Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in support of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This bill seeks to amend two acts to enhance Australia’s maritime environmental protection regime in light of international conventions and standards. The coalition is committed to the sustainable growth of Australia’s shipping industry by ensuring that Australia’s maritime sector is as safe, competitive and efficient as possible. The maritime industry is an incredibly important part of Australia’s national and international transport network, with sea transport carrying over 99 per cent of international cargo by weight and domestically carrying 26 per cent by weight.

This bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983, the PPS act, and the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008, the bunkers act. Schedule 1 implements the revised version of annex VI on air pollution of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL, adopted by the International Maritime Organisation, the IMO, on 10 October 2008. Schedule 2 gives immunity from liability to persons or organisations acting reasonably and in good faith to provide assistance following a spill of fuel inadvertently making the damage worse. In supporting this bill the coalition continues its longstanding commitment to and involvement in the IMO and its conventions over many years.

As background to schedule 1, Australia has been a member of the IMO since its inception in 1948 and has played an active role in the development of conventions and treaties over many years. The six annexes of MARPOL deal with different aspects of marine pollution, and all six have been implemented by both Labor and Liberal governments over time. While about 150 countries have adopted some of the annexes, over time Australia has adopted all six. The previous coalition government introduced the initial version of annex VI, with De-Anne Kelly, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, describing the introduction as ‘continuing the coalition government’s efforts to prevent pollution by ships.’

Annex VI is intended to reduce air pollution from ships to prevent the adverse public health costs associated with it. In October 2008 annex VI was revised by the IMO to enhance its requirements and further reduce the potentially harmful emissions from ships. The changes will see a progressive reduction in sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide from ships’ exhausts over time, with sulphur content being reduced from 4.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent on 1 January 2012. This will have little practical effect in Australia, as Australian ships already use fuel with sulfur below this content limit.

Schedule 1 of the bill also proposes a feasibility review by the IMO in 2018, which will consider whether further reductions to sulfur content of fuel are appropriate, which may result in sulfur content of one-half of one per cent from 1 January 2020. Finally, schedule 1 of this bill allows for the creation of emissions control areas near heavily populated zones in which further reductions in emissions will be required. Presently, the Baltic Sea and the North Sea have been designated as emissions control areas.

Schedule 2, as I have said previously, amends the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008, the bunkers act, to give immunity from liability to persons or organisations acting reasonably and in good faith to provide assistance following a spill of fuel but inadvertently making the damage worse. In doing so, the bill introduces a so-called responder immunity. The bunkers act, when introduced in 2008, was supported by the coalition, and implements Australia’s obligations under the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, which established a strict liability and compensation regime to apply in cases of pollution damage resulting from a spill of fuel from ships. Schedule 2 amends the original act to address a particular industry concern but still maintains shipowners’ general liability for damage resulting from a spill, as well as damage inflicted either with intent or recklessly with knowledge that damage would probably result.

It is interesting to note that, at this stage, we have to refer to the Pacific Adventurer spill. I note that, in the minister’s second reading speech, he attempted to tie the introduction of this bill to the Pacific Adventurer oil spill—which his government, together with the Bligh government, clearly sought to use for political mileage in the lead-up to the Queensland state election. After speaking with some stakeholders, I am aware that they have expressed their dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of this incident.

According to the bunkers act, usually, if a ship is involved in an incident which causes damage, including damage to the environment, there is a limit on the maximum amount of compensation payable, calculated according to the size of the ship, irrespective of the amount of damage caused by the incident. The liability of shipowners is strict but limited. Some industry stakeholders have raised concerns about the uncertainty imposed by the government’s handling of the Pacific Adventurer spill, with the government disregarding international convention and determining that costs would be recouped from the industry at large through a 3c increase in the protection of the sea levy administered by AMSA. I understand that the government has approached the IMO to increase the current ceiling on the limitation of liability imposed by the bunkers act to increase the liability to shipowners, but this is still going through the IMO’s processes.

Thankfully, incidents like the Pacific Adventurer oil spill are rare, but the risk imposed on Australia’s shipping industry by muddying the waters of liability is real and should be addressed. The government’s handling of the Pacific Adventurer oil spill epitomises its approach—that of a reactionary government making policy on the run. This is a government that, in its haste, has plunged our country into $128 billion worth of debt with its ‘spend, spend, spend’ attitude on everything, which has included spending $13 million on the failed GroceryWatch scheme; sending cheques to the value of $46 million to deceased people who were resident overseas under the cash splash; and introducing, and then suspending, its failed Pink Batts scheme, which not only has been a waste of taxpayers’ money and made use of by dodgy installers out for a quick buck but also has endangered the lives of Australian householders. All that is not even to mention the National Broadband Network that has not seen a single home connected yet and the costs of which have blown out from $4.7 billion to $43 billion.

