Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning, I am speaking on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which seeks to amend the Navigation Act 1912 and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 by creating an offence for negligent navigation in a manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment, by creating an offence for failure to report in a mandatory reporting area and by increasing penalties for the reckless or negligent discharge of oil or oil residues by ships.

The lasting impact of damage to our unique marine environment should not be underestimated. While significant environmental incidents are relatively uncommon, the number of reported oil spills in Australian waters has averaged over 250 per year for the past 10 years. That sounds like a very large number, but many of these spills are quite small and go unreported in the media and in other circles. Nonetheless, it demonstrates that there are issues and that we need to ensure that we have appropriate laws and regulations to protect our marine environment.

Oil spills at sea have the potential to cause lasting damage to our marine ecosystems as well as have an ongoing impact on the maritime, fishing and tourism industries. While sometimes the damage is limited to a very small area—and the marine environment, like the rest of our environment, is surprisingly resilient—the reality is that some of this damage can be long lasting and can have a significant impact on particular species, especially at a local level. In Australia's recent history, two specific maritime incidents stand out: the grounding of the Shen Neng 1 and the Pacific Adventurer oil spill.

The changes proposed in this bill implement some of the recommendations from a report conducted by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority in the wake of the Shen Neng 1 incident. The Shen Neng 1 ran aground 38 nautical miles east of Great Keppel Island, causing damage to a three-kilometre stretch of the Great Barrier Reef. The fuel tanks ruptured and four tonnes of fuel oil leaked into the surrounding waters. Thankfully, the vessel was successful salvaged by Svitzer, preventing the spillage of the coal and heavy fuel oil that were on board that vessel.

The Pacific Adventurer oil spill in March 2009 saw more than 270 tonnes of heavy fuel oil leak into the sea over seven nautical miles east of Cape Moreton. The ship lost 31 containers of ammonium nitrate overboard, which caused the leak. The clean-up operation on shore lasted two months, involved 2,500 people and removed 3,000 tonnes of contaminated sand from Moreton Island. Most of the containers have never been recovered, and so there has been lasting damage from that particular incident. As the member for part of the area—and I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were well aware of this as it was also partly in your electorate—I can report that this oil spill caused grave community concern in the tourist areas of the Sunshine Coast that such an incident could occur in the first place and also to some extent about the way in which the clean-up operation was handled by the state authorities. In New Zealand last week the Liberian flagged vessel Rena ran aground on a reef off the North Island in the Bay of Plenty. So far, up to 350 tonnes of heavy fuel oil has leaked into the Bay of Plenty and authorities have been unable to prevent the leak or successfully salvage the vessel due to large swells. Indeed, the last report I saw was that the salvage operators had left the vessel because it was too dangerous to operate and there are now really serious concerns about the potential damage arising from this grounding. The Rena had 1,700 tonnes of heavy fuel oil on board so, should the ship be unable to be salvaged and the weather deteriorate further, the spill could potentially become significantly larger. While the lasting impact will not be known for some time, dead seabirds and fish are already being washed up on local beaches and penguins are being treated in wildlife rescue centres. This is already regarded as New Zealand's worst maritime pollution disaster and highlights the need for vigilance in this area. I am pleased that AMSA has offered its support and expertise in dealing with the disaster across the Tasman. I understand that 30 AMSA officers have been deployed to assist. We wish them well with this important task being undertaken in very difficult circumstances at the present time.

Returning to the measures specifically contained within the bill, the bill implements a number of new proposals. Firstly, proposed subsection 267ZZ(i) requires the master of any ship in Australian waters not to operate the ship in a manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment. Additionally, the bill requires that the master of any ship in Australian waters must ensure the ship is operated in a manner that does not cause pollution or damage to the marine environment. Similarly, in relation to an Australian flagged vessel operating on the high seas it is the responsibility of the master not to operate the ship in a manner that causes pollution or damage to their marine environment—that is proposed subsection 267ZZ(l)—and to ensure that the ship is operated in a manner that does not cause pollution or damage to the marine environment. That is proposed subsection 267ZZ(m).

