Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Bill 2006 and offer Labor’s support to the measures being proposed in this bill. I will not be speaking for long. This is a very straightforward bill. It is something that is eminently sensible and obviously needs to be done. It is a technical change and something that the Labor Party supports. The bill will implement the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, the AFS convention, to prohibit the use of harmful organotins in antifouling paints used on ships. It will also establish a mechanism to prevent the potential future use of other harmful substances in antifouling systems.

Amendments to the AFS convention will be implemented through amendments to the act. Under the terms of the AFS convention, a party to the convention is required to prohibit or restrict the use of harmful antifouling systems on ships flying its flag as well as ships not entitled to fly its flag that operate under its authority and all ships that enter a port, a shipyard or offshore terminal of the party. There are two main prohibitions in the AFS convention. Firstly, the application of harmful antifouling systems or compounds, HAFCs, to relevant ships is prohibited as of 1 January 2003. Secondly, from 1 January 2008 no relevant ship may have an HAFC on its hull or external surfaces, except if it is coated with a barrier that prevents the HAFC from leaching into the water. Floating or fixed platforms completed before 2003 which have not been dry-docked since are exempt from this last requirement. Article 4 of the AFS convention requires parties to take effective measures to ensure all relevant vessels comply with the convention.

Australia signed the AFS convention back in 2002, subject to ratification. The Australian Shipowners Association, Shipping Australia Ltd, the Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities, the Australian Paint Manufacturers Federation and environmental non-government organisations were all consulted in respect of the convention. Consultation with the states and territories was undertaken through premiers, and chief ministers’ departments and through the Australian Transport Council, the ATC. The ATC recommended ratification of the convention at its meeting on 8 November 2002. According to the national interest analysis, the Australian Shipowners Association, Shipping Australia Ltd, the Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities, the Australian Paint Manufacturers Federation and environmental non-government organisations were all consulted in respect of that convention as well. Consultation with the states was also undertaken.

When the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, JSCOT, considered the AFS convention back in mid-2003, government officials anticipated that the present bill would be introduced later that year. This was presumably based on the expectation at the time that the convention would come into force in 2004-05. As at 30 June this year, only 16 countries have actually ratified the convention, which represents only 17.3 per cent of the world’s merchant shipping by tonnage. As the AFS convention will commence only in 12 months time after ratification by 25 states—representing 25 per cent of the world’s merchant shipping tonnage—entry into force will be no earlier than the latter part of 2007. So it has taken quite some time for this to make its way through the political, bureaucratic and policy-making process into the Australian environment as well as into the rest of the world.

Australian domestic policy regarding harmful antifouling paints is important in terms of protecting our sea, our marine life and other matters associated with that. The use of HFACs, antifouling paints, on ships less than 25 metres in length has effectively been banned via state and territory legislation since the mid-1990s anyhow. In 2003 the Commonwealth phased out the use of tributyltin, TBT, paints in Australia—which is in reference to the HFACs. The use of environmentally harmful TBT based antifouling paint compounds on ships has largely been phased out with respect to Australian ships, which is a good thing.

When it comes into force, the AFS convention and the Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Bill 2006 will reinforce this position by effectively prohibiting almost all ships and floating platforms with such compounds from Australian ports, shipyards and offshore terminals. However, the AFS convention and the main provisions of this bill are unlikely to come into force until at least late 2007. But they will come into force, which is positive for Australian waters, marine life and the protection of our beautiful, pristine coastline. The Labor Party gives its support to the measures proposed in this bill.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Bill 2006. I support strongly the main thrust of this bill, which is to protect the marine environment via the implementation domestically of a significant international initiative—the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships 2001, known as the AFS convention.

Protection of our environment must be paramount to ensure the survival of flora and fauna and endangered species for conservation reasons for future generations to enjoy and for recreational purposes. Our marine environment is no exception. Combining education and regulation can empower people to save and protect the delicate ecological systems from disaster. I am reminded of a saying by John Muir, which I will now quote: ‘When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.’

