Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in support of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This bill seeks to amend two acts to enhance Australia’s maritime environmental protection regime in light of international conventions and standards. The coalition is committed to the sustainable growth of Australia’s shipping industry by ensuring that Australia’s maritime sector is as safe, competitive and efficient as possible. The maritime industry is an incredibly important part of Australia’s national and international transport network, with sea transport carrying over 99 per cent of international cargo by weight and domestically carrying 26 per cent by weight.

This bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983, the PPS act, and the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008, the bunkers act. Schedule 1 implements the revised version of annex VI on air pollution of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL, adopted by the International Maritime Organisation, the IMO, on 10 October 2008. Schedule 2 gives immunity from liability to persons or organisations acting reasonably and in good faith to provide assistance following a spill of fuel inadvertently making the damage worse. In supporting this bill the coalition continues its longstanding commitment to and involvement in the IMO and its conventions over many years.

As background to schedule 1, Australia has been a member of the IMO since its inception in 1948 and has played an active role in the development of conventions and treaties over many years. The six annexes of MARPOL deal with different aspects of marine pollution, and all six have been implemented by both Labor and Liberal governments over time. While about 150 countries have adopted some of the annexes, over time Australia has adopted all six. The previous coalition government introduced the initial version of annex VI, with De-Anne Kelly, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, describing the introduction as ‘continuing the coalition government’s efforts to prevent pollution by ships.’

Annex VI is intended to reduce air pollution from ships to prevent the adverse public health costs associated with it. In October 2008 annex VI was revised by the IMO to enhance its requirements and further reduce the potentially harmful emissions from ships. The changes will see a progressive reduction in sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide from ships’ exhausts over time, with sulphur content being reduced from 4.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent on 1 January 2012. This will have little practical effect in Australia, as Australian ships already use fuel with sulfur below this content limit.

Schedule 1 of the bill also proposes a feasibility review by the IMO in 2018, which will consider whether further reductions to sulfur content of fuel are appropriate, which may result in sulfur content of one-half of one per cent from 1 January 2020. Finally, schedule 1 of this bill allows for the creation of emissions control areas near heavily populated zones in which further reductions in emissions will be required. Presently, the Baltic Sea and the North Sea have been designated as emissions control areas.

Schedule 2, as I have said previously, amends the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008, the bunkers act, to give immunity from liability to persons or organisations acting reasonably and in good faith to provide assistance following a spill of fuel but inadvertently making the damage worse. In doing so, the bill introduces a so-called responder immunity. The bunkers act, when introduced in 2008, was supported by the coalition, and implements Australia’s obligations under the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, which established a strict liability and compensation regime to apply in cases of pollution damage resulting from a spill of fuel from ships. Schedule 2 amends the original act to address a particular industry concern but still maintains shipowners’ general liability for damage resulting from a spill, as well as damage inflicted either with intent or recklessly with knowledge that damage would probably result.

It is interesting to note that, at this stage, we have to refer to the Pacific Adventurer spill. I note that, in the minister’s second reading speech, he attempted to tie the introduction of this bill to the Pacific Adventurer oil spill—which his government, together with the Bligh government, clearly sought to use for political mileage in the lead-up to the Queensland state election. After speaking with some stakeholders, I am aware that they have expressed their dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of this incident.

According to the bunkers act, usually, if a ship is involved in an incident which causes damage, including damage to the environment, there is a limit on the maximum amount of compensation payable, calculated according to the size of the ship, irrespective of the amount of damage caused by the incident. The liability of shipowners is strict but limited. Some industry stakeholders have raised concerns about the uncertainty imposed by the government’s handling of the Pacific Adventurer spill, with the government disregarding international convention and determining that costs would be recouped from the industry at large through a 3c increase in the protection of the sea levy administered by AMSA. I understand that the government has approached the IMO to increase the current ceiling on the limitation of liability imposed by the bunkers act to increase the liability to shipowners, but this is still going through the IMO’s processes.

Thankfully, incidents like the Pacific Adventurer oil spill are rare, but the risk imposed on Australia’s shipping industry by muddying the waters of liability is real and should be addressed. The government’s handling of the Pacific Adventurer oil spill epitomises its approach—that of a reactionary government making policy on the run. This is a government that, in its haste, has plunged our country into $128 billion worth of debt with its ‘spend, spend, spend’ attitude on everything, which has included spending $13 million on the failed GroceryWatch scheme; sending cheques to the value of $46 million to deceased people who were resident overseas under the cash splash; and introducing, and then suspending, its failed Pink Batts scheme, which not only has been a waste of taxpayers’ money and made use of by dodgy installers out for a quick buck but also has endangered the lives of Australian householders. All that is not even to mention the National Broadband Network that has not seen a single home connected yet and the costs of which have blown out from $4.7 billion to $43 billion.

In conclusion, I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill which will further enhance Australia’s maritime protection legislation and continue our close relationship with the IMO and its international conventions. It is important that Australia has the best possible regulatory regime that keeps pace with technological and industry developments and reflects international consensus.

See this speech in context