The bill also creates civil and criminal penalties for contravention of these provisions and procedural requirements through which compliance with the bill may be enforced. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for and a higher civil penalty may apply in the case of serious damage. The high penalties are intended to deter non-compliance and take into account the levels of cost saving that shipping operators may achieve through non-compliance and the perceived likelihood that a breach will be identified and a shipping operator prosecuted. The bill also creates an offence where the master of the ship fails to report in a mandatory reporting area such as the Great Barrier Reef. That is proposed section 269E. A strict liability offence is created, so no intention is necessary for an offence to be committed. This makes it clear that the prosecution does not have to establish that the master knew or was reckless to the fact that the ship was in a mandatory reporting area. This is appropriate, as the defendant, the ship's master, is best placed to provide evidence as to whether the section was contravened.

Nonetheless, as a matter of principle I do have some concerns about the creation of these strict liability offences. In many cases it is difficult for a master or somebody in a position of responsibility to be able to account for all of these issues that he is responsible for at any given time. In particular, I recall debates in the Main Committee and in the main chamber about proposals to introduce strict liability offences for aircraft captains in circumstances where they could not possibly have been expected to be able to take responsibility for what had happened. Fortunately, those proposals were defeated. But this is a different circumstance. This is only in relation to an offence where a vessel is in a mandatory reporting area. Frankly, a vessel that is in a mandatory reporting area like the Great Barrier Reef is usually there for quite some time, and it would seem to be incomprehensible that a master could have any excuse for not knowing that he was there and not undertaking the required mandatory reporting processes. So, while as a matter of principle I have concerns about strict liability offences, it seems to me that, in this instance, it is probably a reasonable way to go.

Finally, the bill increases the penalties in the PPS Act for reckless or negligent discharge of oil or oil residues by ships. Australia, as a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, is required to ensure that the penalties specified under the law are adequate to discourage violations. Presently the PPS Act imposes a maximum penalty of $220,000 for an individual and $1.1 million for a corporation for reckless or negligent discharge or oil or oil residues into the sea. However, this is significantly less than that imposed by state governments, with spills in New South Wales or Queensland having a maximum penalty of up to $10 million for a corporation.

This bill will increase the fine for a corporation from $1.1 million to a maximum of $11 million—a tenfold increase. The amendment will mean that the severity of the penalty will be based on the seriousness of the offence and not the location of the offence. In view of the enormous damage and high cost associated with recovery from an incident, severe and more substantial penalties are clearly justified.

In increasing the penalty, the bill puts the burden on the polluter to pay the clean-up bill. In the wake of the Pacific Adventurer oil spill, the protection of the sea levy was increased by 3c per registered tonne in order to recover the clean-up costs of the spill. This meant that the industry paid for the mistake of a particular shipping company, as their legal liability was inadequate to cover the cost of the clean-up. It should be noted that the owner of the Pacific Adventurer, Swire Shipping, agreed to pay $25 million in compensation, in excess of their legal obligations arising from the oil spill. But this was still below the total clean-up cost, which was estimated to be $31 million.

It is obvious that there are other people operating ships around our coast and indeed around the world who perhaps do not have the same principles of wanting to do the right thing as Swire has. So it is important that there be a significant deterrent in place to prevent inappropriate behaviour and so that masters are aware of their responsibilities and companies make every effort to ensure that their vessels operate in a safe way.

The coalition is happy to support the bill and will continue to support all sensible measures designed to protect our unique marine environment. The ongoing situation in New Zealand shows that, while major incidents in Australia are rare, they can happen and we need to take steps to deter dangerous and reckless actions at sea and to appropriately deal with incidents should they arise.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The maritime industry is obviously very significant to our economy. In fact, well in excess of 95 per cent of Australia's international trade comes to our shores by ships. Our ports manage, as I understand it, in the vicinity of 10 per cent of the entire world's sea trade. We are a large island and it is probably not all that surprising that, as a consequence, the only viable way of accessing and transporting commodities to and from Australia is through shipping. As a result, we need to ensure that legislation that we propose, particularly the bill before us today, the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, does not weaken this industry that is so vital to our economy. The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill brings together a number of initiatives to ensure that fewer risks are taken by the masters of ships in Australian waters. The bill will also ensure protection of our environment and our maritime industries. The bill amends the Navigation Act and the Protection of the Seas Act and will with strict liability require the master of a ship in Australian waters not to operate a ship in a manner that causes pollution or damages the marine environment. It creates criminal and civil penalties for breaches of these requirements. It also creates an offence where the master of a ship fails to report, in accordance with the regulations, an incident, and it increases the level of penalties in the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 for reckless or negligent discharge of oil or oil residues by ships.

