Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I indicate from the outset that the opposition supports the bill. This bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to give domestic effect to recent amendments to annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL, that were adopted by the International Maritime Organisation on 10 October 2008.

The bill also amends the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008 to provide protection for persons taking reasonable measures to prevent or minimise the effects of bunker oil pollution in Australia or the exclusive economic zone of Australia, in line with the resolution of the diplomatic conference of the International Maritime Organisations that adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, the bunkers convention, in March 2001. This legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives on 3 February 2010, it was agreed to by the House on 18 March 2010 and it was introduced into the Senate on 11 May 2010 but not debated.

The coalition accepts that, as an island trading nation, Australia has an enormous shipping task. It is therefore proper that Australia accepts its responsibility to reduce maritime pollution wherever possible. 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 six annexes of the MARPOL deal with different aspects of marine pollution and all six have been implemented by both Labor and coalition governments over a period of time. These six annexes cover various aspects of marine pollution—namely, oil, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances in packaged form, sewage, garbage from ships and air pollution.

Under the previous coalition government Australia adopted all six, with the initial version of annex VI entering into force in Australia in November 2007 via the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006. At that time the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services pointed out:

This bill continues the government’s efforts to prevent pollution by ships and maintains the close alignment Australia has with the International Maritime Organisation’s international conventions.

Annex 6 is intended to reduce air pollution from ships to prevent the adverse public health costs associated with it, and I commend the government for continuing the good work of the previous coalition government.

In October 2008 the IMO agreed to revise even further the limits on maritime air pollution described in annex 6. These revisions will reduce sulphur emissions from 4.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent from 1 January 2012. Subject to a review to be conducted by the IMO and to be completed no later than 2018, the cap may be reduced further. The limits on sulphur emissions applying to parts of seas close to heavily populated areas will be reduced from 1.5 per cent to one per cent from 1 July 2010 and then further reduced to 0.1 per cent from 1 January 2015. These areas, known as emission control areas, apply to the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and parts of the US and Canadian coast. There will be a progressive reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions from ship engines constructed after 1 January 2016 operating in emission control areas. There is also the possibility of imposing further reductions in such areas as well, subject to IMO approval, on the grounds of health.

I note that, because of the progressive nature of the reduction in pollution, the bill provides for the establishment of regulations to set the maximum allowable sulphur content. These revisions to annex 6 entered into force internationally on 1 July 2010. These amendments must be implemented in Australian law; otherwise Australia will be in breach of its obligations and be unable to require registered Australian ships to meet the revised targets. The coalition therefore supports this element of the bill.

The second element of this bill relates to the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008, known as the bunkers act. The bunkers act gives domestic effect to Australia’s obligations as a party to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001. This convention was adopted by the IMO on 23 March 2001 and entered into force internationally on 21 November 2008. The convention entered into force in Australia on 16 June 2009. The bunkers act establishes a liability and compensation regime where shipowners are liable for pollution damage resulting from a spill of fuel oil from their ships. Liability is based on the size of the ship, with ships of more than 1,000 gross tonnes required to take out insurance to cover liability up to the limits set out in the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims.

This bill amends the bunkers act and addresses a particular industry concern that relates to the possible liability of persons or organisations assisting in the clean-up of an oil spill who inadvertently make the pollution damage worse in doing so. For example, the compensation for clean-up costs following the spill of fuel oil from Pacific Adventurer off the south-east coast of Queensland in March 2009 exceeded $30 million. This bill addresses concerns that some may be deterred from helping to clean up such a spill out of fear that they could become liable if their actions carried out in good faith make the pollution worse. Schedule 2 of the bill deals with this by creating a responder immunity. Organisations or persons assisting in the clean-up of a spill will not be held liable for damage caused if they acted reasonably and in good faith. A shipowner will continue to be generally liable for pollution damage resulting from a spill of fuel oil. Under proposed new section 24A responder immunity will not affect that liability. Immunity from an action suit or proceeding will not apply in relation to actions or omissions that were intended to cause damage or that were undertaken recklessly when it was known that damage would probably result.

Australia likes to think of itself as a good international citizen and it is important that, given almost all of our international trade is carried by sea, we meet our particular responsibility in dealing with marine pollution. The previous coalition government did its fair share in this area, particularly in its adoption of all six elements of the MARPOL Convention. The coalition supports the government in building upon the coalition’s efforts. We also accept from a practical point of view that sulphur levels in fuel in Australia currently fall below the 3.5 per cent cap. So vessels operating in Australia will have no trouble complying with these new standards. The coalition is happy to support the passage of this legislation.

