Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise on this occasion to speak to the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Bill 2008 and the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. The purpose of the bills is to give effect in Australia to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, internationally known as the bunkers convention. The bunkers convention establishes a liability and compensation regime for pollution damage caused by spills of bunker oil. Bunker oil is any hydrocarbon mineral oil, including lubricating oil, used or intended to be used for the operation or propulsion of a ship. It does not refer to oil that is carried as a cargo. Bunker oils are carried by large commercial ships. They are often heavy fuel oils, which are highly persistent and viscous. They can potentially travel great distances as a result of wind and the action of currents and cause widespread contamination. Heavy fuel oils are generally not amenable to many of the clean-up techniques used for oils that float.

This legislation when passed will bring into effect the bunkers convention on 21 November 2008. The bunker oil bill ratifies the international bunkers convention. Australia introduced legislation in 2001 to require ships with a gross tonnage of 400 or more entering Australian ports to have documentation on board demonstrating they have insurance coverage. However, under that legislation accountability for spills exists only if the shipowner is found to be at fault. The consequential amendments will maintain the current Australian legislation relating to ships with a gross tonnage of 400 or more without duplication of necessary certification.

As the member for Kalgoorlie, I represent approximately one-third of Australia’s coastline, including the Pilbara ports of Dampier and Port Hedland. I also represent some of the most pristine coastlines in Australia and, indeed, the world. I have, according to GIO Australia, some 16,000 kilometres of coastline, most of it extremely pristine. I submit in my contribution in this House that it should be kept that way.

The legislation before the House today is also supported extensively by the industry umbrella groups, Shipping Australia and the Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities. I was very pleased to find out when researching this legislation that all of the umbrella groups representing the shipping industry here in Australia are only too pleased to support this legislation also. They have for many years now expressed an increasing concern about the maintenance of our marine based industries, given that the livelihoods of those who occupy coastal towns and cities so often depend upon the bounty of the sea.

Australia’s commitment to the ratification of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, known as the bunkers convention, through the protection of the sea bills is very important. Almost all of Australia’s international trade is carried by sea. More significantly, Australia is in fact the largest shipping nation in the world when one considers the tonnages that are sent from and arrive in Australian ports. From the earliest days, when Australia rode on the sheep’s back and wool was transported around the world, to now, when we are exporting vast tonnages of coal, iron ore and liquefied natural gas to Japan and China, ships have been a vital link in the supply chain.

The Australian public are all too familiar with the sight of ships off our ports, waiting to be loaded. In some cases they are waiting too long to be loaded. I have in mind some of the coal ports of the eastern seaboard. I am pleased to compare that circumstance with the extremely efficient circumstance of the loading of iron ore vessels off the Pilbara coast, in my electorate. There it is pleasing to see half a dozen large vessels waiting to be loaded. It assures some of the larger iron ore companies in my electorate of a guaranteed supply to their overseas customers. But if you are seeing ships numbering 30 or 40 all paying demurrage then it is a very expensive view.

The primary ports in my electorate are Broome, Port Hedland, Dampier and Esperance, as well as the minor ports of Wyndham, Derby and Carnarvon. Dampier and Port Hedland vie for the position of largest tonnage port in Australia from year to year. There is a very strong rivalry between those two port authorities as to who is going to knock the other off in which particular year. Currently the prize is held by Port Hedland. It seems to me that it is a reorganisation. By including smaller outlets in the greater Port Hedland harbour authority area, it seems they are going to be hard to beat in years to come. They currently have a port capacity of some 140 million tonnes per annum. Dampier has about the same. By comparison, Gladstone, on the east coast, has a capacity of about 60 million tonnes per year.

Australia is not a manufacturing nation. Nearly all of our household goods come into Australia as imported goods by sea. Our refrigerators, computers, televisions and cars all come in on large sea freighters. These cargoes, on which our economy is so dependent, have almost doubled over the past decade. It is over the past decade that the previous Howard government’s shipping policies have been so encouraging of that growth. International sea freight increased from some 450 million tonnes, valued at approximately $120 billion, in 1996-97, to almost 700 million tonnes, valued at about $250 billion, in 2005-06.

During the past decade the Howard government took a range of initiatives aimed at reforming and enhancing the competition in the marine sector for the benefit of users of both international and domestic shipping and to ensure that shipping meets community standards in safety, marine environment protection and security. These days the area of security is more and more important. Also, the previous government took seriously the issues of marine safety and the care of the marine environment. Pleasingly, Australia has a reputation internationally for being one of the more vigilant conductors of port state control inspections.