Last year the Shen Neng 1 ran aground close to Great Keppel Island, causing damage to the coral reef on the Douglas Shoal. The ship was carrying 950 tonnes of heavy fuel and the Chinese owned vessel was in a restricted part of the reef. I do understand that it is not all that uncommon for vessels to take the shortcut through the reef but on other occasions I understand issues of safety have been paramount in the minds of masters. In this instance I am unaware of what actually caused the master of this vessel to take that shortcut and he found his vessel in restricted waters and in an area which was obviously dangerous, where he struck the reef and caused considerable damage. In fact, the resulting oil spill had potentially catastrophic effects on the marine environment, with a very high economic cost associated with it.

The incident resulted in an Australian Maritime Safety Authority report, Improving safe navigation in the Great Barrier Reef. The report recommended strengthening regulations including toughening penalties for breaches of action at sea, increasing penalties for discharge of oil residue, which would make it consistent with the state legislation as well as Australia's international obligations under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. It also recommended that there be an increase in the penalties associated with such instances, in line with the economic capacity of modern shipping companies.

Other recommendations in the report include extending the coverage of the reef vessels traffic service to a large part of the Great Barrier Reef and developing a whole-of-government management plan to enhance navigation aids in the Great Barrier Reef. In light of the recommendations, the North Reef Lighthouse, north of Gladstone, has already been refurbished with new vessel-tracking equipment. This technology will assist ships in determining not only the best times but also the safest speed for their vessels to move through those waters.

All of these recommendations and the implementation of these new technology aids encompassed in the bill have the very clear aim of deterring shipping companies from participating in unsafe and irresponsible action. Protecting our marine base, particularly the environmentally sensitive ecosystems, and fisheries is at the core of the proposed bill. The bill will ensure that there is a minimum risk of shipping incidents that have far-reaching economic as well as environmental consequences. The Australian coast came very close to experiencing one such catastrophe in 2009, when the Pacific Adventurer lost 31 containers of ammonium nitrate overboard east of Moreton Bay. The damage that the ship caused could easily have been catastrophic. As I understand it, the ship lost 270 tonnes of heavy fuel oil. The incident occurred on the Queensland south-east coast, which is an area of significant tourist interest and economic consequence for the state. We saw on our television screens the efforts taken by the Queensland government to clean up that spill. Somewhere in the vicinity of 2,500 workers drawn from all across Australia were deployed over two months to rectify what was caused by the Pacific Adventurer.

We cannot speak about these issues without recalling what is probably still the world's worst oil spill, the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska some 21 years ago. As I understand it, 11 million tonnes of crude oil was leaked from that ship. It was directly responsible for killing in the vicinity of one-quarter of a million birds and close to 3,000 sea otters as well as another 3,000 seals. It decimated the coastal communities in the Alaska basin. It collapsed the local fishing industry, which struggled to recover. The catastrophic impact of this event is still being felt with many social and psychological effects on the surrounding communities. In other words, these communities did not fully recover. And that was 21 years ago.

At present, our close neighbour, New Zealand, apart from preparing to meet Australia on the rugby field, is cleaning up oil that has been leaking from the ship Rena, which became caught on the Astrolabe reef last Wednesday. It has been leaking oil for some time, and on Monday that oil reached the New Zealand coastline. The ship is carrying 2,000 containers, of which 70 have fallen overboard. An estimated 300 tonnes of oil has already been spilt, and the rate of leakage is apparently increasing. I understand that for our New Zealand colleagues it is a challenging clean-up that will take many, many weeks. The ship's captain has been arrested and charged under New Zealand maritime law.

