensible bill. It is exceptionally important that Australia seeks to align our requirements with international obligations, as a member state of the International Maritime Organisation and as a party to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. As we appreciate, Australia is one of 119 countries party to the agreement and stands alongside countries in our own backyard, including New Zealand, and also other great trading nations, the United States and the United Kingdom, in support of the protocol that seeks to minimise sea pollution through dumping, oil and exhaust pollution and to conserve the maritime environment, which is exceptionally important.

Oil pollution of the seas was first recognised as a problem in the first half of the 20th century. Globally we have come a long way in minimising our impact on the sea so that our ocean transport activities can be maintained at a sustainable level. The MARPOL convention is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. History will show it is a combination of two treaties, adopted in 1973 and 1978 respectively, and obviously updated by amendments through the years, and I think we have debates such as this fairly frequently in the House with respect to our international obligations as a result of MARPOL.

Today the opposition stands in support of the two amendments of MARPOL by the IMO that were introduced in October 2004 and will enter into force internationally on 1 January 2007. In moving to support the bill I also urge that the bill commence in line with the international commencement date of 1 January 2007. The bill will incorporate the amendments into Australian domestic law, allowing Australia to enforce the more stringent technical requirements contained which aim to protect human health and the marine environment. This is not only smart environmentally but also good for Australian business.

Revised regulations in annex I and annex II include two important amendments: firstly, the phasing in of double hull requirements for oil tankers and the separation in different chapters of the construction and equipment provision for operational requirements. Together they are about further improving safety at sea and about protecting our environment. This is important in making clear the distinctions between the requirements for new ships and those for existing ships. Secondly, it incorporates regulations for the control of pollution of noxious liquid substances in bulk and features a new four-category system for noxious and liquid substances. The new requirements under the first annex include pumproom bottom protection of oil tankers of 5,000 tonnes deadweight and above, constructed on or after 1 January 2007. Essentially this means that the pumproom will need to be double hulled. Obviously we should have been thinking about this long ago.

The annex also includes updated standards on accidental oil flow performance and is applicable to oil tankers delivered on or after 1 January 2010, with construction requirements necessitating the need to provide adequate protection against oil pollution in the event of stranding or a collision. I believe this is an important amendment. The tanker industry and its seaborne transportation service of oil is a critical lifeblood for much of the world in satisfying its need for petroleum. Consequently the tanker industry has a unique global responsibility. Tankers account for about 50 per cent of all seaborne trade and transport approximately 50 per cent of the oil that the world consumes. An estimated 2.25 trillion litres of crude oil are transported across our oceans every year, in addition to 1.75 trillion litres of refined product per annum. This figure is likely to increase in the foreseeable future unless new sources of oil are found within pipeline range of existing consumer markets or until alternative energy sources are found at a viable enough standard to replace fossil fuels. Obviously I think that is something Australia has to think about, with a properly focused debate on alternatives to our reliance in the Middle East on oil. I simply say to the government again today, on the energy debate, that it is about time they got serious about working with the private sector to get investment in Australia so as to enable us to pursue the gas to liquids and coal to liquids downstream production process in a more serious way.

I am pleased to say that at least there are some initial investments starting to occur, such as the Monash investment in the La Trobe Valley and some small opportunities in places such as Chinchilla in Queensland. But not enough is being done by the Howard government in terms of the energy debate, and today’s debate on our reliance on international oil tankers again focuses our mind back on the issue of energy security at home, rather than Australia just being concerned with the energy security of Shanghai or Tokyo. It is about time we got serious about the energy security of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Dubbo, Darwin and every other place in Australia.

Given all this activity and the hazardous nature of the seas, for those very reasons we have to have practical standards in place, and that is what this bill is about. It is about further improving the safety standards that Australia has historically been prepared to support, despite the fact that I continue to have serious questions in my mind about the government’s unwillingness to promote the Australian maritime industry and its too-ready acceptance of continuous and single voyage permits. That also raises questions about the security of Australia and terrorism and whether or not the crews on board some of these ships are being properly examined prior to them coming into port. These are serious issues which will be raised by a number of members of the opposition in this debate. With that aside, can I say that many in the seagoing industry accept that advancements made over the past 15 years, in particular, in the building, operating and maintaining of double hull oil tankers has made them considerably safer. That is important because it is also about these tankers being more environmentally friendly and, in the long term, far more economical than their predecessors, the single hull ships.

