Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the only member of parliament currently to have held a master mariner's commercial licence and as a former adventure tourism operator in the diving and fishing industry, I have spent a lot of time on our waterways. Therefore it is with good reason that I support the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011.

Our minds are cast back to mid-January when the world witnessed again that unfortunate things can and do go wrong in the cruise industry. Holiday-makers from Australia, France, Italy, Germany and Britain were forced to flee the 1,500-cabin Costa Concordia in lifeboats when it hit a reef less than two hours after leaving port. Media reports say that some leapt overboard and swam ashore as the brightly lit ship started to sink into the black waters near the islands of Giglio off the Tuscan coast. Italian media reported that a number of people died aboard the luxury liner and others may have been injured as the coastguard struggled to rescue the few remaining passengers. Pregnant women and children were among the 3,200 passengers and the 1,000 crew who made it to safety. The climate and proximity to land were two fortunate aspects of that disaster. Other naval tourism disasters in colder climates, such as the Titanic, hold much graver lessons about the importance of preparedness.

There is no doubt that the Antarctic holds a special place in the hearts of Australians and in the imagination of tourists to the region. Changes outlined in this bill are to improve environmental and safety standards, and that will benefit tourism. Clearly tourists that take the Orion Expedition Cruises, OEC, journey to the Antarctic would want to be certain that they could be rescued if need be and that the environment is being protected for future generations. That is certainly the approach of this tourism operator. As the website rightly states, OEC is the only Australian owned international cruise operator, launched in 2004, that is becoming the leading expedition cruise operator in the Asia-Pacific. Introduction of the Orion II in June 2011 doubles their capacity and doubles their opportunity to introduce their guests to new and in many cases unique experiences and amazing destinations while enjoying the comfort and safety of their 100-guest ship and five-star on-board service.

I had the pleasure of inspecting the Orion vessel in Brisbane last year at the invitation of their CEO, Sarina Braddon. I was pleased also to accept the submission from Orion to the coalition's Industries for Australia's Future tourism review. It is certainly true that the experience of the sector in recent years bucks the trend of tourism's performance under this Labor government, with the sector recording strong growth. Nonetheless, there are several Labor policies hampering Orion's growth which I will expand on at another time in this House. Orion ventures into locations where larger ships cannot gain access, nor could they bring their guests ashore. During the peak of the Southern Hemisphere summer, Orion offers travellers a unique opportunity to venture to the continent of Antarctica. Orion sails from Australia and New Zealand, crossing the Antarctic Circle and places brimming with history and adventure.

This Friday, I will be launching a digital marketing campaign to promote Australian tourism to coincide with the national tourism award in Cairns. This promotion highlights the attractions that nature holds for tourists. For example, how they can interact with fairy penguins or colonies of sea lions at some of Australia's most southern regions. Nature is a significant drawcard for tourists and it underscores the importance of responsible tourism practices to protect these natural resources for the sake of our long-term tourism potential. Certainly, tourists taking an Orion trip to the Subantarctic islands can see firsthand penguin breeding colonies, numbering in the millions, as well as elephant seals, Hooker's sea lions and the endangered wandering albatross—not forgetting, of course, the whales that migrate from Antarctica through Port Stephens in my home electorate.

Thanks to OEC, the wonders of the Antarctic are now accessible to tourists and not limited to wealthy expedition record seekers or government scientists. Over the next year, OEC will operate two such trips. From 20 December to 7 January they will take tourists to their Mawson's Antarctica Commonwealth Bay cruise. I would recommend to anyone who has been captivated by David Attenborough documentaries to visit Orion's website and see what is on offer. As it states:

For many, the highlight of the voyage is the visit to Cape Denison, the sight of Sir Douglas Mawson's hut from the historic 1911-1913 addition; a time capsule from a great era of exploration. This is one of the most exclusive places on earth—more people have stood at the top of Mt Everest than have stood inside this historic hut.

The voyage also takes passengers to Port Martin, the site of 100 grounded icebergs, allowing OEC's guests to get up close and view these amazing sites; and Dumont d'Urville, the French base renowned for its rich local wildlife, including colonies of Adelie and emperor penguins.

OEC's second cruise to the region takes in Scott and Shackleton's Antarctica—Ross Sea, and will operate from 25 January 2013.