I spoke recently in this chamber on another bill and talked about the current catch cry, which is climate change. I have to say that, while we are all talking about climate change —which is undoubtedly a very important subject and should engage every one of us—we are continuing to foul our waterways and our land. Many millions of people around the world rely on the sea as their main source of food. Many of course rely on fish and other marine life, including seaweed, as a staple diet. There are many reasons why we need to protect our seas, and this bill in part addresses some of the concerns.

I understand that, through the bill, Australia will introduce into our law the international convention. The various regulations that form the convention will be implemented through the bill. They are in addition to and more comprehensive than the current state and territory laws in this area. The 1998 Australia’s Oceans Policy also addressed these issues.

Implementation of the 2006 bill will mean, under the terms of the AFS convention, that a country which is part of the convention is required to prohibit or restrict the use of harmful antifouling systems on ships flying its flag or entering its ports. All Australian ships of 400 tonnes or more will be looked over before the ship is put into service. All ships of gross tonnage of 400 tonnes or more will be asked to carry an antifouling certificate, and ships of 24 metres or more but weighing less than 400 tonnes which are engaged in international voyages will have to carry a declaration of antifouling systems signed by the owner or by an authorised agent. Toxic compounds such as tributyltin, otherwise called TBT, and the application or reapplication of all organotin compounds that act as biocides in antifouling systems will be banned. In simple terms, this convention will prohibit the use of harmful antifouling paints which are prone to killing off delicate marine life and can also negatively affect and impact human health.

In order for ships to travel efficiently through the water, though, their hulls must be free of barnacles, algae and other marine growth. These things are always a matter of balance. In the past, though, this build-up of unwanted sea organisms was prevented through the use of antifouling paints which were applied to the ships’ hulls. Although they were deemed safe at the time, it was later discovered that these paints continued to exist in the water and were harmful to and even killed sea life. Further, people who consumed large quantities of seafood were at times being adversely affected. It is unacceptable that this toxicity would be a threat to the ecological environment and to human health, and of course it could lead to very negative economic factors. Here in Australia, although we have an abundance of different kinds of foods, fishing is a very important industry and one that we need to continue to protect. On the north coast of my electorate, we have a very significant industry exporting live crayfish overseas. To continue to have good catches we must make sure that the environment allows these creatures to thrive and, indeed, to survive.

So protection of our marine life is vital not only for reasons of conservation—just to make sure that the species continue—but also for the many people who rely on the sea for their food source, for the many in Australia who rely on the sea for their income production and for tourists who enjoy regular boating and outings such as fishing, scuba diving, snorkelling and swimming. Most of us in Australia at some stage participate in the variety of wonderful water sports that is available to us. Our tourism, particularly in Western Australia, is reliant on our natural beauty, the ruggedness of our natural landscapes and the wonderful oceans that surround us. One boat passing through water near our protected Ningaloo Reef at Exmouth or at Australia’s great pride the Great Barrier Reef could have detrimental effects on the natural beauty of those areas. In many cases, once the damage is done it cannot be reversed.

I support the fact that this sanction would apply not only to Australian ships but to any ships that choose to enter Australian waters and dock at our ports. Australian ships and their owners would have a national code to follow, making the rules strict but simple, and there is no doubt that everyone would benefit. The worldwide decision to ban harmful paints is based on scientific evidence, on factual evidence, and it has been investigated, I understand, by the government departments responsible and international organisations. Based on the evidence of these findings, Australia must adhere to this decision in order to keep up with the increasingly high international standards in this area. I am told that many other countries are going to follow Australia’s example and consider signing up to this convention, which is good news.

The electorate of Pearce, which I represent, is a large electorate, part of which runs along the Western Australian coast from Lancelin down to Mindarie Keys, and all along that coast there is significant marine life and significant marine and water based activities. Lancelin is a major centre for export crayfishing, and that industry is very profitable for people in my electorate. We need to make sure that we continue to protect those species.

Two or three years ago, I had occasion to move a motion in this House to protect the patagonian toothfish. On that occasion the risk was that it would be fished out by illegal fishing activities in the Southern Ocean, and I am pleased that the government and the minister took steps to address that matter. We would not want to see that industry threatened by the use of harmful paints and harmful antifouling methods.