However, it is also important to note that the double hull tankers are only a part of the present-day operation of the forward-looking tanker industry. The picture also involves qualified officers and crews—something the Howard government forgets from time to time—dedicated shore staff, continuous training, information technology and a committed, transparent management team. These aspects of modern shipping sometimes escape the attention of people who tend to focus on only one aspect instead of considering a more global perspective—a whole-of-industry approach. However, as has been said on many occasions, a good ship with a poor crew is a disaster waiting to happen. And we have to be conscious of that as a nation—a nation that has historically prided itself on its ability to train locally Australian seafarers, not only for our own local trade but also for the international trade.

That takes me to the second annex, which reflects the improvements in ship technology such as the efficient stripping techniques which have made possible significantly lower permitted discharge levels of certain products, which are laid out in the amendment. The new four-category categorisation system has resulted from the evaluation of the marine pollution hazards of thousands of chemicals and the creation of a hazard profile which indexes the substance according to its bioaccumulation, biodegradability, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, long-term health effects and effects on marine wildlife.

The opposition believes that this is an important aspect of the bill. As the shadow minister for tourism I want to stress today the need to conserve our marine environment through embracing and putting in place these new international standards. On that note I refer to the fact that, in 2004, a Queensland Tourism Industry Council report estimated that the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef contributed in excess of $5.8 billion to Queensland’s $11 billion annual tourism budget. This is important, with growth forecast in the next decade ranging from five per cent to 10 per cent.

So these amendments are also about us protecting other export-earning opportunities for Australia, including the important tourism industry not only on the Great Barrier Reef but generally in Australia. It is not surprising that tourism is the largest commercial activity in the Great Barrier Reef. We all appreciate its international importance. For that very reason—just as an example—in 2005 there were approximately 820 operators and 1,500 vessels and aircraft permitted to operate in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. That is exceptionally important not only for employment in Queensland but also for international export earnings. It is an industry that was virtually non-existent in the area in 1950, so it has grown significantly over a very short period. I refer to a 1946 report produced by the then newly established Queensland tourism development board, which stated proudly that 5,000 visitors a year were visiting the group of Barrier Reef islands off the Whitsunday passage, already selected by the board as one of Queensland’s outstanding tourist attractions—so we have come a long way.

The number of companies involved in the industry at the reef, like the number of tourists, has increased dramatically over the years—from fewer than 12 operators in 1968 to 180 in 1987 and 742 in 1998. Similarly, there has been a huge increase in the number of visitors. In the early 1980s this was estimated at 150,000 visitor days per year—40 times the visitation of the pre-1950 period. In 1987, this had risen to 450,000, and 10 years later, 1997, 1.6 million visitor days were recorded. Last year the visitor numbers topped 1.9 million.

In raising these issues today I want to stress the responsibility of the Australian government and our state and territory governments for making sure that we are especially cautious when it comes to the seagoing industry around Australian shores, because just one accident can have a huge impact on the whole Australian economy—when you think about an accident that could occur, for example, off the Queensland coast. It is therefore clear that areas such as Queensland, in terms of tourism, have become key components of the economy, underpinning, as I have said, many jobs and enhancing the attraction of Australia to international tourists.

We also have to make sure we go out of our way to preserve our opportunities because the international tourism market is now very tough. Not only have we got problems on the domestic front; we are actually going backwards, unfortunately, in one of our very strong markets, the Japanese market. Obviously there is a growth in Chinese numbers, but there is a huge different between Chinese tourists and Japanese tourists. The Japanese tourists are high-yield tourists. They spend a lot more money. It is important, because obviously Queensland and our coast have been very attractive in the past to these high-yield tourists, that we preserve our coastal opportunities for the purposes of tourism.

I simply raise these issues to again remind the government of why we must always go out of our way to be vigilant, not only locally but also internationally, to play our role in strengthening these international protocols. It is to our long-term betterment and economic prosperity as a nation.

In conclusion, I seek further feedback from the minister as to what stage the proposed ratification of the ILO convention on seafarers’ rights has reached. The convention was ratified by the ILO last year. It brings together a series of historically important international conventions going to the health and safety and the entitlements of seafarers. The Australian government voted in support of this convention. It represented the outcome of a lot of hard work by government, employer and union representatives. The government has previously given a commitment to pursue the ratification of this convention. I think it is important that it engages with the state and territory governments and employers and unions on this as a matter of urgency because that is the normal process for the consideration of ratification of ILO conventions in Australia. Just as we are embracing the amendments in terms of the protection of the Australian coast by the bill before the House this morning, I think it is imperative that the government seek the ratification of this workers convention with the support of employer representatives sooner rather than later. I seek information from the minister as to where that process is up to in his response to this debate. I thank the House for the opportunity to address this bill. It might not be seen to be contentious, but I must say it is exceptionally important to Australia.

See this speech in context