This voyage covers some of the polar regions famously charted during the first race to the South Pole by pioneering explorers Scott and Shackleton exactly 100 years ago. The Ross Sea coast extends from the iceshelf northwards until it reaches the very tip of Victoria Land and Cape Adare. During their time in the Ross Sea region Orion will attempt a variety of opportunistic landings, subject to weather conditions.

Although Orion's itinerary to the extreme sub-Antarctic and Antarctic regions is based on many years of collective experience, prevailing weather and ice conditions in this area of the world are unpredictable, mother nature dictates their course. These are not cruises they are truly expeditions to what can be the most inhospitable region on earth, and tourists should bring with them a spirit of adventure and flexibility.

As a tourist operator that brings passengers to dangerous and breathtaking locations, it's hardly surprising that Orion endorses this bill.

OEC has reviewed this bill and there is nothing of particular concern or out of alignment with New Zealand's policies. This is mainly some of the final rubber-stamping of issues discussed at length over the years. There are no surprises for OEC and, in fact, all parts of this legislation are currently used by Orion in assessing their permits to operate now, even though they are not yet truly Australian law.

This bill amends a number of sections. Firstly, it amends the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980, the ATEP Act, a Commonwealth act that provides rules for protecting the Antarctic environment. The bill amends Australia's international obligations under three measures adopted under article XIV of the Antarctic Treaty 1961 and article 9 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 1998. Three primary measures adopted under the treaty and Madrid protocol are being implemented through this bill: Measure 4 (2004), Insurance and contingency planning for tourism and non government activities in the Antarctic Treaty area; Measure 1 (2005), Annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty: liability arising from environment emergencies; and Measure 15 (2009), Landing of persons from passenger vessels in Antarctic Treaty area. Measure 4 (2004) outlines procedures for non-state operators, such as tourism operators—and that is the point I am alluding to today—to ensure that they are prepared for the inherent dangers of carrying on activities in the Antarctic region and that their activities are carried on in a safe and self-sufficient manner. The measures require the preparation of contingency plans and adequate insurance.

This is perhaps one of the last true frontiers in the world, and it is in a pristine environmental state. Having these measures in place puts the onus on tourism operators, as it says in the bill, to make sure that they have contingency plans in place and that they leave the place as good as they found it. But it is also good that we are having tourists visit the area. This not only brings great economic benefit to our country but also opens up a greater understanding of the environment down there. It is no longer just this white wonderland to the south of Australia. People will be able to explore and enjoy it and make sure that they benefit from the experience. Through knowledge and understanding we can increase the effort applied to make sure that we preserve it for generations to come. This bill, in great part, goes a great way towards that. I am particularly impressed by one of the proposed sections, which establishes the Antarctic environmental liability special account to receive payments from operators for the costs of response actions to an environmental emergency caused by their activities in the Antarctic. There is also the issue of penalties that will be applied if any operator should create a breach of the act or indeed an environmental disaster.

We cannot just open up these areas to tourism willy-nilly. It must be appropriately controlled and properly measured. We are doing this as part of an international agreement, and Australia will honour that agreement. Indeed, the tourism operator's licence to operate from Australia will uphold those. I wish passengers a safe and valuable experience and I commend this bill to the House.

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

I would like to reinforce the views expressed by the member for Flinders in the chamber earlier and just now by the member for Paterson on what a special and pristine place the Antarctic is. It has a special place in our hearts and our imaginations and it is an evocative place. I too support tourism to the Antarctic, but I want to ensure that that tourism has the softest footprint possible, because I want future generations—my godchildren, nieces and nephews—to be able to enjoy what is offered in the Antarctic through its beauty and also through our endeavours to discover more about the planet through the work that scientists are doing down there in the Antarctic. It is a very special place. It is special because of its beauty but also because of its pristine nature, which makes it a very important research area. It has not been untouched and, as I said, I want the softest of footprints on the Antarctic when it comes to tourism.

I believe it is fitting that we are discussing the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011 in this, the 100th anniversary year of the Australian expeditions to Antarctica. The first Australian-led Antarctic expedition set out on 2 December 1911, leaving Hobart bound for Macquarie Island and East Antarctica. The scientific expedition was, of course, led by Douglas Mawson, later Sir Douglas, and was pivotal in establishing Australia's claim to Antarctic territory. The expedition and those that followed were also celebrated for their contribution to science, which is what this bill also focuses on.

