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 (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011. This bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to implement the amendments to annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships—or, as it is known, MARPOL—to implement special requirements for the use and carriage of heavy-grade oils in the Antarctic.

Australia has been a member of the International Maritime Organisation since its establishment in 1948 and, as such, has played an active role in the development of the conventions and treaties over many years. MARPOL has six annexes which deal with different aspects of marine pollution, and all six have been implemented by Labor and coalition governments over time. Relevant to this bill, annex I relates to the prevention of pollution by oil and entered into force internationally on 2 October 1983 and in Australia on 14 January 1988. Its introduction received bipartisan support. In 2004, the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO adopted a revised version of annex I which entered into force in Australia and internationally in 2007. In 2005, a meeting of the Antarctic treaty consultative committee, which Australia attended as a country having an interest in Antarctica, requested that the IMO examine ways to restrict the use of heavy-grade oils in Antarctic waters. As a result of this request, the current amendments to annex I were adopted by the MEPC of the IMO on 26 March 2010, and came into force internationally on 1 August this year. Amendments to other annexes of MARPOL have consistently received bipartisan support, and this is not the first bill implementing MARPOL convention amendments this year. As with legislation earlier this year, the coalition will support this bill.

The rationale behind the annex I amendments is that a potential spill of heavy-grade oils would have a devastating impact on the Antarctic environment which would persist for many years. Heavy-grade oils are more environmentally hazardous than other marine oils because of the lengthy time they take to break down, particularly in the harsh polar environment. A spill, if it occurred, would have a long and damaging impact on wildlife, particularly on seabirds and penguins, and would be very difficult to address because of the remoteness of the Antarctic and the very long travel times from population centres and rescue organisations.

This bill makes a number of amendments. Firstly, the bill inserts section 10A, which prohibits the use or carriage of heavy-grade oil as fuel and the carriage of it in bulk as cargo on Australian ships in the Antarctic area. This section creates two different but very similar offences. Under subsection (1), it provides that the master and the owner of an Australian ship will each be guilty of an ordinary offence with a maximum penalty of 2,000 penalty units if they use or carry heavy-grade oils as fuel or bulk cargo. This equates to a maximum penalty of $220,000. The other offence under subsection (2) provides that the master and the owner of an Australian ship will each be guilty of a strict liability offence with a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units if they use or carry heavy-grade oil as fuel or bulk cargo. Strict liability makes a person legally responsible for damage caused by their actions or omissions regardless of culpability and strict liability means there is no requirement of fault for any of the physical elements of the offence. Shared liability by the master and owner of the ship is consistent with offence provisions in other parts of the PPS act. Additionally, the penalties for the two offences are also consistent with other parts of the PPS act as well as the Navigation Act 1912. Generally, I do not like strict liability offences, as the defendant bears the evidential burden in relation to the offences; however, in this instance, it is hard to conceive of circumstances where a master or a shipowner would not be aware that their vessel was breaching these laws. It is important to note that there is no requirement to clean or flush residues of heavy-grade oil from a tank or pipeline of a ship to comply with the legislation as small amounts of oil would pose a minimum risk to the environment. I am also assured that heavy oil in ship gearboxes or other small-volume applications will be permitted under this legislation.

This flexibility prevents technical breaches of divisions through residue or small quantities of heavy-grade oils being present, which would in reality pose little risk to the environment. Additionally, an offence will not be committed if the Australian vessel is in the Antarctic area to save a life at sea or secure the safety of a ship, which in all circumstances, I think members on both sides would acknowledge, is a very reasonable provision.

The legislation also seeks to insert proposed section 10B, which prohibits the carriage of heavy-grade oil in bulk as cargo and its use or carriage in the Australian Antarctic Territory. As with section 10A, this section creates two different but similar offences: a strict liability offence and an ordinary liability offence. The penalties for breach of the offences are the same as with section 10A. Again, shared liability by the master and owner of the ship is stipulated, the defendant bears the evidential burden and there is no requirement to clean or flush residues of heavy-grade oil from a tank or pipeline to comply with the legislation. Additionally, as with section 10A, rescue voyages are excluded.