Although large incidents such as these, with their far-reaching environmental and economic consequences, are relatively rare, the truth is that in Australia smaller scale oil spills are very common. On average, surprisingly, 250 oil spills occur in Australia each year, with our maritime industry and the environment, including the tourism and fishing industries and the broader community, subject to major impacts. Our side of politics has considered the potentially catastrophic impact that oil spills can have on our communities, particularly our maritime environment. It is undoubtedly clear that these simple amendments, which I have already outlined, must be passed to ensure not only the safety of the industry and the fact that the industry is discouraged by law from taking unnecessary risks but also moves to protect our maritime environment. I commend the bill to the House.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a contribution to the debate on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 today. It is all about amendments to the Navigation Act 1912 and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. In short, these amendments set out to achieve three ends: to introduce an offence for negligent navigation in a manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment; to create an offence for failure to report in a mandatory reporting area—for example, the Great Barrier Reef; and to increase penalties for reckless or negligent discharge of oil or oil residue products by ships in Australian waters.

Why do I take an interest in this particular matter? I do so for four reasons. Like my colleague here, the member for Dawson, I am one of the Central Queensland members. To us, especially in ports like Gladstone, Mackay, Abbott Point and so on, navigation is a very important part of our lives and our economies. So, as a Central Queenslander, having represented Gladstone for 14 years, also now representing the entire water mass of Hervey Bay, a pristine environment, and having previously represented the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef, these matters are important to me. That is the first reason.

The second reason is that I was associated with some of the dramas around the Shen Neng 1 when it went aground back in April 2010.

The third reason is that I am one of the angels who stands before the throne of God on your committee, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications. That committee has had many manifestations over the 18½ years I have been here, but largely it is the transport committee of the parliament. It has a proud record of intervening in matters of navigation. My mentor on that committee when I first came into the parliament was the Hon. Peter Morris, a former minister and a very distinguished chairman of that committee, whose reports on maritime matters are part of the international lexicon on matters of the sea. So that is a third reason.

A fourth reason is that I have a big fishing industry in my electorate, based on Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. There are 30, 32 or 33 trawlers in each centre, and of course there are the associated fishing industries of Tin Can Bay to the south and Gladstone to the north, which intertwine in that area. Anything that affects one of those shipping or trawling environments affects all four fishing industries.

In New Zealand last week, the Liberian flagged Rena ran aground on a reef off the North Island in the Bay of Plenty, a beautiful area of New Zealand. So far, 350 tonnes of heavy fuel oil have leaked into the Bay of Plenty, and authorities have been unable to successfully prevent the leak because of the inability to salvage the vessel due to large swells. The Rena had 1,700 tonnes of heavy fuel oil on board. So should the ship be unable to be salvaged and should the weather deteriorate further, a major spill of significant proportions could occur. While the lasting impact and total clean-up costs will not be known for some time, dead seabirds and fish are already being washed up on local beaches and penguins are being treated in wildlife rescue centres. It is New Zealand's worst maritime pollution disaster and highlights the need for vigilance in this area.

By way of an aside, I congratulate the minister for making 30 AMSA officers available to the New Zealanders. I think that is international cooperation of the best sort. It is yet another reflection of the sort of work that we did with the New Zealanders during the Canterbury earthquake. Having said that, I note that while this is not in Australian waters it illustrates the sort of danger that can occur. I was associated with the Shen Neng 1, not that it actually went aground anywhere near my electorate as it was 38 nautical miles east of Great Keppel Island. As the member for Fowler said, it was taking a shortcut through the southern Great Barrier Reef. What was interesting about that was that fortunately it was able to be refloated and fortunately it lost only about four tonnes of fuel oil, which created a two-nautical-mile slick. In terms of the potential spillage that could have occurred, we were fairly lucky. It became a worry to me when the vessel was shifted into the main area of Hervey Bay to do the transfer—and this is also illustrated at present by what is going on in New Zealand. If you are going to transfer fuel oil from one vessel to another, you need somewhere fairly quiet. So they took it into Hervey Bay, and I must say I was absolutely nervous because a spill in the bay would have been disastrous. I remember flying over the vessel while that was going on. I could see the delicacy of the operation. Anyway, thank heavens it was done successfully. But we should not have been put in that position by the Shen Neng 1and its crew and its parent company. Australia should not have been put at risk.

