Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Financial Services) Share this | Hansard source

Labor is a proud supporter of Australian shipping, and shipping is a vitally important strategic industry. Maintaining our domestic shipping industry is critical for an island nation like Australia. Over 99 per cent of trade to and from Australia is carried by ships, and the electorate of Kingsford Smith, which I represent, is home to one of the nation's largest container ports—a deepwater sea port at Port Botany, located in Botany Bay. Botany Bay also has a gas terminal and a fuel terminal. As a result, unfortunately, Botany Bay is one of the most polluted areas in Australia's capital cities, based on data from the National Pollution Inventory.

Of course, ships burn heavy sulphur fuel oil that releases air pollutants, and we know that shipping currently contributes approximately 13 per cent sulphur dioxide and approximately 15 per cent nitrous oxide to global emissions. This bill, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019 gives effect to new international requirements to cap the sulphur content of fuel used on board ships and ensures the requirements are legally enforceable in Australian waters. Australia first gave effect to obligations under MARPOL, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, with the passage of Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act in 1983. The Navigation Act 2012 also includes clauses that implement subsequent agreements reached through MARPOL.

A new global cap of 0.5 per cent sulphur content of fuel used on ships will come into effect on 1 January 2020. This new lower cap is enforced through that international convention. The prevention of pollution from ships act was amended in 2010 to prescribe the new sulphur limit in marine orders. In October 2018, the International Maritime Organization agreed that from 1 March 2020 ships will also be banned from carrying fuel with a higher sulphur content on the high seas. This legislation is necessary to ensure that Australian law and regulations reflect those new international requirements, and to enable the enforcement of the requirements in Australian waters.

This particular bill amends the primary legislation to allow ships to use noncompliant fuel from 1 January 2020, if they're fitted with a scrubber or other equivalent compliance methods to reduce sulphur from their emissions to below the prescribed limit, and implements the global carriage ban on high-sulphur fuel from 1 March 2020. This is necessary legislation for Australia, because it will help to combat global emissions that stem from the growth of sulphur emissions, and it will also help reduce the incidence of acid rain.

For the community that I represent, legislation like this is vitally important because, as I mentioned earlier, we have a very busy container shipping port with both oil fuels and gas being shipped into Botany Bay. As a result, as I mentioned earlier, Botany Bay is unfortunately one of the most polluted areas in the country. Botany Bay is not distant from residential housing; in fact, it is on the doorstep of it. Many people in our community in the electorate of Kingsford Smith live quite close to this important infrastructure. So it's vitally important that legislation like this, that improves the environment and makes sure that Australia meets international commitments, is passed by this parliament. That's why Labor is moving this amendment and supporting this legislation.

What will not help in the area of Botany Bay is the New South Wales Liberal government's proposal to build a massive cruise ship terminal in Yarra Bay. Yarra Bay is one of the most picturesque areas that is left on the northern side of Botany Bay. Most of the northern side of Botany Bay is taken up with heavy industry: you have Sydney Airport; you have the container port; you have the gas terminal; you have the Elgas Cavern there as well; and you have the Caltex fuel terminal and other container logistics support businesses that exist on the breakwall opposite Yarra Bay. When a lot of this infrastructure was built, it required the bay to be dredged. When the third runway was built back in the 1990s, Botany Bay was again dredged. When the Hutchison extension to the container terminal at Botany Bay was built, again, the bay was dredged. As I mentioned, heavy industry at Caltex and Elgas exists on the cusp of the bay as well.

When those dredging events occur, there is scientific evidence that they do harm to the marine life and, particularly, some endangered species that exist in the area—most notably the weedy sea dragon colony that exists around Bear Island and the pygmy pipehorse colony that exists in those waters as well. Yet the Liberal government is pushing ahead with another proposal that will require the dredging of the northern side of Botany Bay. That is why the community that I represent is strongly opposed to this proposal to build a cruise ship terminal in Yarra Bay. It would be devastating for many aspects of that local community. The local Aboriginal community of La Perouse, who have called those waters their home for tens of thousands of years, are opposed to this proposal because it would mean that the terminal would potentially be built in traditional fishing areas—areas where the Aboriginal people have been fishing for tens of thousands of years as a food source for the local community. That is why the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council has passed a resolution opposing this proposal.