There are also some minor technical amendments in the legislation, and the bill removes the old definition of 'engage in conduct' and inserts a new definition, which is the same as that set out in the Criminal Code with subsection 4.1(2) of the code defining 'engage in conduct' to mean:

(a)   Do an act; or

(b)   Omit to perform an act.

This bill also inserts a MARPOL Annex I definition of heavy-grade oil into the PPS Act.

The consultation, which I understand has been undertaken, has been extensive and both Shipping Australia and the Australian Shipowners Association have been consulted and support the bill. Additionally, I have been advised that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority has contacted southern ocean fishing operators who advised that the proposed changes will not impede current or future Antarctic fishing operations.

In conclusion, the coalition is proud of its record and will always support sensible measures designed to protect our unique marine environment, whether that be the Great Barrier Reef off the Queensland Coast or our Antarctic Territory. I am pleased to support the bill.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a very strong and proud supporter of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011. Although I may represent an electorate that is hundreds of kilometres from the ocean and thousands of kilometres from the Australian Antarctic Territory, I represent an electorate very concerned about ensuring that the Antarctic and its maritime environments are protected. I also share the concerns of other Canberrans.

I have a keen interest in the maritime environment, an interest that started many years ago when spending time with my father. My dad is a very keen snorkeler, skindiver and sailor. He is now aged over 70 and he is still out there hitting the waves. As a result, my sisters and I were brought up swimming from an early age and strongly appreciating the ocean—both its dangers and joys, its wealth of life and its fragility.

From a very young age, I have been extremely conscious of the need to protect Australia's marine environment. This need was made even clearer when I recently visited the Antarctic Division in Tasmanian as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. On this trip, I spoke both to scientists from the division and to some from the University of Tasmania. These scientists were undertaking some very interesting and important research into the krill of the Antarctic waters, which I understand has attracted great attention from overseas.

Krill are a vitally important part of the marine environment. They are the foundation of the marine food chain, and many species large and small directly depend on this vital food source for survival. Beyond this many, many more, including us, are indirectly linked to the survival of these tiny creatures. I know there are some in this place who do not listen to experts and scientists, who would rather deride their work and question their conclusions. I am not one of these people and I was convinced by the research at the University of Tasmania and the Antarctic Division and found it incredibly compelling.

My trip to Tasmania both underscored the need to protect our precious marine environment from all sorts of threats, including the potential of oil spills, and it settled in my mind the need for this parliament to take immediate action on climate change through a carbon price. I would like to congratulate the government on introducing this legislation, which will do much to ensure that the fragile Antarctic environment is better protected from impacts that shipping has on that very, very precious and fragile environment. Shipping in the Antarctic poses a significant threat to this area. As the minister said in his second reading speech:

Ships navigating in these waters face a number of risks including icebergs, sea ice and uncharted waters.

Further to this, the extreme isolation of these waters and the harshness of the environment make any attempt to mitigate the environmental damage incredibly costly, and it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to actually do. It should also be noted that the extreme environment of the Antarctic, and its particularly cold temperature, means that it takes a significantly longer period of time for any spill to dissipate, especially the heavier oil specific to this bill, which is carried by the ships mentioned in this bill.

Previously I have spoken about the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill 2011. In that speech I noted the effects of oil spillage in the maritime environment, especially the long-term effects of oil spillages. Oil in the marine environment can irritate the eyes of wildlife that encounter it. It also contaminates food sources, can damage or disrupt the fins of fish and clogs fur and feathers. We have all seen the dreadful images from Louisiana and elsewhere that underscore this point. Longer term exposure has other dire consequences, such as organ failure of these creatures. Even a small spill can have devastating impacts.

I have also spoken in the past about the 1976 oil tanker spill, when, after the tanker had unloaded its cargo, it sought to wash its tanks out with seawater. Although only an estimated five tonnes of oil were released, it had the effect of calming the waves and attracting a migrating flock of ducks. Some 60,000 ducks died as a result of this spill. While this is perhaps an isolated incident, it does serve to highlight the effects of oil spills. While they may be rare, the effects can never be truly predicted and are highly damaging. Research has suggested that some of the microbes that are so crucial to the breakdown of a spill in more temperate areas may not work in the Antarctic.

