Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 and in support of the comments made by the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Grayndler earlier on. This is important legislation because the world's oceans are critical to our wellbeing. We have a responsibility, as do all countries, to protect the ocean environment. The world's oceans are already heavily polluted, and marine life is dying. Oceanic ecosystems are seriously at risk. Land based runoff, oil spills, floating plastics, radioactive waste, untreated sewage, pesticides and other matters are all making their way or being directly discharged into the oceans, with catastrophic consequences. Inside the Pacific Ocean, it is reported that there is an island of garbage, mainly plastics, twice the size of Texas. That's just one location. There are now several dead zones in ocean waters across the world.

I will go on to some other statistics, which obviously are very hard to verify, but I can only take them at face value. Ocean pollution is killing one million seabirds each year. Over 100,000 marine mammals die every year from plastic entanglement and indigestion, and 300,000 dolphins and porpoises die each year because of entanglement with discarded fishing nets. There are other statistics that I could allude to as well which just highlight the incredible damage and destruction that is being caused throughout our oceans each and every day. If the same level of destruction were occurring on land, there would be widespread public outcry, but, because it is occurring in the oceans, the damage is out of sight and out of mind. Of course, it is also much more difficult to bring to account those responsible for the pollution and to quantify the pollution itself.

We also know that a considerable amount of ocean pollution is directly caused by sea vessels. The latest figures state that there are at present about 11,000 bulk carriers operating around the world and over 52,000 merchant ships. The combined pollution to oceans being caused by those vessels is immeasurable, but it is never quantified or seen. Yet we have come to rely on them, because 90 per cent of goods are transported across the world on sea vessels. As the member for Grayndler pointed out, for Australia the figure is 99 per cent because we are an island country and, indeed, we are also a great exporter of minerals and the like, and those all require bulk carriage, whether it's oil containers, gas supplies that we sell overseas, coal or iron ore.

The member for Grayndler also pointed out—and I want to quote these figures—that it is estimated that 60 to 100 tonnes of cargo slurry per hold is discharged into the ocean after washing down at the end of each voyage. The average bulk carrier has five holds, which equates to, on average, between 300 and 500 tonnes of slurry dumped into the ocean waters at the end of each journey. When you multiply that figure by the thousands of carriers operating throughout the world, the pollution levels are staggering. Just as concerning is that many of the carriers are operated by entities that have shown little regard for ethical practices with regard to both the crews they employ and their general operational methods. As we know, many of those carriers are flagged in jurisdictions such as the Bahamas and others where oversight is at best questionable. Being on the ocean and out of sight makes it extremely difficult for authorities to monitor their activities. Indeed, I ask the question: who does monitor activities on the high seas? Australia has jurisdiction over its own coastal waters. Perhaps that jurisdiction in some cases extends to the 200-kilometre mark or thereabouts, but what happens beyond that? That would apply to each country: who does monitor the activities of ocean vessels once they get into the high seas and outside of jurisdictional waters?

I note that this legislation relates to the transport of solid bulk cargo, which includes iron ore, coal, bauxite, alumina, minerals, sugar and wheat. It also includes livestock. As we know, Australia is a major exporter of live animals. It's a subject we debated in this House only yesterday. It was the matter of public importance. It's a matter which has been the subject of much public interest and controversy over many, many years. The debate to date has been essentially about live animal exports, and it's been focused on the horrific cruelty associated with that trade. Today I want to raise an additional concern that I have about the trade: the ocean pollution that is associated with live exports. Over the eight-year period between 2010 and 2017, according to government figures, Australia exported 25 million live animals. That number was made up of mainly cattle and sheep: 7.6 million cattle and 17.4 million sheep. Of those animals, 144,000 died. Two questions arise in my mind from those figures. Firstly, how much waste was created from those transports; how was that waste disposed of; and where was it disposed of? I don't know. I doubt that anybody else knows. Secondly, how were the dead livestock disposed of? If we look at the photos and the footage of the recent incident, where 2,400 sheep died aboard the Awassi, we can see how they were disposed of. They were simply dumped into the ocean. Many of those dead animals were already infected. They weren't just dead; in many cases they died because of disease and infection, and yet they were simply dumped overboard. The reports would suggest that they were in a terrible state. What damage is that doing to our ocean waters? Indeed, which waters were they dumped in and was there a management plan for the way that they were discarded? I doubt that very much. I also doubt very much that the figures that we have on the number of animals that were thrown overboard are accurate. Quite frankly, looking at some of the material that's been provided to us in the past about those carriers, the figures that they provide, I believe, are at best questionable.

In 2003, when the Cormo Express was in the Middle East and there were suggestions that all of the sheep on board—in excess of 50,000—should be dumped overboard as a way to save them from further cruelty, the Australian Veterinary Association president at the time said that to dump those sheep overboard would be 'an environmental disaster'. In other words, it would be an environmental disaster for the ocean waters where they would be dumped. Yet that is exactly what we continue to do with animals that die on board these ships. And that's not to mention the risks to the crew that have to handle those dead animals.

So, I say, with respect to this legislation and that particular matter, that it is important legislation, because government should know what's on board vessels, what is being discharged into the oceans and how it is being discharged. If we at least know, there might be some opportunity to establish regulations, procedures and protocols for how it should be done. Again, whether it can be monitored and regulated is another matter, but at least knowing what is occurring is a very good start to managing a very serious problem. It's all well and good to say that the oceans cover 75 per cent of the earth's surface—that there's a lot of water out there and anything that is discharged into the oceans will inevitably dissipate and present little environmental risk. But the evidence shows otherwise. Discharge presents a very serious risk, wherever people are across the world, because of ocean currents which carry the waste material from one side of the world to the other, and so we are all affected by the bad practices of those who use our ocean waters and are prepared to turn a blind eye to, or not apply, the standards that one would expect of them. The International Maritime Organization standards try to manage that as best as they can.

For Australia there is additional importance to all of this. As other speakers have pointed out, the Great Barrier Reef has an economic value of some $56 billion and an annual economic contribution of $6.4 billion to this country. We're talking about serious values here which in turn generate economic activity and jobs for the people of Australia, but this will only continue if we're able to preserve the Great Barrier Reef in its current state. Similarly, we have a fisheries and aquaculture industry in this country that was worth some $2.8 billion in 2014-15, according to ABARES. I expect the figure might be even higher today than it was two or three years ago. Whether it is or not, we're talking, in round figures, of a $3 billion fishing industry in this country, which would be predominantly sea based. Therefore, it's in our economic interest as a nation to ensure that we preserve the quality of the waters in our oceans. The constant environmental damage that is occurring, as I pointed out with the figures I referred to earlier on, is destroying marine life. If it destroys marine life then the ecosystem cycle will continue and ultimately our fishing stocks will be depleted. That will in turn directly affect the fishing industry of this country, something that Labor tried to protect when it was last in government through the conservation-of-marine-parks proposals that we had in place.

This is important legislation. It's important legislation because it goes to the heart of environmental matters that affect the people of the world, and it goes to the heart of economic matters which, in turn, go straight to the social interests of the people of this country. It is important legislation. I hope it does make a difference. It's legislation that goes in the right direction. Only time will tell what difference it has made.

See this speech in context