Australia is among seven nations that have claimed territory in Antarctica; the other nations are Argentina, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. Yet the Australian Antarctic Territory is the largest territorial claim on the continent and covers much of East Antarctica. Later in the speech I will come to discuss some of the discoveries about the quality of that land that I learnt about when I was down with the Antarctic Division. It is our presence in Antarctica that has established Australia's reputation as a leader in science and environmental protection on the continent. I am proud that today's modern Australian Antarctica program continues to build on the important scientific work begun by Mawson and his contemporaries 100 years ago.

As Antarctica grows in national and global importance the Australian Antarctic Division in Hobart, which I have had the opportunity to visit, is conducting important research in the Southern Ocean, Antarctica and the subantarctic, addressing critical issues such as climate change, the human footprint on Antarctica and the increasing demands for food, energy and security caused by human population growth. The diverse research program covers physical and life sciences in the atmospheric, terrestrial and marine domains as well as human biology and medical research. When I visited the division in Tasmania last year as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I had the opportunity to speak to scientists at the division and from the University of Tasmania. These scientists—they are incredibly passionate about their work—told me about their research into the krill of the Antarctic waters, which I understand has attracted international attention and acclaim.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Krill!

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

Indeed! Krill have often been called the key animals of the Antarctic region. They are the world's most abundant crustacean and they form the stable diet of many animals, including seals, whales, fish, squid, penguins and other sea birds, and are therefore the foundation of the Antarctic food chain. How much krill is in the Southern Ocean and how the population fluctuates are therefore major questions to address when considering the protection of the Antarctic environment, particularly since krill have been fished commercially for around 25 years. In studies onboard the Aurora Australis and at the Antarctic Division's unique cold water krill research aquarium, scientists are examining aspects of the biology of krill that will contribute to the sustainable management of the krill resource. The combination of survey work, experimental research and theoretical analysis provides a comprehensive and world-leading—and it is world-leading—approach to the study of these fascinating little creatures and is an important contribution to the goal of protecting the Antarctic environment.

When I was down there we had a look at the tanks that these krill are being kept in. The scientists are looking at not just their role in the food chain but also the impact that warming of the oceans is having on the quality of the protein that is in the krill, because less protein means less food value for animals, the sea creatures, the mammals that these little creatures feed. Therefore it is incredibly important to get a really good understanding of a range of elements around the krill population.

A goal that former Prime Minister Bob Hawke set out to achieve 20 years ago was to protect the Antarctic environment. He played a leading role in establishing a ban on mining in Antarctica to protect the continent from exploitation. All I can say is hallelujah! that he did that, because it is so, so important that Antarctica is protected from exploitation. Going back to my earlier comments about the quality of the land: Australia may claim a lot of land in Antarctica, but I understand that the actual quality of the land, particularly in terms of minerals is pretty ordinary. You would have to dig very deeply, pretty hard and for a very long time to get some quality out of it. Not that we are talking about mining. I do not advocate mining, but I am saying that in the event that we get to a Mad Max environment—we do not know what is going to be happening in 300 years—it would cost an absolute fortune to get the minerals out of the ground in the Australian space in Antarctica. Let us not even think about it, but it would take a lot of effort too, so let us just ban it. I am with you.

This is what we seek to build on with this bill today. We must ensure that the Antarctic environment is protected so we can continue to advance our scientific research on the continent and its surrounding waters without threat from vested interests. This bill will go a long way to helping us protect the unique Antarctic environment and allow us to continue to advance those scientific interests. It will also allow scientists to get on with their work by giving them freedom of scientific research.

The Gillard government is a strong supporter of the sciences and understands the impact climate change is having on every aspect of our environment. I am sure I am going to get letters from the member for Tangney on this one. My trip to the Antarctic Division was an eye opener, seeing the impact of carbon pollution human population on Antarctica and the impact that both population and pollution is having on some of our more fragile land and marine environments. Anything that ensures that we better protect our environment and that helps our scientists get on with their work deserves our full support. This legislation is also important because it is consistent with Australia's strong support for the Antarctic treaty and for the overall protection of Antarctica. The treaty governs all activities in Antarctica and is a unique agreement between nations. As one of the original 12 parties to the treaty, which entered into force in 1961, we have a certain responsibility to ensure it continues to be a robust and effective agreement.