There was a succession of maritime incidents in the early 1990s, and some of those incidents occurred off and around the coastal area of my electorate. On 21 July 1991 the Kirki, as it approached Lancelin and Cervantes—a little further south than my patch—lost its bow section in fairly heavy seas and spilled a quantity of light crude. She did not go down, fortunately. With some exceptional work, a very brave young man jumped onto the deck of the Kirki and secured a line. She was put under tow and finished up in the waters off Dampier—very calm waters, perfect for the salvage operation. In fact, I was fortunate—I think fortunate is the word—to be on board the Kirki during the salvage operation. It was a time I will not forget.

Speaking of port control inspections and necessary certification in relation to ship safety, I add that the deck of the Kirki was a 25-mil plate, and an inspection of the forward section where the focsle had snapped off revealed a product like metal chantilly lace that had been rusted through in just 20 years of operation and poor inspection. After a great deal of careful and well-recorded salvage work, the Kirki’s cargo of light crude was offloaded—and a valuable cargo it was. Despite aspirations that she would become a floating storage facility somewhere in the Singapore area, the Kirki was in fact dragged up on the beach and eventually cut up for scrap steel.

In February 1991, the Sanko Harvest went down off the coast near Esperance. She struck a reef and broke up, and some 700 tonnes of bunkers were lost and ended up on the beaches of the Cape Le Grand National Park. A successful clean-up operation of the foreshore continued for some nine weeks—a lot of hard work.

Between January 1990 and August 1991, six bulk carriers sank after loading iron ore in northern Western Australia. We may reflect on that now in total amazement—that we could allow such a thing to happen and that many lives and valuable cargoes were lost. We have to keep in mind, when we think of the necessity for this legislation, that clean-ups are very expensive. Clean-ups that are successful are very expensive, and the clean-ups that are less successful are even more expensive because they damage for a very, very long time our marine environment.

Following all of those incidents, of course, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and—at the time—Microeconomic Reform carried out an inquiry into ship safety. That was carried out, I am pleased to say, by the then member for Shortland. That was the rather famous—I think I can extend ‘famous’—Peter Morris, who was the member for Shortland from 1972 to 1998. I came in in 1998 and never had the pleasure of knowing Peter.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was here yesterday.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We lost the opportunity.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Next time I will make sure you meet him.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I recognise that interjection from the current member for Shortland. The final report handed down by that committee, known as the Ships of shame report, was a turning point in Australian maritime regulation and safety. I think it is perhaps why we can acknowledge that that period between January 1990 and August 1991 is now a thing of the past. Six ships going down in such a short period of time was not to be heard of after the Ships of shame report.

The report recommended that Australia take a more active role in the International Maritime Organisation in promoting international solutions to ship safety issues. Acting on those unanimous recommendations, the Howard government achieved an outstanding list of changes. We realised that, to be effective, Australia needed to influence other nations, particularly flag-of-convenience states. It is apparent that all nations concerned with ship safety present a united front in progressing ship safety initiatives through the International Maritime Organisation. From the Ships of shame report came changes to legislation, and it was the 11½ years of the Howard government that ensured that this work was achieved. Some 17 acts and some 38 sets of regulations were made. Australia contributed to 51 separate amendments to International Maritime Organisation conventions and five new conventions.

In 2001 the Howard government introduced the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill. This bill created offences and increased penalties in relation to oil pollution. Changes were made to legislation regarding compulsory commercial ship pilotage in and around the Great Barrier Reef. In 2005 various amendments to various pieces of maritime legislation relating to ship safety, marine environment, general maritime navigation and miscellaneous administrative matters were made. Also, amendments were made to require ships of 150 tonnes or more carrying bulk noxious liquid substances to have a marine pollution emergency plan. In 2006 the Howard government introduced the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Bill 2007. The main purpose of the bill was to amend maritime pollution legislation to enable ratification of annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships—commonly known as MARPOL. The bill added a new part to division 12 of the Navigation Act 1912 to provide for periodical survey of Australian registered ships to ensure that ships are constructed in accordance with the annex VI requirements and for the issue of an International Pollution Prevention Certificate. Foreign-registered vessels are required to have certificates issued by their own flag states when visiting Australian ports.