I mentioned the dredging that would occur, which would be a disaster for the local environment. I have consulted with a number of scientists about this proposal and they tell me that the area around Yarra Bay is a seagrass sanctuary that is beginning to regenerate after recent dredging events. So why would you risk that regeneration with another proposal that will involve dredging of the bay? The Yarra Bay Sailing Club, which has been on that picturesque beach for decades and has been a nursery for many sailors throughout the country, would have its sailing course affected if this particular proposal goes ahead. And, of course, more cruise ships means more large pollutants into the local atmosphere—notwithstanding this legislation that we hopefully pass here today—and it will also mean increased traffic for the local community with transport in and out.

A cruise terminal doesn't make sense in Yarra Bay. The only reason that it is proposed is that the previous Prime Minister, the former member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, ruled out Garden Island as the venue for another cruise ship terminal in Sydney. The New South Wales government established a cruise industry reference group and they asked them to explore the alternatives to Circular Quay in Sydney for another cruise ship terminal. They came up with, as a priority, Garden Island. It makes perfect sense. With Garden Island, the infrastructure is there, and there is plenty of space for the Navy to coexist with these cruise ships were it to occur there. That was their recommendation to the government—that Garden Island be used for the cruise ship industry as well. It makes perfect sense.

If you're travelling on a cruise ship in and out of Sydney—with no disrespect to Botany Bay—you don't want to go to Yarra Bay, where you would get off the cruise ship and see, 'Welcome to Sydney; here's one of our largest cemeteries and here's our biggest container port and oil terminal.' You want to go into Sydney Harbour and see the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge and the like. That is why it made perfect sense for Garden Island to be the primary option. But then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ruled out Garden Island as an option for the cruise ship terminal—I suspect because it would have been in his backyard and would have destroyed his view from Point Piper—and the Morrison government is continuing with that decision.

So the New South Wales government have now decided, 'We'll put it in Yarra Bay and we'll destroy whatever semblance of beauty and originality there is left in Yarra Bay and the northern end of Botany Bay,' which is an historic place, I might add, and not only for the Aboriginal community. There's plenty of evidence that La Perouse set foot on that particular area of Botany Bay, as did Governor Bligh on coming to Australia.

It is well known that the cities of Newcastle and Wollongong would also love a cruise ship terminal in their harbours because of the economic benefits that that would bring to their community. I know that the member for Newcastle in the state parliament has campaigned for something like this. So we say to the New South Wales government: don't bring more pollution to Botany Bay; look at the alternatives of Garden Island, Newcastle and Wollongong for another cruise ship terminal.

Turning back to the bill, Australia is inherently and increasingly reliant on international shipping for our coastal trade, underlying the critical importance of international conventions to the protection of our coastline. With the expansion of Australia's commodity trade, international shipping is becoming busier; yet there are now only 14 flagged vessels operating domestically and internationally. Less than half of one per cent of Australia's seaborne trade is carried by Australian flagged ships. The high levels of use of temporary licences that have occurred on this government's watch has enabled foreign flagged ships to do the work of Australian maritime workers, and the government has done nothing to stop the abuse of temporary licences to ensure that the national interest is prioritised when licensing foreign ships to work in Australia. There has also been concern about the effects on the environment of internationally flagged ships—flag-of-convenience ships—and there have been cases, I understand, around the Great Barrier Reef where there's been damage caused by foreign flagged vessels. So it's not only the issues of Australia's sovereignty, the protection of the rights and working conditions of Australian workers, and the protection and promotion of Australian jobs in our shipping line but also the issue of protecting our environment.

Unlike this government, Labor support the Australian maritime workers and Australian flagged vessels and we've been consistent in our approach to that. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have wilfully undermined the policy settings put in place by the Labor government and have failed to offer an alternative vision for the Australian maritime sector. In 2015 the then Minister for Transport and Infrastructure introduced legislation which sought to rip up the Labor government reforms that aimed to protect Australian shipping. They've missed the opportunity to create a strategic fleet of Australian flagged vessels that could be called upon in key areas of importance to the Australian economy such as the importation and distribution of liquid fuels.

Australia needs a vibrant maritime industry that serves the nation's economic, environmental and national security interests. We want to see a vibrant industry that serves the nation's shipping needs, secures the strategic set of maritime skills, and provides jobs and opportunities for more Australians. If this government were fair dinkum about Australian jobs, they'd support Labor in our calls to establish a strategic fleet of Australian flagged vessels, manned and operated by Australian workers under Australian conditions with Australian environmental protections in place. If they were fair dinkum about Australian shipping, they'd support Labor's reforms in this area.

See this speech in context