In conclusion, I wish to make a few comments regarding the government’s handling of the Pacific Adventurer oil spill. On 11 March 2009, the Hong Kong-China registered general cargo ship, Pacific Adventurer, lost 31 containers of ammonium nitrate overboard, some seven nautical miles east of Cape Moreton while en route to Brisbane. The ship then reported that its fuel service tank was breached. Subsequently, it was established that 270 tonnes of oil was lost. The clean-up operations continued for two months and, as I indicated previously, cost in the vicinity of $30 million. Under its obligations under the 1996 IMO Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, to which Australia is a party, the owners of the Pacific Adventurer were liable to pay $17.5 million. However, on 7 August 2009 the owner of the Pacific Adventurer, Swire Shipping, agreed to pay a total of $25 million for compensation of valid claims arising from the oil spill. But in a decision to bail out the cash-strapped state Labor government of Queensland, the federal Labor government decided that the decision by the owners of the Pacific Adventurer to go beyond its obligations in meeting its liabilities and responsibilities was not enough. Instead, the federal Labor government decided that, from 1 April 2010, it would increase the tax on Australia’s international shipping industry by increasing the protection of the sea levy by 3c per net registered tonne in order to recover the clean-up costs of the oil spill.

The increase of 3c brings the total levy to 14.25c per net registered tonne. In other words, the entire sector has to pay an increase in costs, even though the party responsible in this situation more than met its liability obligations through a convention to which Australia is a signatory. If the government was not happy with the limits provided under the convention then it should have approached the IMO to increase them. The imposition of an extra levy on the whole industry because of a serious accident goes well beyond the principle of the potential polluter pays. I would be interested to know how much money the government expects this increased levy will raise and over what period of time. I would also be interested to know when the government will honour its commitment in its press release of 9 February 2010 that this increase will be temporary. When will the government rescind this increase? Aside from these matters, the coalition supports the passage of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 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 and 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 for showing assistance. The bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983—the prevention of pollution from ships act—to give domestic effect to recent amendments to annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the protocol of 1978 relating to MARPOL. The bill also amends the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008—the bunker oil act—to provide protection for persons or organisations who act reasonably and in good faith when assisting in a clean-up following a spill of oil from a ship. This comes about because somebody who has become involved has unintentionally caused a little bit more oil to spill when they endeavoured to do things in good faith. So we need to tidy that up.

This bill implements the operational requirements of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL. MARPOL is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the maritime environment by ships. It has six parts which cover oil, bulk noxious liquids, harmful substances carried by sea in package form, sewage from ships, garbage from ships and air pollution by ships. I think this last one comes into the area of ships engines and the need to make sure that their emissions are at a standard of modern acceptability, as we do with car engines. I think this is tidying that up and bringing it to a better, higher standard.

The air pollution part was adopted by the Maritime Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation on 10 October 2008, but it needs some revision. It was intended to limit emissions of ozone-depleting substances such as sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides from the exhausts of ships. So part of this bill was implemented during this revision. The Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act has established a liability and compensation regime to apply in cases of pollution damage resulting from a spill of fuel oil from ships other than oil tankers in respect of which there is a separate liability and compensation regime. There is concern that persons or organisations providing assistance following a spill of fuel oil may become liable to pay compensation if their actions inadvertently lead to an increase in pollution damage. The amendments in schedule 2 of this bill add a ‘responder immunity’ provision to the bunkers act to protect such persons who act reasonably and in good faith.

I believe this bill to be mainly an explanatory one that helps make clear some of the provisions but also clarifies some definitions such as the meaning of fuel oil. Fuel oil is being defined as any fuel being delivered to and intended for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship, including distillate and residual fuels. Gas fuel is another one that requires definition because of the new definition of fuel oil. In the revision, annex VI covers gases which are used as fuel on ships. There are different requirements applying to fuels that are gases and others which are not gases. So there are some of the changes in this bill. The way we drive ships may be changing into the future.

Although this is not a controversial bill—and I just heard the opposition speaker, the member for Gippsland, say that the opposition will be supporting the bill—it does cover some very important areas if we are to attempt to control world emissions from ships. Our ships and the ships of other nations are on the high seas for many months of each year. Obviously, many possible polluting incidents occur and we need to try and ensure these are minimised. There are provisions to allow ships that visit more than one country at a time and have different findings of fuel oil to come within the standards. They can notify that country, particularly if they are coming into Australia, that they have taken all reasonable steps to obtain fuel oil with a sulphur content no more than the prescribed limit but cannot find a source of supply from the last destination.