In conclusion, I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill which will further enhance Australia’s maritime protection legislation and continue our close relationship with the IMO and its international conventions. It is important that Australia has the best possible regulatory regime that keeps pace with technological and industry developments and reflects international consensus.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Canning. Before I call the next speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, from the chair, of welcoming staff from Indonesia and from the national parliament of Timor-Leste on the professional development course. You are very, very welcome. I see you are accompanied by our former Clerk, and he is particularly welcome as well. I hope that you find your experiences educational. The good relationship that this country has with both Timor-Leste and Indonesia is well known. I hope that you have the opportunity to revisit Australia in the future. Thank you very much for being present.

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

I rise to support the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The purpose of this bill is to implement revised measures to reduce air pollution by ships in accordance with changes agreed to by the International Maritime Organisation in October 2008. It is also to ensure that persons and organisations who provide assistance following a spill of fuel oil from a ship are not themselves likely to be exposed to liability.

MARPOL is one of a number of conventions adopted by the International Maritime Organisation to reduce pollution of the sea. It entered into force in October 1983 and in Australia in January 1988. Australia’s obligations under the convention were given domestic effect on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia by amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act and the Navigation Act 1912. MARPOL has six technical annexes, which deal with the following aspects: prevention of pollution by oil, control of pollution by noxious liquid substances, prevention of pollution by harmful substances in packaged form, prevention of pollution by sewage from ships, prevention of pollution by garbage from ships and prevention of air pollution from ships.

This is very important legislation. It ensures the safety of our seas. It ensures that our seas are not polluted. As a representative of a coastal electorate—the electorate of Shortland, which is very vulnerable to pollution of the sea by ships traversing the coastline—I have on many occasions risen in this House to express my concerns about safe shipping and ensuring that our coastline is protected. In the electorate of Shortland, we have many pristine beaches. I believe that the greatest threat to our beaches and marine life in that area comes from pollution from ships. Therefore it is vitally important that legislation such as this is put in place to ensure protection of both the sea and the coastline. Often we forget that the ocean around our nation is a highway for ships carrying goods around our coastline, delivering from one port to another. As any highway is busy, so the highway surrounding our country is busy.

We have discussed a number of MARPOL amendments over a long period of time. It is laudable that we as a nation support these amendments. Unfortunately, over the years of the Howard government, our maritime shipping industry and the industries associated with it declined. The previous government did not make a commitment to a sustainable shipping industry. Along with failing to make a commitment to a sustainable shipping industry, it also allowed practices that I feel do not ensure the safety of our sea and our environment. With us being an island nation, I believe it is very important that we embrace the opportunities that a strong shipping industry provides. As such, we need to be very supportive of the MARPOL amendments.

It is interesting that countries like the UK and the USA have made a commitment to developing their shipping industry. It is only now that we are really looking at the opportunities that are created by our shipping industry in the way that we should. The MARPOL protocols are vital because, as I have already mentioned, they protect our environment. It is important from a global perspective that Australia becomes a contracting party to all these protocols because, by our ratification and by introducing legislation, we can ensure that the shipping industry worldwide is environmentally sound. In Australia we have many foreign ships traversing our coastlines, so we really need to make sure that these protocols are in place. In the Shortland electorate we have the MV Wallarah taking coal from Catherine Hill Bay to the port at Newcastle on a daily basis. We are always mindful of the fact that this is an Australian ship and the standards that apply to it are supported by the MARPOL legislation.

The legislation we have before us today is about the protection of the sea. It will protect the environment from activities associated with shipping. Sulfur oxide in the atmosphere is one particular thing we are looking at in relation to this legislation. It produces adverse health effects and also contributes to the development of acid rain. We therefore need to ensure that this protocol is in place and this legislation is passed. Despite the comments of the member for Canning, the government is supporting this legislation. The bill will implement incremental changes to the maximum sulfur level of marine fuel oil, as agreed by the International Maritime Organisation in 2008, leading to a corresponding reduction in the amount of sulfur oxide in the exhaust gases of ships. The bill also provides protection for persons or organisations assisting in clean-ups following oil spills. It is therefore essential that persons or organisations are not deterred from responding to fuel oil spills. The bill has been put out for consultation. I support this excellent piece of legislation.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The coalition is committed to the sustainable growth of Australia’s shipping industry by ensuring that our maritime sector is as safe, competitive and efficient as possible. Our maritime history is a vital component of Australia’s national and international transport network. As we know, sea transport currently accounts for over 99 per cent of international cargo by weight and 26 per cent of freight. This legislation aims to amend two schedules. The first schedule implements the revision of the annex relating to air pollution of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, adopted by the International Maritime Organisation on 10 October 2008. The bill continues the coalition’s effort to prevent pollution by ships and maintains the close alignment Australia has with the IMO’s international conventions. Australia has been a member of the IMO since its establishment in 1948 and has played an active role in the development of conventions and treaties over many years.

The coalition believes that the changes to the annex will see a progressive reduction in sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide from ship exhausts over time, with the sulfur content being reduced from 4.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent on 1 January 2012. It should also be noted that this alteration will have little practical effect on Australian ships which already use fuel with a sulfur content below this particular limit. This legislation will allow for the creation of emission control areas in which further reductions in emissions will be required. Also, due to the progressive nature of the changes, this bill provides for the establishment of regulations to set the maximum allowable sulfur content. These amendments will come into effect on 1 July 2010.