The bill also amended the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to define the operational measures required in relation to the carriage and use of fuel oil on board ships, including the sulphur content of fuel oil and fuel oil quality requirements. Limits were set on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ships’ exhausts and deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances were prohibited. The annex also included a global cap of 4.5 per cent on sulphur content of fuel oil. The provision of annex VI of the convention allowed for special sulphur oxide emissions control areas to be established with more stringent controls on sulphur emissions in these areas. The sulphur content of fuel oil used on board ships must not exceed 1.5 per cent. Alternative ships must fit an exhaust gas clearance system—that is, a cleaning system—or use any other technological method to limit sulfur emissions. Both the Baltic Sea and the North Sea are designated sulfur emission control areas. This legislation was supported by the Labor government.

In 2006, the Howard government amended the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Act. The bill implemented changes to the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, the HAFS convention, to prohibit the use of harmful organotins in antifouling paints used on ships and additionally prevent the potential future use of other harmful substances in antifouling systems. Again, that was supported by Labor.

In 2006, again, the Howard government amended the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981. The amendment made it possible for the Commonwealth to effectively respond to threats of serious marine pollution arising from maritime incidents. The bill provided greater clarity to the current terms of the legislation to ensure that those in the maritime industry know their obligations and responsibilities. It also ensured that officers of state governments and the Commonwealth are able to make confident and quick decisions in environmental emergencies.

Notwithstanding the importance of this legislation, and the necessity for our marine and coastal environments to be adequately looked after, like most industries international shipping is dollar driven. The decline in quality standards of shipping vessels is a direct result of industry cost cutting from commercial pressure. Sound, strong legislation is essential to drive a responsible international performance.

The Ships of shame report examined the role Australia played as a port state and the role Australia could play to influence improvements to the international marine conventions and observation of those conventions. Australia, as a developed, progressive country, needs to lead by example. The IMO—that is, the International Maritime Organisation—provides a valuable role establishing conventions and codes of conduct to regulate international shipping. IMO standards are recognised as being sufficient, as agreed by the industry.

The setting up of a convention can and does take time—up to five years for a convention to be approved and then many more years to be ratified. The process is time consuming. That is why it has taken since 2002, when Australia signed the convention, until now for this ratification. The bunkers convention, as I said, will come into force on 21 November this year and, with the passing of this legislation, Australia will be part of that convention and contribute to the international example being set.

Safety is of paramount importance at sea. The sea has taken far too many lives and it is necessary for ship owners and operators to be responsible for both the operating efficiency and the effect of their orders at sea, in the safety of their crew. Ratifying the bunkers convention will ensure that Australian victims of bunker oil pollution will no longer have to prove that the shipowner was at fault in order to receive compensation. Until now, shipowners have only been liable for payment of compensation if it is proven that the owner was at fault. The bunkers convention ensures that compensation is available even in the most accidental spill of bunker oil. The consequential amendments bill will ensure that there is no duplication of insurance requirements between Australia’s legislation and the bunkers convention, and amendments to the Admiralty Act 1988 will confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court and state and territory supreme courts to hear and determine matters arising under this bunker oil bill.

Amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 will ensure that there is no duplication of insurance requirements between that act and the bunker oil bill, in view of this act already applying to vessels 400 gross tonnes and over. Amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 are intended to ensure that, even if the owner or master of a ship is the subject of a direction under that act, the registered owner of the ship will remain liable for compensation costs under the bunker oil bill and there will be no effect on court proceedings under the bunker oil bill.

As I said, I have consulted widely with the Australian shipping industry, and the passage of these two pieces of legislation is strongly supported by all three umbrella groups representing the industry. All of those that depend on the bounty of the sea need to protect it. This legislation will further add to the protection of our marine environments, and the alternative government supports both these bills. It is very sensible legislation that I am proud to say was contributed to primarily by the previous Howard government.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Bill 2008 and the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. I would firstly like to acknowledge the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie, who recognised the enormous contribution that my predecessor, Peter Morris, has made to shipping not only within Australia but internationally. He was involved with the Ships of shame report as well as ICONS, who prepared a report into shipping from an international perspective called Ships, slaves and competition, which dealt with all those issues that have been important to shipping. I must note and would like to put on the record the fact that the current minister has given terms of reference to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to look at shipping—to look at some of the issues that Peter Morris raised in the past when he was chair of the transport committee and transport minister. Those issues relate to the impact that the continuing and the single permit visas have; the plight of those people that serve on ships, which over the years has contributed to the lowering of standards on ships; and the fact that we have ships of convenience sailing around our coastline here in Australia.

The purpose of this legislation is to implement in Australia the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001—the bunker oil convention. In accordance with the bunker oil convention, the legislation will establish a liability and compensation regime to apply in cases of a spill of bunker oil from a ship other than an oil tanker to ensure that, if there is a spill, victims of pollution damage are able to obtain prompt, adequate and effective compensation.