Australia has a responsibility for its own environment, but it also has the opportunity to encourage and promote responsibility for the environment at sea. Most people who have never been in a boat see these telltale colours in the water as oil or other pollutants following the wake of some visiting ships. The practice of dumping bilge water at sea can mean not only fuel gets expelled but also microscopic small animals that can float to our coastal zones and become established as a pest in our waters. We must be vigilant to try and stop the invasion of foreign species such as seastars. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be well aware of those in Tasmania where they have played havoc in some of our areas, including in the Derwent. Seastars make the bottom of the seabed totally barren. They eat the seagrasses and the seaweeds and anything else of a size that they can devour. I have seen over the years where divers have gone down to collect thousands in bags to try to eliminate some of them from the Derwent River. We have also had invasive species of seaweeds, especially on the east coast in Great Oyster Bay in the electorate of Lyons, from ships coming into the Triabunna port from bilge water. It has set up a different species of seaweed, a small red species, which clings to the shore and sometimes gets onto the beaches. These things need to be eliminated and I think with modern practice and processes they can be.

This bill gives the power to fine these people who do not do the right thing, and there is also a power to check record books for these vessels that carry ozone-depleting substances. There are penalties for owners or masters of a ship for the failure to carry and keep an ozone-depleting substances record book.

Under the bunkers act, a new section provides that no civil action, suit or proceeding lies against a person who has acted reasonably and in good faith in trying to prevent or minimise pollution damage in Australia or in Australia’s exclusive economic zone. However, a shipowner will continue to be generally liable for pollution damage resulting from a spill of fuel oil and the proposed new section 24A will not affect that liability. As I understand it, we want our shipowners and masters to be responsible for their ships admissions; however, there are times when, through no fault of their own, omissions occur and there are some provisions to assist them to sort that out. Going to sea and dealing with all the complexities of weather and large ships is not an easy task. There are often things which are not easy to control.

I also remember, when dealing with ships that pollute and are not safe—the ships of shame—in my early days in this parliament, learning a considerable amount from Peter Morris, who was a very active member of the House of Representatives, and his brother Alan. They were two very fine parliamentarians. Peter was chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, which handed down a report titled Ships of Shame. This report highlighted the unsafeness of some ships around the world. It went worldwide—conferences were held all over the world to try to bring change to the way that ships were put to sea. Many ships that were registered in obscure countries of very little plate, unsafe and unseaworthy, put many seafarers to the bottom of the ocean because there were no standards that could be applied. It was a very good report that highlighted that these ships not only put seafarers’ lives at risk but also, I am sure, polluted the seas and oceans of the world not only because of their leakages and bad practices but because they were bad ships. I remember the Australian Maritime Safety Authority playing a role in stopping some of these ships that came into Australian ports from going back to sea until they were safe to do so. The Maritime Union of Australia certainly played a role as well.

It is important to get these things right. There is another bill in the parliament dealing with offshore petroleum safety regimes. The Montara commission of inquiry into the problems of pollution at sea recently handed down its report. The oil pollution in the Gulf of Mexico led to issues for the wetlands of America. There was a social cost to people through loss of jobs, which in turn led to despair. The economic losses to fishing and tourism were enormous. That is a slightly different matter, but it is a difficult issue that needs to be dealt with.

The big picture is to regulate against damage to the sea or the air. We need to sheet home the responsibility for damage as a result of neglect or thoughtlessness. It is important to have a penalty regime. The minister seems to have that right in this bill and is certainly going to take care of that for our nation. Australia can help to lead the world in this important area. We are making sure that we limit emissions in our waters and those that do occur can be noted and dealt with in the most appropriate way. This is a very good bill to have in the parliament, and I am glad the opposition is supporting it. I commend the bill to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lyons for his contribution. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, those of you who represent the ‘southern island’ understand the importance of shipping, as we do as a nation. The Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 will make an important contribution to protecting the environment from the activities associated with shipping, particularly reducing air pollution by ships.

Australia is almost entirely dependent on ships for its exports and imports, with less than one per cent carried by aircraft. In addition, taking into account total tonnage and the distance travelled, 25 per cent of Australian domestic cargo is carried by ships. This government believes that the effect on the environment from all forms of transport should be reduced where practicable. In the case of shipping, this is best achieved by ensuring that Australian ships and foreign ships which visit Australian ports comply with internationally agreed standards.

This bill implements standards developed by the International Maritime Organisation to reduce the amount of sulphur oxide in ships’ exhaust gases. Sulphur oxides in the atmosphere contribute to the development of acid rain. The reduction in sulphur oxides will contribute to a reduction in air pollution with a consequential positive impact on human health and the environment. The bill will also ensure that any persons who assist with the clean-up of a spill of fuel oil will not themselves inadvertently become liable for pollution damage, so long as such persons have acted in good faith.

The passage of this bill will complement the high safety standards applied to ships trading on the Australian coast and entering Australian ports. 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.