As a nation, we always need to be mindful of our role in doing more to save and protect our environment, particularly our oceans, and to conserve energy and resources. Within the electorate of Pearce, down those coastal strips we have a number of volunteers who work to preserve the vegetation along the dunes—again, a very sensitive area. I am grateful to the many volunteers within the electorate of Pearce who take great interest and care in looking after the natural environment, whether it is the sea, the many rivers within the Pearce electorate or the land itself.

I am always pleased to see schoolchildren participating in these projects, and the government’s Green Corps program is well supported within the electorate of Pearce. In that program people are working to make sure that the care of our environment is something that is undertaken by all citizens. So it is very much a partnership between government and the communities. With measures like this, it takes government to lead, it requires government action and it requires us to bring forward legislation, so today I am very pleased to support wholeheartedly this measure involving conservation of our water and marine life, and trust that the importance of their conservation will be recognised as this bill passes through both houses.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Bill 2006. I am pleased to be able to support this bill because it affects the electorate that I live in. The electorate of Hindmarsh is bordered by the Gulf of St Vincent, and many ships come and go on a regular basis from that gulf. In the last few years the gulf has been contaminated with everything from water run-off from the plains of Adelaide to pollution through shipping and many other areas. A lot of fishermen make their living from that gulf, through the beautiful seafood that we have in South Australia, but in the last few years we have seen the seagrass being eradicated through pollution; therefore the breeding grounds of the fish are producing fewer fish in the gulf and there are fewer fish for the fishermen to catch.

The purpose of the bill is the implementation of the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, to which Australia became a signatory some four years ago—in August 2002. Antifoulants are paints used to prevent marine organisms from attaching themselves to the surfaces of boats and aquaculture farming equipment. They contain various compounds, many of which are highly toxic. These compounds leach slowly from the paint and accumulate within living organisms. They have substantial adverse effects on organisms’ growth and reproduction and the overall population of marine organisms, and hence the health of marine environments.

TBT is a highly toxic chemical used in antifoulants. It accumulates in the food chain and can occur in concentrations up to 250,000 times higher than other areas surrounding the sediment or seawater. It can actually even force a sex change and infertility in female snails. The presence of TBT has been observed within Adelaide’s port river in the gulf, where 100 per cent of populations of the gastropod Lepsiella vinosa have shown severe reproductive abnormalities in recent years.

This has been of direct and substantial concern within South Australia—at least in certain sectors, as substantial fish stocks are sourced in the Gulf St Vincent that borders the Adelaide metropolitan area and, as I said earlier, borders the seat that I represent, the seat of Hindmarsh. Apart from large-scale shipping, human transport and industrial fishing, this stretch of water also contains many thousands of recreational fishing boats and other recreational vehicles. That TBT accumulates within the food chain would always have been of concern to residents who enjoy local seafood produce and those involved in the substantial industry exporting their product around the country and beyond.

Responsibility for TBT and its availability and use within Australia has been split between federal and state. The National Registration Authority for Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals, a federal body subject to federal legislation, has had the responsibility for the supply of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and products, including TBT, up to the point of wholesale. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority adopted the practice of labelling TBT paint products in such a way as to exclude their use on small vessels—that is, those less than 25 metres long—unless otherwise permitted by the South Australian government. Many countries around the world reportedly implemented a ban on the application and the reapplication of TBT on small vessels as early as the early 1990s. State and territory governments have had all other responsibilities.

It has been the case that South Australia has allowed vessels to be painted with a TBT product through licensed boat yards and slips on the proviso that national criteria are observed limiting use to products that leach TBT into the marine environment at no greater rate than five micrograms per painted square centimetre per day. The South Australian Environmental Protection Agency has been party to a national TBT survey monitoring stored paints and the environs around vessel maintenance areas and slipways.

The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships was, as I have previously stated, signed by Australia on 19 August 2002. The Australian government drafted a bill to implement the convention in 2003. The convention was expected to come into force internationally in 2005. Australian industry anticipated the convention’s implementation and ceased the manufacture of any new TBT based antifouling paints. A formal ban came into place when the APVMA banned the sale and application of the paints in Australia by cancelling the registration of antifouling paints containing organotin biocides on 31 March 2003 and ceasing supply of the existing product on 31 July 2003.