In accordance with the bunker oil convention, the proposed legislation will provide that shipowners are strictly liable for pollution damage resulting from the escape or discharge of bunker oil from ships. Shipowners can limit their liability depending on the size of their ship. Ships with a gross tonnage greater than 1,000 will be required to be insured to cover the owner’s liability for pollution damage resulting from the escape or discharge of bunker oil and will be required to carry evidence of that insurance. Persons suffering pollution damage will have a right of direct action against the insurer. That is, they can seek compensation directly from the shipowner’s insurer rather than be required to submit the claim to the shipowner, who in some cases may have no asset other than the ship.

This is good legislation, and it is good legislation for the environment. The electorate that I represent in this parliament is a coastal electorate, and I understand only too well the impact that pollution can have on our vulnerable, precious coastline, the impact that pollution can have on our environment. You only have to look to the June storms last year in Newcastle to see just how vulnerable we are to maritime incidents. The Pasha Bulker was grounded during those storms in Newcastle, and at any time there could have been pollution damage resulting from the leakage of fuel oil. But because of the assistance that was available at the time—and good luck, to a large extent—that did not happen.

If there had been a major incident associated with the grounding of the Pasha Bulker, this legislation would have ensured that there would be compensation. The other side to that is that having legislation like this in place makes shipowners very much aware of the fact that they must ensure, and are liable to make sure, that they take account of our environment. Shipowners will be strictly liable for the pollution damage resulting from a spill of fuel oil, which will mean that, even if a spill is an accident, the shipowner is liable. That goes to what I just said a moment ago. To ensure that shipowners are able to pay compensation for pollution damage, there is a requirement that ships over 1,000 gross tonnes be insured, and every ship entering an Australian port will be required to have evidence that it is insured. This legislation will ensure that, if again there is an incident like that of the Pasha Bulker, the ship owner is liable. Imagine if what happened with the Pasha Bulker had been worse. If ships that travel up and down our coastline, including the coastline in the Shortland electorate, do have a major incident, if they do pollute our coastline, if there is an environmental issue, then they will be liable.

This legislation will ensure that Australian ships entering the ports of overseas countries are subject to the same insurance requirements as when they enter ports in Australia. The very important thing for us here in Australia is that foreign ships entering our ports will also be liable. The system that exists in Australia involves single voyage permits and continuing voyage permits and that means that those shipowners will be liable. I refer again to the legislation. This is good legislation and I am very pleased to support it.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank members for participating in the debate on the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Bill 2008 and the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. It has been a short debate but a debate of the highest quality, participated in by those members of parliament who have significant coastal trade interests and a massive interest in the safety of our coastal shipping. This legislation will provide for compensation following a spill from a ship that is not an oil tanker. Since 1970, accidents have resulted in nine significant spills around Australia from such ships. The member for Kalgoorlie mentioned the Kirki, the Sanko Harvest and the Ships of shame report. I remember as if it were yesterday watching the Iron Baron sink off the coast of Tasmania, something I remember principally because the Iron Baron was built in my home town of Whyalla in South Australia; it was one of the last ships to have been built there. Fortunately there have not been any major spills in Australia on the scale of incidents such as that of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska in 1989. However, there is always the possibility that such a spill may occur.

Australia has a comprehensive arrangement in place to respond to an actual or threatened oil spill, but there is still the potential for significant pollution damage. We need to ensure that prompt, adequate and effective compensation is available to all victims of bunker oil spills. These bills provide for such compensation. This legislation requires ships carrying bunker oil to be adequately insured and changes the onus of proof in regard to compensation bids relating to oil spills. It complements the high safety standards applied to ships trading on the Australian coast and entering Australian ports. It was interesting to hear the member for Kalgoorlie referring to the way in which the Kirki was secured in 1991. Having spent six or so years working for an oil company, I know that that very brave young man who jumped from the tug to the Kirki would have spent the next considerable period of time, if at my old firm of Woodside, explaining himself to the occupational health and safety officers for having undertaken that act. Safety is extremely important in our maritime industries.

This legislation is good news for people concerned about the risks to the environment from oil spills. It is also good news because, like all legislation before it, it has bipartisan support; it has been supported by all sides of both houses of this parliament. That shows not just great consideration by our parliament of the importance of these measures but also the deep level of interest and the ability to make safe our sea lanes for the environment and for those working in them. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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