I also had a bit to do with the Pacific Adventurer. It lost 31 containers of ammonium nitrate about seven nautical miles off Cape Moreton. As if losing ammonium nitrate was not bad enough, the containers damaged the vessel and it lost a lot more oil—270 tonnes of it. You would all remember the photos of the oil being washed up on Moreton Island, on Bribie Island and on the beaches of the Sunshine Coast. I remember one particularly ugly photo—and I was critical of this because I did not think we got the booms out quickly enough—of fuel oil going up pristine creeks on the Sunshine Coast. Once oil gets up those creeks it takes years to get the stuff out again. As other speakers have said, the clean-up was quite massive. There were 2½ thousand people, including a lot of volunteers, and they had to remove 3,000 tonnes of contaminated sand.

As the shadow minister has said, we have 250 spills on average a year. Most of them, thank heavens, are minor. But I think the things we have talked about today—these three vessels plus these minor spills—illustrate the fragility of the marine environment.

This bill implements a number of measures. It requires the master of a ship in Australian waters not to operate the ship in a manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment. It requires the master of any ship in Australian waters to ensure the ship is operated in a manner that does not cause pollution or damage to the marine environment. It requires the master of an Australian ship anywhere on the high seas not to operate a ship in a manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment. It requires the master of an Australian ship anywhere on the high seas to ensure that the ship is operated in a manner that does not cause pollution or damage to the marine environment. It creates criminal and civil penalties for contraventions of these requirements. It significantly increases the penalty, in the case of a corporation, for example, from $1.1 million to $11 million. That is quite significant.

With respect to the cowboys who operate on the high seas, I congratulate the current Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and predecessors from both sides of politics. We have tried to keep the cowboys out of Australian waters, although not always successfully. I think we need to send out a signal with this legislation to these people that we do not want that sort of thing to happen in Australian waters.

The coalition supports this legislation. As I said, because of the fishing industry and the work that this parliament has done through your committee, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, and its predecessors, because of the pristine nature of Hervey Bay and the southern Barrier Reef, with which I am associated, and because of our experience with the Pacific Adventurer and Shen Neng 1 , we have good reason to be careful and we have good reason to take these sorts of matters seriously. I personally and my colleagues in the coalition support these measures.

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

I rise to sum up the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I particularly thank the member for Hinkler, whose contribution to this debate I have had the opportunity of hearing. He is someone who takes maritime issues very seriously. As the Deputy Chair of both the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communication and the former House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, he played an important role in delivering a unanimous report on coastal shipping, which I have used to announce a revitalisation of Australian shipping in terms of policy development.

Quite clearly, the overall framework where we have gone from 55 Australian flag vessels, in 1996, to 22 today is unacceptable. It will reach a tipping point. To revitalise Australian shipping we need to have a comprehensive plan across the sector that deals with taxation issues, competition issues and workforce issues, including training and skills. I believe in the government's shipping policy announcements, and we have done just that.

Certainly the role that that committee played in the former parliament was important and certainly the member for Hinkler's approach to issues has also been one of cooperation when specific issues have occurred in his electorate. I was pleased to have the opportunity to listen to his contribution to the debate on this important legislation that is receiving support from across the parliament. I would encourage him to talk with his colleagues to ensure that the shipping policy legislation, which will be coming before the parliament later this year, also receives support from across the parliament. It is clearly in Australia's national interest to deal with these issues. One of the issues that is common to both the incidents off the Australian coast and the current incident off the New Zealand coast is that the vessels have not had Australian or New Zealand flags on them. We need to acknowledge that there are real issues here. Those people who argue the flat earth position that it does not matter whether you have a domestic shipping industry in countries which are island continents such as Australia and New Zealand make, I think, a very grave error indeed. On 3 April 2010 the grounding of the Shen Neng 1 just east of Great Keppel Island was a disaster but one that could have been a lot worse in terms of its consequences. The impact caused the ship's fuel tanks to rupture and release approximately four tonnes of fuel oil into surrounding waters. I visited the site with AMSA. We flew over on a Dornier aircraft and saw from the air the channel where the ship should have been travelling. It is beyond comprehension that such an incident could occur.