We now have a bill before us. I understand that the convention will not be in effect triggered and become operational until 12 months have elapsed after 25 countries representing 25 per cent or more of the world’s merchant shipping tonnage have ratified the convention. Australia’s actions over recent years and our reliance on other countries’ actions to invoke the convention may make this bill largely academic from South Australia’s point of view, given the surface area of so many local vessels’ outer hulls and their time in local waters compared with that of overseas ships. Nevertheless, I fully support the removal of toxic pollutants from our national waters, whatever the toxin and whatever the source, and I hope the Australian government will encourage and support those within the international community working toward ratification of this convention—especially those countries upon whose ratification the convention most substantially depends.

The removal of toxic paints from use on or underneath port and seagoing vessels was one recommendation put forward by the 2000 Senate inquiry into the health of the Gulf St Vincent. It was not an insubstantial inquiry, receiving a myriad of submissions and making 15 recommendations, of which, as I said, at least the partial removal of TBT was one. But there is a greater threat to the Gulf St Vincent that has not been addressed to the same extent as that posed by TBT—a threat that the gulf has been suffering for many years and I feel will continue to suffer for many years to come—and that is the impact and continued threat of 174,000 megalitres annually of nutrient rich stormwater surging down from the Adelaide Hills and over the Adelaide Plains into the gulf, carrying all the pollutants that destroy the environment within the gulf on which so many of the creatures potentially affected by TBT rely.

The effect of TBT on the native fish stocks and the overall health of the gulf environment, including that of the Port River, is quite minor from many people’s perspective compared to changing the area’s water composition, underlying sea flora and, ultimately, the seabed itself. The prevention of run-off from the Adelaide Plains is probably the greatest environmental challenge facing the South Australian coast, the residents of Adelaide and our governments in this and the next decade. The ongoing construction of wetlands in Adelaide’s northern suburbs, both adjacent to the Parafield Airport and beyond, and associated aquifer storage, replenishment and initiatives—of which there are now about two dozen in the greater Adelaide area—have been encouraging for quite a few years, and ongoing research by the South Australian Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation should entice most sceptics to take a closer look at this as a substantial element of our future supply of water.

In areas other than the northern suburbs, there has been substantial energy applied to similar projects, such as within the Patawalonga Catchment at Morphettville—about which I have spoken here before. I support the initiatives within the northern suburbs—as I would in the southern suburbs—to source investment from wherever they can get it for these areas. In the northern Adelaide and Barossa catchment and the Onkaparinga catchment, aquifer storage capacities in place are expected to exceed the supply of available stormwater. A tremendous amount of highly positive work can be done in these two catchments to improve the health and the environment of the Gulf St Vincent in South Australia and to secure a substantial supply of water for industrial, horticultural and recreational use, and even for human consumption for many years to come.

I also support the use of the aquifer storage and replenishment schemes being pursued throughout the Adelaide Plains wherever there is stormwater available. There has been work over the last year or two that has investigated the possibility of using fractured rock aquifers in the Golden Grove Embayment—which covers part of the northern and eastern suburbs, through the area adjacent to Adelaide’s eastern parklands—and testing is under way. There is also substantial capacity within my own electorate of Hindmarsh, whether it be through utilising the first or second tertiary sediment aquifers.

We should be doing what we can to improve the quality of our ports and coastal waters. The removal of toxic TBT is a good measure which has broad support. We should also be looking at other areas. We are pursuing other measures; some have become well advanced. The strategy of minimising unnatural stormwater flow into the gulf is advancing steadily in terms of outcomes in some areas and continued research in others. This strategy will require additional investment from all players—local industry, local government, state government and federal government. For this investment, I am sure that the rewards will be—maybe now and certainly in the not too distant future—well worth the time, energy and opportunity costs they require. Labor certainly believes so.