Antarctica is often referred to as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science and this is the way it should remain. The treaty helps us achieve that aim and we seek to strengthen it with this bill. Through the treaty, the countries that are active in Antarctica consult on the uses of the whole continent with the commitment that it should not become the scene or object of international discord. The treaty now has 48 signatories and continues to grow as more nations come to understand the importance of this wonderful place. It has also been recognised as one of the most successful international agreements in the world. Problematic differences over territorial claims have been effectively set aside and the treaty's parties remain firmly committed to a system that is still effective in protecting their essential Antarctic interests. Even though the treaty is widely successful, we must not become complacent. We must continue to do all we can to ensure science on the continent can continue and that Australia continues to meet its international obligations.

This bill implements Australia's obligations arising from three measures adopted under article 9 of the Antarctic Treaty and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, also known as the Madrid protocol. It contains amendments to the 1980 treaty that will: amend the long title of the act; provide the ability for the minister to grant a safety approval, an environmental approval, and to impose conditions on such approvals; implement new offences and civil penalties regarding unapproved activities carried on in contravention of the conditions imposed by an approval, and offences and civil penalties related to environmental emergencies; establish a liability regime for environmental emergencies; establish an Antarctic Environment Liability Special Account to receive payments from operators for the costs of response action to an environmental emergency; implement new offences and civil penalties applicable to tourist vessels operating in the Antarctic; and make minor and technical amendments to the act. This legislation also commits parties to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and its dependent and associated ecosystems and designates Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science.

The three measures adopted under the treaty and Madrid protocol that are being implemented through this bill relate to measure 4, which is about insurance and contingency planning for tourism and non-governmental activities in the treaty area. This measure was adopted in Cape Town in 2004 and outlines procedures for non-state operators, such as tourism operators, to ensure that, due to the inherent dangers of carrying on activities in the Antarctic region, their activities are carried out in a safe and self-sufficient manner. The member for Patterson touched on that in his speech. This measure requires the preparation of contingency plans and adequate insurance.

Measure 1 addresses liability arising from environmental emergencies. This measure was adopted in Stockholm in 2005. In this context an environmental emergency is an accidental event that has occurred and that results or imminently threatens to result in any significant and harmful impact on the Antarctic environment—for example, the loss of the Bahia Paraiso and resulting fuel spill in 1989, where the approximate cost of incident response was US$2.5 million. This measure will now require operators to undertake reasonable preventative measures, to establish contingency plans for response to environmental incidents, to take prompt and effective response action to any environmental emergency and to maintain adequate insurance—that is really critical—or other financial security to cover the cost of response action taken by other parties. That measure is very welcome. Measure 15 is the landing of persons from passenger vehicles in the Antarctic Treaty area. This measure relates to vessel borne tourism operations in the Antarctic, which have expanded markedly over the last two decades, as the member for Paterson has mentioned. It does worry me a little bit and, as I said, I want the softest of soft footprints on the Antarctic. Australians constitute a large proportion of consumers within the tourism markets down there, representing about 9 per cent of Antarctic tourists. There are currently no obligatory Australian government laws specifically governing the environmental or safety aspects of landing from passenger vehicles but this measure will fix this, thankfully. It will ensure that operators refrain from making any landings in Antarctica from vessels carrying more than 500 passengers. I think that is fair enough. It will also ensure they coordinate with each other so that no more than one tourist vessel is landing at a site at any one time and it will restrict the number of passengers onshore at any one time.

Not to implement any of these measures would perpetuate unacceptable risk to the Antarctic environment. I understand that 10 consultative parties have approved these measures. The success of these measures depends on approval of all 28 parties to the treaty. While it may take some years, we are taking the steps and we are well prepared. The Gillard government is not afraid to act if it means protecting the environment. We are very keen to take action to again prove our environmental credentials. The Antarctic environment is incredibly important. We must protect it and ensure that the human footprint is softest of soft. I have always been a big supporter of tourism in Australia but the increase in tourism to Antarctica in recent years does worry me. This bill will ensure that that has the softest of soft footprints.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011, which will codify into Australian law the multilateral agreements that our country has made regarding the further measures adopted under the Antarctic Treaty of 1961 and the Madrid protocol of 1998. These measures have an important global significance and have been negotiated under the Madrid protocol and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals to ensure that the Antarctic region is protected. It will provide the minister with the ability to grant safety approval and environmental approval for people operating in the Antarctic. This will ensure that tourism operators undertake their activities in an appropriate and sustainable way to protect the environment. The ability to 'impose, vary or revoke' conditions is also important for non-state tourism operators who are not complying with the original conditions under which they applied to visit Antarctic waters.

