Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Ballarat, the member for Lilley and, of course, the member for Stirling for their contributions to this debate. I have put myself in the unenviable position of being just in front of the member for Kingsford Smith, who no doubt will surpass anything I have to say in this chamber, especially on this critical topic.

I am, however, somewhat confused by what the member for Lilley said when she claimed that Labor are in favour of a domestic maritime fleet for Australia, because when they were in power they moved legislation that saw the number of maritime vessels under the Australian flag decimated. I can't understand how on one hand Labor can say that they're in favour of it but on the other hand introduce policies that see our fleet decline to virtually nothing.

I rise to speak, though, on this important bill, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019. The motivation behind this amendment bill is cleaner air and cleaner oceans. I am therefore proud to speak in support of this bill today. My electorate of Mackellar is home to some of Australia's most beautiful coastal gems, including Long Reef Aquatic Reserve and various pristine breaches that draw thousands of visitors every day. It is my duty to act and speak in a way which advocates for the health and sustainability of these places.

The people of the Northern Beaches of Sydney pride themselves on their clean beaches, their relaxed atmosphere and the care they take in looking after the community they live in. This wonderful community deserves a voice in this parliament, and it is only right and proper that I represent their views on environmental responsibility and environmental sustainability in this parliament on this day. This bill will have a direct impact on my constituents' home beaches, with their sandstone and whitewash and therefore is a matter of utmost importance to me. My electorate values environmental responsibility and sustainability very highly, and therefore I must express my complete support for this bill and the motivations lying behind it. Fresh air and thriving oceans must be high on Australia's list of priorities, because without these it will not be possible to survive. The vast majority of Australia's population can be found in coastal areas, and hence the health and cleanliness of our air and oceans has to be a focal point for discussion in this House.

It is clear that this bill serves to implement the maximum allowable sulphur content in ship fuel oil, which the International Maritime Organization will make universal come January 2020. By lowering the high sulphur content in ship fuel oil, this government is committing itself to a vision of environmental sustainability and caring for the majority of its population, who live along our beautiful coastline. This amendment bill is also necessary to fulfil our duty under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, to which Australia is a signatory. We must continue to uphold the values which we have signed up to, and we must continue to foster our great relationship with the prevention of pollution from ships convention in order to progress in reducing emissions into our great oceans and waterways.

This amendment bill also allows for the advancement of environmentally protective technology. This comes in the form of air-pollution cleaning systems, known as scrubbers or EGC systems. Such cleaning apparatus remove toxic and damaging components, such as sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides, from the air. If untreated, these harmful pollutants can cause high levels of air pollution and thus pose a large threat to our beautiful coastline and ocean based ecosystems. The bill provides that ships can only continue to use high-level sulphur fuel oil if the boat is fitted with a scrubber or EGC system, which means that the overall emissions from the boat are lowered to the equivalent of using 0.5 per cent sulphur content oil fuels; hence the bill supports increased air quality and the preservation of our ecosystems. From 1 January 2020, it is hoped that nearly all boats and ships will be held accountable for the levels of sulphur pollution and air pollution they emit.

Australia is a category B IMO Council member, hence we must align ourselves with initiatives that reduce ship pollution and ensure our maritime regulatory framework complies with global standards. It is important to iterate that 99 per cent of Australia's trade is carried by international shipping, by volume. That means that our country, an open and free country, a country that trades with other nations and shares the jewels of our great land, has one of the largest interests in international seaborne trade and therefore it is imperative that we continue to foster our relationships with the international maritime trade community and promote a progressive and up-to-date approach to trade regulations and frameworks, because that is what the Liberal Party have always done and that is what we will do here today.