Labor is not only much more concerned than the current government about the impact of development and expanding populations based on coastal strips but also more determined to make Australia as a nation more water savvy, more water wise and more water secure. At the same time, these measures would enhance the protection of the sea, especially in my electorate of Hindmarsh, as I said earlier, that borders the Gulf St Vincent. With the scientists working away in South Australia—and I hope around the country—and the prospect of a constructive government beyond the next election leading Australians towards responsible water resource and coastal protection initiatives, whatever the local geology, rainfall or local considerations may be, I am confident that we can compliment the intention of this bill and leave a better nation for our children and grandchildren. I am happy to support this bill.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks on the Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Bill 2006. In doing so, can I say that the opposition believe that this bill presents Australia—and appropriately so—with the opportunity to significantly improve our nation’s marine environment. It is about implementing domestically the outcome of international processes. In that context, the legislation reflects a very public statement about the importance of the United Nations processes. What we are effectively doing through the legislation that is before the House this morning is enabling us to put in place a unilateral regulatory regime which is not, in essence, an Australian initiative but one which reflects the success of the United Nations with respect to the establishment of conventions which try to make sure that across the world we are doing a better job of protecting the marine environment. I say that because the bill effectively bans the use of toxic compounds found in antifouling paints on ships. I also note in the background material that Australian paint manufacturers were consulted with respect to the legislation and the outcome of the United Nations processes.

Pursuing this legislation is exceptionally important to Australia, an island nation, because it is about trying to prevent the growth of algae, barnacles and other marine organisms, thus enabling a vessel to travel faster through the water. While this practice provides an economic gain, it also comes at a substantial economic cost. Australia should pay strict attention to these issues because of the importance of our commercial fishing industry. Also, one of the service sectors, the tourism industry, creates huge numbers of jobs domestically and also huge export earnings.

For that reason, over the last 20 years, with the full support of Australia, there has been continued scientific research. We have some very valuable scientific institutions in Australia. I refer not just to those in universities but also to CSIRO and ANSTO, which require and deserve government support. Those organisations create a capacity for us as a nation to participate in international processes which pursue scientific research. Such research has shown that antifouling paints pose a substantial risk of toxicity and other chronic impacts on marine species and habitats as well as the food chain as a whole.

Therefore, it must be understood that in some ways legislation is the end result of a lot of hard work, both domestically and internationally, which leads to our putting in place reasonable standards with respect to the operation of the shipping industry—in the context not just of our own coastal activities but of international activities. The effects of these paints have been reported on such ecologically and economically important marine organisms as oysters and molluscs.

As the shadow minister for tourism can I say that this matter is exceptionally important to the tourism industry. Just think about our coastal tourism opportunities and the need to make sure that antifouling paints, which are highly damaging, do not destroy our marine reef environment. That is one of the selling points not only in terms of domestic tourism but in terms of international tourism. Unfortunately, at the moment we have to make sure that we preserve our tourism opportunities because we are operating in a very tough global market. Recent indications suggest that the Australian tourism market is a little bit flat. We obviously have the difficulties of long haul and how we actually attract tourists to Australia. One of the biggest challenges coming out of Tourism Australia’s promotional advertising at the moment is not just attracting additional numbers but attracting the high-yield, wealthy tourists who are prepared to spend big dollars in some of the key tourist attractions around Australia.

That takes me to our world famous Great Barrier Reef. Interestingly, it was estimated in a report by the Queensland Tourism Industry Council two years ago that it contributed in excess of $5 billion to Queensland—and that is $5 billion out of an annual $11 billion annual Queensland tourism industry. So it can be seen why this legislation is important when almost half of the annual Queensland tourism dollars come from areas such as the Great Barrier Reef, which must be protected.

I also welcome the announcement by the government yesterday—and I note that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is in attendance—with respect to improving our salvage capacity in Northern Australia. I think this also represents a statement of the success of our committee processes in the House of Representatives. Some years ago the transport committee had a reference on the issue of salvage in Australia. It was about trying to make sure, because of the high cost of maintaining these large salvage vessels, that there was government support to enable us to keep these vessels in operation around the Australian coast.