As it stands, the amendments contained in the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Bill are uncontroversial and the passing of this legislation is a measure the government must enact to ensure that we ratify international agreements and fulfil our international obligations. Australia has always been an important negotiator and indeed a leader in protecting and safeguarding this region. As such, the coalition is pleased to support measures which ensure better control and coordination of Australia's Antarctic waters. Most importantly, section 2 of this bill deals with the implementation of the treaty and outlines when the various provisions of the act will come into effect. The commencement of some of the provisions will be delayed until all 28 consultative parties to the treaty have improved their measures. In real terms, what this means is that many of the measures itemised will not be activated until the relevant minister proclaims the date when they do come into force. This is a reasonable arrangement and indeed one that provides a useful lesson for this government—that is, when one is seeking to introduce reforms which have implications for how we deal with other countries, in this case 28 of them, we must take the time to actually talk with the governments of those countries. We must take the time to work with the governments of those countries and come to an agreed position and arrangement with the governments of those countries before implementing the changes in Australia. Unfortunately, if we look at the Prime Minister's great big carbon tax, it is clear that this Labor government did not adopt that same consultative approach in relation to its implementation by any stretch of the imagination. Speaking of imagination, instead the Gillard government has tried to fool the Australian people—and, frankly, delude themselves—by claiming that developed countries such as the United States of America will have enacted a tax on carbon dioxide emissions by 2016. Forging ahead with a debilitating tax on the assumption that your world partners are right behind you would seem foolhardy at best.

It is indeed the case with this particular international treaty that it is in the best interests of all the consultative countries that we enforce the legislation that we are debating today in its entirety before proceeding. This is the only way we can be assured that all those countries will work together to protect the Antarctic region. According to our own government's advice, it is also in Australia's best interest that as a nation we wait to enact legislation if and only if it is the appropriate time to do so in conjunction with our partner countries.

The other relevant issue I wish to comment on in connection with this bill is that of the dispute in recent years regarding whaling in Australia's Antarctic waters. This country has suffered under tired and lazy Labor governments who have not supported other fundamental measures which would protect Australia's Antarctic waters and the whales which live in them. On 19 February 2010 the member for Griffith, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, told Australians that he would refer Japan to the International Court of Justice for their whaling activities. He specifically declared that he would take Japan to court by November of that year, 2010, if they refused to cease Antarctic whaling. However, the member for Griffith was himself harpooned by our current Prime Minister.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tony Abbott only won by one vote.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, it will not surprise you or the rest of Australia to hear that when November 2010 came around Japanese research vessels were continuing their operations in Australian waters and no real action was taken—

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Ryan willing to give way?

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I would like to continue with my speech.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In other words, you will not admit that Mr Abbott will not do the same.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listen to the speech. I will repeat this because of the interruption. However, the member for Griffith was himself—

Mr Danby interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The matter has been dealt with.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member is talking about leadership of the Labor Party and ex-prime ministers. We are dealing with a treaty dealing with the Antarctic. This is an important matter. The member should come back to the bill before the chamber.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The chair wishes to give the member for Ryan an opportunity to continue her speech.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should point out that the previous speaker spoke at length about krill, which is not mentioned anywhere in this bill at all.

I will repeat: it will not surprise you or the rest of Australia to hear that when November 2010 came around, Japanese research vessels were continuing their operations in Australian waters and no real action was taken and no real action has been taken since. Although Japan does not recognise Australia's claim to approximately 42 per cent of Antarctica, this government must get serious about protecting the sovereignty of our nation's borders and enforce our law via the Australian Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act 1933. The coalition warned the Gillard Labor government on three occasions that they should have sent an Australian Customs vessel to our waters in the Antarctic to monitor the situation between Japanese whalers and protesters on the Sea Shepherd. Once again, the government failed to listen to good advice. Then, after three anti-whaling protesters illegally boarded a Japanese ship, the government—or, should I say, the Australian taxpayer—was forced to pay the hefty bill to have them returned.