Well apart from the potential for oil spills in this vulnerable area, which may in fact be one of the last truly wild and untouched places on the earth, there is also the issue of the emissions of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere around the Antarctic. Sulfur oxides released through the combustion of fuels poses a significant environmental concern, not least of which is due to their key role in the formation of acid rain. There are a number of sources for the release of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere around the continent, including the presence of scientific missions and Antarctica's volcano Mount Erebus. However, the research I looked into shows that shipping to Antarctica is clearly the leading cause of emissions for this very damaging compound. A 2010 report by Graf et al showed this clearly. This is a problem, and it is growing, as there has been a significant increase in the number of scientific expeditions to the Antarctic.

But what is more concerning has been the explosion in Antarctic tourism. In fact, in 2004-05 some 65 per cent of shipping to the Antarctic was tourism related. This is a major concern of mine because, while it is beautiful and I do want people to go and see it, I do worry about heavy tourism there. As you know from my visit to the Antarctic Division, my concern is about the cruise ships that go there with thousands or so of people. Some of them get stranded and then rely on the Aurora Australis and other missions to get them out of there. I also worry about the impact in that area of a thousand tourists, even though they land on a very limited spot.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What have you got against tourism?

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have anything against tourism; I am just concerned about heavy tourism.

Mr Robert interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Fadden will direct his remarks through the chair. There is a procedure for interventions if he wishes to exercise it. The honourable member for Canberra has the call.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While tourism to the region—which I am not opposed to; I am just concerned about its being too heavy—started in the 1950s, it has grown almost exponentially. In the 2001-02 season, the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators reported some 12,248 visitors. This has grown, to an estimated 46,000 visitors in 2007-08. Some 98 per cent of these tourists are ship borne. Many of these ships, which are based out of South America, use the heavy oils that this bill will eliminate. Many of these ships are not adequately equipped to deal with the harshness of this environment and lack the level of ice protection needed to operate in these areas, as I highlighted before. They then get stranded and the scientists who are down there on important missions have to go and save these people.

I understand why so many people want to see the Antarctic. It is one of the last great wilderness areas, but it is a wilderness that is diminishing. It is under threat from the impacts of climate change and the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is under threat from ocean acidity—

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acidification—

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

acidification, thank you very much—caused by carbon dioxide, but it is also, sadly, under threat from the very people who wish to see this wilderness before it disappears. This legislation is important to ensure this unique environment is protected so that future generations can enjoy it and that scientists can benefit from it. I commend the bill to the chamber and commend the government for coming up with this bill.

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

I thank members for their contributions to this important bill, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011. One of the greatest threats to the marine environment is a major oil spill. This is particularly true when we consider the nature of the Antarctic region. The number of vessels, particularly cruise liners, operating in the Antarctic region has steadily increased. Ships navigating these waters face a number of risks, including icebergs, sea ice and uncharted waters. Consequently, the possibility of an oil spill in the Antarctic area is relatively high. Given its location and its challenging environment, it is unlikely that response equipment and trained personnel would be readily available or totally effective in the event of an oil spill in the Antarctic area. In most cases, an effective response to an oil spill in the Antarctic area is impractical, and the oil would be left to break down naturally. However, heavy grade oils are slow to break down in the marine environment, particularly in cold polar waters. It is likely that a spill of heavy grade oils in Antarctic waters would persist for many years and could have a major impact on wildlife populations in the vicinity, particularly on penguins and other seabirds.

This bill bans the carriage in bulk as cargo and the use and carriage as fuel of heavy grade oils on ships travelling in the Antarctic area. The ban will not, however, apply to vessels engaged in securing the safety of ships or saving life at sea. This is a practical and commonsense provision. The bill ensures that Australia adopts the ban on the use and carriage of heavy grade oils in the Antarctic area that was agreed to by the International Maritime Organisation in March 2010, and which came into force on 1 August this year. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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