I acknowledge the implementation by the government of those recommendations as reflected in the minister’s statement to the House on this initiative during question time yesterday. It is about protecting our coast and it is also about protecting the Australian tourist dollar. When you consider these issues, we obviously as a nation have a lot of tourism assets. Therefore, it is imperative that we use legislation like this, which builds on international initiatives, to remove from use all antifouling paints. As far as I am concerned, that has to be an unquestionable objective.

It is not just an objective that we, Australia, as an island nation have to pursue. It is also a responsibility in our own backyard. We, with New Zealand, largely have responsibility for the Pacific region. We also have to make sure that similar legislation and standards are pursued in areas such as Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Fiji—just to name a few of those nations which we have to assist, through Pacific forum activities, in implementing similar standards. I ask the minister for transport to pursue the capacity of his department to assist these island nations in the Pacific to achieve similar standards and regulation.

The issue of the marine industry has been identified as important. We have to make sure that we avoid worldwide and national pollution from toxic antifouling paints in the globe’s oceans by implementing a ban through international activity and cooperation. It is for that reason that we now have the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships of October 2001. The convention can only commence 12 months after ratification by 25 states. That reminds me of the operation of the ILO in that, unfortunately, all too often nations, including Australia in more recent years, are a bit slow in ratifying ILO conventions.

I remind the minister that there is a very important ILO convention going to standards of seafarers on ships and to their conditions of employment and entitlements with respect to decent places of employment. It was approved by the ILO just over 12 months ago. The Australian government voted in support of that ILO convention, and I seek information from the minister and his response today as to where his consultation with state and territory governments is up to in respect of the implementation and ratification of that new ILO convention. The convention brought together a range of other seafarers’ conventions into a modern, forward-looking convention, approved by the ILO, as a result of decent tripartite work by workers, government and employer representatives. It is a statement of why nations such as Australia have to be active participants in United Nations activities.

The convention can only commence after ratification by 25 states. Unfortunately, as of 30 June 2006 only 16 countries have ratified the convention, representing 17.3 per cent of the world’s merchant shipping by tonnage. Perhaps we can do something in our own backyard with regard to assisting in the eventual ratification by getting some of the smaller Pacific islands to do something about implementing this legislation in their own parliamentary processes.

It should be noted that the use of environmentally harmful antifouling paint compounds on ships has largely been phased out with respect to Australian ships, and I congratulate industry on that achievement. The convention and the Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Bill 2006 will reinforce this initiative by effectively—and appropriately so—prohibiting almost all ships and floating platforms with such compounds from Australian ports, shipyards and offshore terminals.

The issue of platforms is important when you think about the importance of the oil and gas industry and the need for us to go offshore more than ever and do deep sea exploration, which is highly expensive. In pursuing this exploration and hopefully creating a sense of security with further downstream processing to create synthetic diesel through the conversion of gas to liquids, we also have to be aware of potential harmful effects of these paints on our coastal environment.

I also note that the bill implements an agreement with the Australian Transport Council, which is a body comprising state and territory and Commonwealth ministers, on emergency response arrangements that provide for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to be a single national decision maker in intervening on incidents involving threats of significant pollution, covering all ship types and all waters. This is a welcome achievement. It is about a greater sense of cooperation at state and territory level with the Australian government. There must always be a coordinated national response so as to make sure that all available resources are devoted to attending to these incidents, should they occur at some unfortunate point of time in the future. This obviously will strengthen Australia’s capacity to respond to serious pollution threats. It goes hand in glove with the government’s initiatives on the issue of salvage because it is about also trying to minimise the impact of marine incidents, which is obviously welcomed by the opposition. In fact, it is something we have campaigned for through our parliamentary activities.

Yet what is concerning from the opposition’s point of view—and this is a very serious issue because I think it is related not only to the potential problems of pollution of our seas but also to terrorism—is that the Howard government has done nothing to abandon its anti-Australian shipping policy framework, and this is a challenge to the government. The bill does not strengthen in any way the safety standards of vessels of foreign nonparties that are transiting Australian waters. We have raised this in the past and we will continue to raise it because it says to us that the government has weaknesses in this fight to protect our environment and there are potentially serious gaps in our important campaign to protect Australian borders in the fight against terrorism.