It is also of great importance that Australia not isolate itself from the global trade community. As the sulphur cap is expected to be implemented globally on 1 January 2020, Australia will be impacted by the change whether or not we enforce the rule in our own regulations. It is very important to also consider that our largest trading partner, China, has already implemented the 0.5 per cent cap on sulphur content in fuel oils for all ports and sea territory since the beginning of 2019. We must follow; we must lead. If we do not pass the caps, it will make us look as though we do not care about the increasing rate of air pollution and increased emissions into our airspace over our water jurisdictions. We must be clear to those we trade with that we demand these changes. We must work with our global trade partners and therefore should recognise the benefits of this bill and how it will protect our great climate and those who inhabit it.

The underlying push behind this bill is that Australians will be the ultimate benefactors of this change. Our coastal communities and sea life will see major benefits and rewards that come with cleaner air and cleaner oceans. These benefits relate to both health and the environmental factors which increase the life of our planet and ensure our oceans can be utilised by future generations for millennia to come.

Ocean acidification is an important issue in today's world and it is an issue that we as a coastal population must take very seriously. Toxic and unhealthy emissions, such as sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide, can contribute to increased levels of ocean acidification, and thus present a danger to our marine ecosystems and ultimately to the temperature and cleanliness of our oceans.

This amendment bill aligns with the Morrison government's policy on protecting Australia's wildlife and protecting the environment in which its citizens live. Therefore, it is only logical that we follow along with this push to cut out unnecessary air pollution arising from high-sulphur-content fuel oils being burnt to propel boats in our waters. It is from this that I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the positives of this amendment bill greatly outweigh any drawbacks.

The notion of obligation is also a major necessity in the debate on this amendment bill. Australia is a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and therefore we must follow through with our agreement to the terms and conditions of the convention. This is the main international convention for addressing pollution from ships caused to the marine environment from both operational and accidental causes. The convention was first adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 1973 and came into force in Australia in 1988. It must be acknowledged by the House that we implement the terms of the convention through the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 and the Navigation Act of 2012.

The bill in front of us today primarily proposes amendments to these acts to implement amendments to annex VI of MARPOL in relation to the new sulphur requirements. The point here is that we have signed an agreement and we must view it as an obligation on our part to adjust our regulations and to replicate and enforce the regulations that have been put forward by the convention and the International Maritime Organization.

A key aspect of this amendment is whether the change will be welcomed by the bill's key stakeholders. In response to this, it is very pleasing to note that the Australian maritime industry has openly expressed its support for Australia proposing to legislate and enforce the implementation of the 2020 sulphur cap in order to maintain a level global playing field with other major trading partners. It is reassuring to know that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority will be the body responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the newly proposed sulphur regulatory regime being introduced on 1 January 2020. When noncompliance to the amended bill is found, appropriate action will be taken by AMSA. This action could include detaining a ship at port or even the commencement of legal proceedings. On top of this, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 already includes penalties, which the member for Lilley generously spoke of, for the use of fuel with sulphur content higher than the prescribed limit. It must be noted that the amendment bill will offer similar penalties for the carriage of high-sulphur fuel from 1 March 2020 onward.

With regard to identifying noncompliance, I support the process by which the AMSA propose to ensure that boats carry sulphur-compliant fuel. Port state control officers will conduct ship inspections in line with usual port state control practices, which means thorough inspections of incoming and exiting boats. This will result in adequate protection and reasonable rates of detection. This amendment does not introduce any new regulatory burdens on the industry. It needs to pass this House for Australia to be ready to enforce the sulphur cap, as proposed, on 1 January 2020.

It is said that to creep furtively is to prowl. This legislation does none of that. We are being very clear about what we as a parliament and as a government seek to achieve and wish to achieve. Therefore, it is right to conclude that this carriage ban aims to discourage ships from emitting unnecessary amounts of harmful fuels and toxins into our air by burning high-sulphur fuel oil. The key aims of this bill are to ensure that we will level the global playing field for international shipping and to protect our jurisdictional waters from air pollution. I speak in support of the bill today to show my backing for highlighting the importance of environmental sustainability and the great responsibility that we hold—as the government and as the parliament—for ensuring our citizens have fresh air to breathe for generations to come. We do not prowl into this debate; we stride proudly into it, and we will reduce pollution.

See this speech in context