Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019. As I said on the previous bill, as an island nation we are heavily reliant on shipping for so much of our domestic and international freight task. Our shipping freight task is the fourth largest in the world, with one-tenth of global sea trade flowing through Australian ports. Shipping is crucial to our national security and our economic and environmental interests. We need strong national leadership both to support our industry and to ensure that Australian standards and conditions are maintained.

Under this government's watch, the number of Australian flagged vessels has fallen to just 14. In fact, that's the reported figure; we think it is actually much lower than that. That number is rapidly heading towards zero, with regular reports of operators removing Australian flagged vessels from service.

Given the every-increasing reliance on foreign flagged vessels to move freight around the Australian coast and to our island, it is more important than ever that the federal government plays an active role in maintaining functional international conventions, particularly when we know how vulnerable much of the environment around our great coastline is. We are custodians of the Great Barrier Reef, of the Great Australian Bight and of reefs that are of remarkable and World Heritage significance.

Despite the federal government's reluctance to work collaboratively with the international community on so many other fronts, it appears that on maritime pollution at least it does appear to be serious about working with the International Maritime Organization. While this is hardly grounds for praise, it is pleasing that this government is not completely throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the Prime Minister's new approach to international diplomacy when it comes to these global agencies.

Australia has a very long and proud history as a signatory and active member of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL. MARPOL includes regulations aimed at preventing both accidental pollution and pollution from routine vessel operations. Australia first gave effect to our obligations under the convention through the passage of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act back in 1983, the POPS act. Since then, numerous regulations of the Navigation Act 2012 have ensured that Australia meets our international obligations.

This bill implements Australia's obligations in relation to sulphur emissions from ships under annex VI of MARPOL. It ensures that the new fuel content requirements are legally enforceable in Australian waters, both for Australian vessels and for foreign flagged vessels. International shipping covered by this new cap carries 99 per cent of Australia's trade by volume. Further, as we become increasingly reliant on foreign flagged ships for our coastal shipping trade, international pollution agreements such as MARPOL become an increasingly critical component of how we manage our precious marine environment.

Annex VI requires that. from 1 January 2020. the sulphur content of fuel oil used on board commercial ships must not exceed 0.5 per cent per mass unless the vessel is fitted with an appropriate scrubber to reduce sulphur from its emissions to below the prescribed limits. This new limit represents a significant reduction for the current global sulphur limit of 3.5 per cent per mass, which has been in place since 2012. Annex VI also provides for vessels to use alternative fuels, including methanol and LPG. Critically, the agreement also prohibits the agreed carriage ban on fuel that does not comply with the new cap on the high seas from 1 March 2020. Any breaches of the carriage ban will be subject to the same penalties as the use of noncompliant fuel, thereby removing a potential incentive for ships to switch to the higher sulphur content fuel once steaming onto the high seas.

This legislation and the implementation of the MARPOL obligations are necessary to allow Australian authorities the power to enforce the convention in Australian waters. This legislation also better aligns other parts of the act with MARPOL by providing an exemption for naval and government vessels, and clarifies the definition of a number of key terms provided for in the current act.

As an island continent and as a trading nation, Australia cannot isolate itself from the impacts of marine pollution and any potential increases in the costs of marine fuel oil. While most large-scale transport providers have long-term fuel contracts in place and/or hedge against any fluctuations in the price of fuel, it is difficult to predict what impact, if any, the likely increase in the price of marine fuel will have on goods purchased in Australia.

I note the Deputy Prime Minister's second reading speech claims the high sulphur carriage ban in this bill before us today will not in itself increase the cost of shipping, as the January 2020 ban on high sulphur fuel has already been legislated. The Deputy Prime Minister has given us some assurances around that. But it is important to flag that this language is quite selective.

I note the lengthy consultations undertaken by AMSA were satisfactory to industry, who are supportive of the adoption of annex VI of MARPOL to ensure a global level playing field. However, there does remain a level of uncertainty in industry on price impacts on transport fuel flowing from this new cap on sulphur emissions. Industry has also expressed concern that the Australian government has not worked with the industry on how any price impacts can be managed, and I think that is something departmental officials might want to take on notice.

On the whole, the ongoing development of Annex VI of MARPOL is a good example of international cooperation to reduce emissions. Over time, MARPOL has reduced the cap on sulphur content of fuel used on board ships, with an initial cap of 4.5 per cent per mass enforced back in 1997. In October 2008, the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee agreed to reduce the maximum sulphur content to the current 3.5 per cent per mass from 2012 and to 0.5 per cent from 2020 onwards. The regulations include a provision requiring an assessment of the availability of low-sulphur fuel oil before the regulations took affect. The assessment was completed for the IMO back in July 2016 and found that the global refinery sector has the capacity to supply sufficient quantities of low-sulphur marine fuels. This process demonstrates the measured approach taken by the IMO and member states to dramatically reduce shipping emissions while ensuring the industry's viability. I understand the 77 parties to Annex VI of MARPOL represent almost 95 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage.

We know that sulphur pollution is responsible across the world for a range of deadly diseases. With shipping contributing 13 per cent sulphur dioxide and 15 per cent nitrous oxides to global emissions, this new cap is necessary to help combat global emissions, to stem the growth of sulphur emissions and to reduce acid rain. Successful implementation will have a meaningful impact on our air and marine environment as well as on the lives of people in port cities and on coastal communities. It is an important step in the ongoing international effort to reduce emissions and it fits with the IMO's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping. The IMO's emissions reduction strategy envisages total emissions should peak as soon as possible and aims to reduce total annual greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 per cent by 2050, compared with 2008, whilst also pursuing efforts to phase out emissions entirely. It is a responsible policy response. The IMO reports that shipping contributes some 2.2 per cent of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and that, with increased global trade, emissions could grow by up to 250 per cent by 2050. Regardless of the relatively small contribution to global emissions from the shipping industry, this trajectory is cause for sustained action, first to ensure that emissions peak and then to begin a rapid decrease.

For Australia to support a reduction in emissions and at the same time ensure the ongoing viability of shipping, we do need a federal government that is actively engaged overall in marine policy development. After six years of seeking to undermine Australian shipping, this government has, frankly, thrown its hands in the air when it comes to the Australian maritime industry. As I outlined just previously, rather than presenting a vision for Australian shipping, the Deputy Prime Minister has recently announced yet another round of consultation into coastal trading reforms. The consultation rules out big reforms while leaving the door open to undermine the protections that are in place for Australian flagged vessels in this country. While it notionally rules out opening the coast, it does leave open the possibility of achieving this by stealth through further exploitation of temporary licences.

Labor is very concerned about what is happening to Australian coastal shipping at the moment. We're very concerned about what is happening to our Australian maritime industry. We have a fantastic Australian Maritime College in Tasmania, but if the cadets coming through that college cannot get berths on Australian vessels to do their sea time then that training pathway is lost, and they too are potentially lost to an Australian industry and Australian jobs. For that reason, whilst Labor is supporting this bill, I foreshadow that I will be moving the second reading amendment circulated in my name stating that, whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the government's record of undermining the Australian shipping industry and reaffirms that the Australian maritime industry's environment, national security and economic interests are best served by a strong and competitive Australian shipping industry. I move:

That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes this Government's record of undermining the Australian shipping industry; and

(2) reaffirms that Australia's marine environment, national security and economic interests are best served by a strong and competitive Australian shipping industry'.

See this speech in context