Under the coalition—and I think the minister is aware of our view—the use of single and continuous voyage permits has skyrocketed so that the risk to the Australian marine environment posed by poorly maintained, rusted vessels plying the Australian coastline is as bad as ever. These vessels, known as flag of convenience vessels, fly the flags of other nations because it is cheap: there are low registration costs, low or no taxes—sometimes subsidised by government—poor standards and cheap crews. On the issue of crewing, I am reminded again that, as I have said earlier in this debate, we need to expeditiously ratify the new ILO convention setting out a user-friendly statement of the modern requirements of the seafaring workforce—what any decent nation like Australia would expect not only for our own seafarers but also for seafarers coming from overseas plying the Australian waters, more than ever not just on international trade but also on our local coastal trade. We expect those standards for Australian seafarers; we also expect them for international seafarers, more of whom are now actually being trained in our own Maritime College, in the seat of Bass in Launceston in Tasmania. This is imperative. Even though, because of government policy, we now have to cop flag of convenience processes, we have to put in place the convention to at least try to guarantee decent working conditions for these workers from beyond Australian shores.

About one-fifth of the world’s 83,000 ships fly a flag of convenience, but this flag of convenience shipping represents more than half of worldwide ship losses. That is an interesting statistic. On the basis of international statistics, these flag of convenience ships are clearly a challenge to protecting our marine environment and to protecting Australia in the fight against terrorism. The time has come to suggest to the Australian government that they have to raise the white flag on their silly shipping policy in Australia. They have to stop the misuse of the continuous and single voyage permit provisions of the Navigation Act and do something about opening up the trade to Australian coastal vessels. Many of these vessels which are from beyond Australian shores are held together by little more than rust and the ingenuity of their underpaid crews, and I challenge the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to suggest otherwise. The facts speak for themselves.

The pillaging of threatened fish stocks and global pirate fishing operations worth more than $1 billion were documented in a report sponsored by the Australian government, the International Transport Workers Federation and the WWF, the global conservation organisation. This report, entitled The changing nature of high seas fishing: how flags of convenience provide cover for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, identifies a link between illegal global fishing operations and nations offering cheap registration services or flags of convenience to fishing vessels. I urge the minister to have some regard for this report.

Interestingly, in addition to threatening the world’s fisheries by catch, the incidental capture of non-targeted species by pirate fishing operations is a serious threat to sea turtles, albatross, sharks and a range of other species, according to the report. As has been said by previous speakers, the overfishing of the world’s marine resources should be of concern to the government. It should also be of concern economically—for example, in our northern waters—because of the activities of a range of shipping operations from countries such as Indonesia.

The opposition support the bill. It is a sensible measure. I condemn the government for administering antishipping policies in Australia that favour foreign flag of convenience vessels and put Australian marine environments at unnecessary risk. As I said earlier, I request that the minister advise us as to where the ratification is up to with respect to the new ILO convention on the rights of seafarers which was supported by Australian government employers and unions in the ratification process of the ILO. I thank the committee for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—Firstly, I thank honourable members who have made a contribution to this debate, and I recognise the bipartisan support for this legislation. Most members confined their remarks to the content of the bill. The honourable member for Batman strayed a little wider, but I know that a number of his colleagues have been raising issues about maritime security in a debate in the other chamber over recent times; so I suspect he did not get his chance—

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did it there too.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did it there too, did you? Then I would have hoped that you might have read my response, because I noted that you were not in the House yesterday when I outlined what we are doing to ensure that foreign flag vessels are appropriately checked and that appropriate security arrangements are in place.