The second schedule of this legislation will give immunity from liability to persons or organisations acting reasonably and in good faith which provide assistance following a spill of fuel but inadvertently make the damage worse. The bunkers act, the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act, which was introduced in 2008 with the support of the coalition, has established a liability and compensation regime to apply in cases of pollution damage which are the result of a spill of fuel oil from ships. Schedule 2 creates a responder immunity, meaning that organisations and persons assisting in the clean-up of a spill will not be held liable for the damage caused if they act reasonably and in good faith. This, however, does not affect a shipowner’s general liability for damages resulting from that spill. Immunity from actions, suit or proceedings will not apply in relation to actions or emissions that were intended to cause damage or which were undertaken recklessly knowing that damage would probably result.

In my electorate of Forrest, this legislation will have an impact on the Bunbury Port Authority, which, in 2008-09, had a total throughput of 13.3 million tonnes with exports accounting for approximately 88 per cent of that total trade and imports 1.5 million tonnes, which included caustic soda, mineral sands, coal, urea, methanol, potash, vegetable oil and petroleum coke. The port exported a record of nearly 9½ million tonnes of alumina in that same period, as well as exporting mineral sands, silica sand, spodumene and woodchips. The port authority is forecasting a 15 per cent increase in total port trade for 2009-10 to over 15 million tonnes and there are plans to expand trade through the port with exports such as coal, bauxite and, potentially, urea. Of course, there is a genuine need for expansion of the existing port and its facilities, part of an overall $750 million worth of work needed on infrastructure in the south-west area alone. This legislation will be an issue in practical terms for the Bunbury Port, which is expecting at least 392 commercial vessel movements in the current year.

The Bunbury Port Authority raised a number of questions in relation to the legislation. They questioned whether ships will require insurance certificates to be inspected and, if so, by whom. Is it incumbent on the port authority to ensure that the certificate is valid? Another area they would like clarified is whether the port is expected to provide certificates when it receives plastics and contaminated rubbish similar to the requirements for ships with garbage loads. From an environmental perspective, the Bunbury Port Authority stated that they see no detrimental outcomes from the proposed legislative amendments. For instance, the Bunbury Port Authority’s total revenue was nearly $29 million, which is significant for a regional port, particularly in the south-west of WA. A recent example relating to this piece of the late legislation is the Pacific Adventurer oil spill, which occurred in March 2009 and exceeded the $30 million in clean-up costs. Industry expressed their dissatisfaction with the government’s response to the Pacific Adventurer oil spill incident and, as a result, in August 2009 the Labor government announced that it had initiated proceedings at the IMO to increase the limit to shipowners’ liability for the future. However, there has been no further action on this to date.

During Senate estimates on 9 February this year, Senator Back questioned Mr Peachey from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority on the current status of proceedings to increase the limit for shipowners’ liability for clean-up costs. Mr Peachey stated in his response that the extent of the limitation is in fact too limited. However, the information on a suitable figure and the consultation processes were vague and, in certain parts, inconclusive.

The coalition takes the prevention of pollution by ships very seriously and, as I stated earlier, is committed to the sustainable growth of Australia’s shipping industry by ensuring that our maritime sector is as safe, competitive and efficient as possible. The coalition believes that the revised version of the annex and immunity from liability to persons or organisations acting reasonably and in good faith are positive steps to the further protection of the sea. I support this legislation but in practical terms seek clarification from the government on the issues raised by the Bunbury Port Authority.

Maxine McKew (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for participating in this debate on the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, and the opposition for its support of the bill. I note the comments of the previous speaker but I can assure members opposite that safety is at the heart of this bill. In relation to comments made during the debate in relation to the Pacific Adventurer spill, on 10 March this year the Australian Maritime Safety Authority released the report of the incident analysis team into the response to the oil spill from the Pacific Adventurer in March last year. The incident analysis team was established by AMSA and Maritime Safety Queensland under the auspices of the National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil and Other Noxious and Hazardous Substances, as has been the practice in the past.

The report found that overall the response to the incident was effective and generally in accordance with the policies and procedures in the national plan. The report made 16 recommendations relating to how national, state and territory marine pollution preparedness and response arrangements might be improved throughout the country. Most of the recommendations of the report are already being acted upon by agencies involved in the response. The recommendations will also be considered by the national plan management committee as part of a wider review of the national plan to be taken in 2010-11.

This bill makes an important contribution to reducing air pollution by ships. Australia, of course, is almost entirely dependent on shipping for trade. This government believes that pollution from the transport sector should be reduced where practical. In shipping this is best achieved by ensuring that ships which visit Australian ports comply with internationally agreed emissions standards. This bill implements standards developed by the International Maritime Organisation to reduce the amount of sulphur oxides in ships’ exhaust gases. This will contribute to a reduction in air pollution and thereby improve human health. The bill will also ensure that people who assist with the clean-out of a spill of fuel oil will not become liable for pollution damage so long as they act in good faith. The passage of this bill reinforces the high safety standards applied to ships trading in Australia. 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.