The potential cost of such an incident to the Australian economy in terms of damage to the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef could go into the many hundreds of millions of dollars. So the economic consequence of complacency when it comes to these issues is, I think, one that the parliament should resist. A year earlier, on 11 March 2009, a Hong Kong, China registered general cargo ship, the Pacific Adventurer, lost 31 containers overboard. The fallen containers caused damage to the ship, resulting in the loss of more than 270 tonnes of heavy fuel oil.

One week ago, the fully laden container ship, Rena, ran aground at speed onto a charted reef off New Zealand's North Island. I spoke to the New Zealand transport minister, Steven Joyce, yesterday. There is a very good relationship between the Australian government and the New Zealand government. The member for Hinkler is right to point out that our people, through the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, are regarded as the world's best. We have senior officials in New Zealand right now. My colleague Minister Joyce and Prime Minister Key have thanked Australia directly for the contribution we are making. We do have expertise in containing oil spills—although, unfortunately, it has been learnt in part through the incidents surrounding the Pacific Adventurer and the Shen Neng 1and we have acted in a way that has built on that experience, which our New Zealand colleagues are benefiting from.

This oil spill, however, will be New Zealand's most significant maritime environmental disaster ever. The Rena has been leaking oil and, overnight, 70 containers have been lost overboard, resulting in the rerouting of shipping in the area. This is very serious indeed. All of these incidents highlight the potential significant impacts on Australia's coastline and coastal waters as a result of pollution from ships and other ocean-going vessels.

I spoke about the direct costs of hundreds of millions of dollars that could have resulted from an incident such as the Shen Neng 1 if it had not been contained. But the cost of such an incident to the Australian economy could be literally in the billions if it were to disrupt or stop industry in ports which are important to the economy, particularly ports on the Queensland coast such as Gladstone and also those on the coastal regions of the west. So we need to be vigilant about this. Our industry and exports are important, but people will not support activity if it is seen to be threatening the natural environment, such as the Great Barrier Reef. So the consequences of this are very serious indeed. We know that large incidents are relatively rare; however, the number of reported oil spills in Australian waters has averaged over 250 per year over the last 10 years. The potential impacts of these spills on the maritime industry, the environment and the tourism and fishing industries are significant. There is a widely held view that the Commonwealth penalties are too low to discourage violations, and that is why we are acting. Currently, Commonwealth penalties for incidents are inconsequential when you take into account the economic capacity of modern shipping companies. This bill will amend Commonwealth legislation to ensure that our regulatory regime is strong enough to provide sufficient deterrent to shipping companies and their crews from engaging in unsafe and irresponsible actions at sea, particularly near environmentally sensitive marine ecosystems. The purpose of these legislative changes is to require the master of any ship in Australian waters not to operate or allow the operation of the ship in a manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment; to require the master of an Australian ship anywhere on the high seas not to operate or allow the operation of a ship in a manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment; to create criminal and civil penalties for contraventions of these requirements; to create an offence where the master of a ship fails to report in accordance with the regulations—for example, in relation to an incident in a mandatory reporting area such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; and to increase the level of penalties in the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 for reckless or negligent discharge of oil or oil residues by ships. And the bill will increase the penalties by 10 times. This is a significant increase but one that is entirely justifiable and indeed necessary.

Australia is a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as the MARPOL convention. This convention places an obligation on all parties to ensure that the penalties prescribed under domestic legislation are adequate in severity to discourage violations and are also 'equally severe irrespective of where violations occur'. The high penalties are intended to be appropriate to discourage noncompliance and take into consideration the levels of cost saving that shipping operators may achieve through noncompliance and any perceived likelihood of non-compliant ships being identified and prosecuted. I thank all members who participated in the debate, and I thank the House for the support of this important legislation, which I commend to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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