I will not take the time of the committee to repeat what I said yesterday, but I invite honourable members who have concerns about that issue to read the Hansard record. However, the honourable member did raise a second issue, which I did not refer to yesterday, and that is the single voyage permits. The issue of single voyage permits is not something that was invented by this government; it has been around for a very long period of time.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under strict conditions.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And there are still strict conditions, I might say to the honourable member for Batman. In fact, those conditions give priority to an Australian vessel wherever it is available to perform the task in reasonable circumstances. So, in that regard, we will always give priority to a suitable Australian vessel if it is available to undertake the task, and that has, of course, caused a degree of controversy within the shipping industry. However, it would be a nonsense to seek to create additional jobs in the Australian shipping industry if it were at the expense of additional jobs in Australian industries and factories. That is because the cost of Australian shipping is often so high that it becomes attractive for an international company to bring in goods from overseas on ships rather than to actually use the Australian product. That, to me, does not make much sense.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you are addressing the maritime unions you might be very keen to defend the role of Australian shipping, but I wonder how on earth you can carry that argument when you are saying to workers at mainland or land based factories that their jobs will be lost because it is cheaper to bring the product in by ship on an international vessel. That does not make sense. It is logical that we should seek to have a balanced policy in place that favours Australian shipping but does not disadvantage our industry.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the honourable member for Melbourne Ports seeking to ask a question?

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister allow a question?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will allow a question; I will not promise to answer it.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister comment on the fact that, as the member for Batman pointed out yesterday, LNG ships coming into Japan, Korea et cetera must have very strict security guidelines for the seamen that are on those ships, but that is not the case in Australian LNG shipping?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reality is that we do have strict requirements in relation to security and checking of the seamen on vessels coming to this country. I outlined in detail those requirements yesterday, and again I invite you to refer to those comments which identify the notice required and also look forward to the new maritime visas that will be required in the next few months, which demonstrate that not only do we have practices in place now but also we are seeking to strengthen those practices to ensure there are no unacceptable risks associated with the crews who are on board those vessels.

However, if I may return to the bill at hand—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Batman seek to ask a question?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister allow a question?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the same terms and conditions as the last one.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the minister’s answer to the question of the member for Melbourne Ports, can he give an undertaking to this House today that, at the moment, all ships berthing in Australia do supply their crew manifests prior to the berthing?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are requirements that information be provided over the period of time. If that information is not provided, there are penalties associated with it. The government will take appropriate action to enforce penalties where there are circumstances that the regulations may not have been complied with. We are moving to further strengthen those arrangements in the period ahead.

Turning to the bill—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Batman seek to ask a further question of the minister?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister accept a question?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lucky last!

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the minister’s response to my previous question and his inability to guarantee that all ships berthing have supplied the manifest of crew prior to berthing, can he advise the House what successful prosecutions have been pursued of shipping companies not meeting the necessary legislative requirements and what fines have been imposed on those shipping companies?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously I would have to take a question of that detail on notice, but I remind the member the regulations have been recently amended and changed. Because of the tightening of recent rules and the relatively recent action of that, it would not surprise me if there had not been any prosecutions yet because those rules have not had time to take effect. But I will certainly take the question on notice, and, if there is anything useful that I can convey to the honourable member for Batman, I will be happy to do so.

Returning to antifouling systems on ships: I am pleased to see there was a high level of unanimity. I agree with those members who spoke about the importance of this legislation and its capacity to help improve and maintain the pristine quality of our marine environment. Scientific studies have shown that some antifouling compounds used on ships pose a substantial threat to marine organisms and human health as a result of the consumption of seafood. The bill addresses those concerns and recognises the importance of protecting the marine environment and human health from the adverse effects of harmful antifouling compounds. The measures in the bill will protect Australia’s marine environment and human health from the pollution caused by organotin compounds used in antifouling paints through the application of current and advanced environmental standards.

It will also fulfil the government’s commitment in Australia’s Oceans Policy to ban the application of tributyltin, or TBT, to vessels being repainted in Australian docks and will support the International Maritime Organisation in promoting an international ban on the use of TBT in antifouling paint. Ratification by Australia of the IMO’s International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships is dependent upon the passage of this legislation. The bill has general support from industry and other stakeholders and demonstrates the government’s continuing efforts to enhance Australian marine pollution prevention regime.

Again, I thank those members who have contributed to the debte on this bill and recognise the support it has in the community and amongst members of parliament. I commend the legislation to the committee.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the ILO convention?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is outside my portfolio area, but I will get back to you on that too.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.