Australia needs to have a presence in these waters to ensure that the Japanese whaling fleet is reminded that we as a country do not approve of whaling in the Antarctic region and in order to monitor protesters who are putting lives at risk and potentially endangering the environment. Without this presence, the government is allowing the risk of further confrontations and the possibility of a serious collision between protestor and whaling boats which will risk lives and, should one of these vessels sink, endanger the environment.

This is the lesson that applies to the measures in today's bill. There is no point in signing treaties that implement changes of this kind if we do not have a practical way of enforcing them. For example, we have no real binding agreement regarding the question of possible mineral, oil and gas exploration and mining in the region. In the late 1980s, there was an attempt to come to such agreement, however the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities never came into force. In the original Madrid protocol, which Australia signed and ratified, consultative parties are completely prohibited from undertaking mining exploration. Australia itself has agreed to a 50-year moratorium.

We are facing similar concerns about Australia's ongoing challenge to manage whaling fleets in the region. We will in the future have to deal with some very serious issues about Antarctica, including the question of mining and mineral exploration in addition to questions about sovereignty. It is very important that all other stakeholder countries, including Russia, Argentina, Chile and the United States, understand that Australia is serious in its commitment to this region. This legislation provides that extra guarantee and signals to the rest of the world that Australia is committed to its obligations to care for this environment with which we have been so closely linked so long.

With this bill we fulfil our international obligations and ensure that the minister has the power not only to grant safety approvals and environmental protection approvals but also to impose conditions on those approvals. This will lay a proper foundation for the protection of humans and vessels travelling to this region and thereby facilitate the protection of the Antarctic environment itself. As such, I support this amendment bill in this the year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first Australasian Antarctic expedition, led by Sir Douglas Mawson, and commend it to the House.

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

The Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill is an important bill. The bill amends the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 to align the legislation with Australia's revised obligations pursuant to three measures under the Antarctic Treaty and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, the Madrid protocol. The first of those measures is Measure 4 (2004) which relates to insurance and contingency planning for tourism, because there is a lot of tourism now going on in that part of the world, not so much on the Australian coastal areas but certainly on the South American side. The Insurance and contingency planning for tourism and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty area was adopted at the 27th Antarctic Treaty consultation meeting in Cape Town on 4 June 2004. Measure 1 (2005), annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty: liability arising from environmental emergencies, was adopted at the 27th ATCM in Stockholm, on 17 June 2005. Measure 15 (2009), Landing of persons from passenger vessels in the Antarctic Treaty area, was adopted at the 32nd ATCM in Baltimore, on 17 April 2009.

The approval of all 28 consultative parties to the treaty, including Australia of course, will be required before each measure comes into force. Everybody has to basically agree to it. That is how the treaty is set up. It may be some years before this occurs. Currently, 10 consultative parties have approved Measure 4 (2004). Five have approved Measure 1 (2005) and only one has approved Measure 15 (2009). So I think it will be a long process.

The Antarctic Treaty is a multilateral agreement that requires the parties to ensure that Antarctica is used exclusively for peaceful purposes. It guarantees freedom of scientific research all over Australia's claim, which is a very large part of Antarctica. Many bases of other sovereign nations are doing research. A lot of collaboration goes on between all those nations that have bases down there in Antarctica. It is a wonderful thing for peaceful and scientific purposes.

The agreement requires the parties to also promote international scientific cooperation, which certainly occurs. It allows for inspection of facilities between the parties and I think that goes on quite regularly. I was talking to some scientists a short time ago in the base in Kingston, Tasmania, where they have been doing that. The agreement sets aside the question of territorial sovereignty in Antarctica and provides for regular meetings of the parties, which occur in different parts of the world, mostly in, I think, the Southern Hemisphere.

Climate change and the science of climate change in the Southern Ocean is a significant factor. Only tonight, in talking to the University of Tasmania, to the top governing body of that institution, here in Parliament House with Tasmanian MPs of all sides, it was mentioned they had just put on a new professor, dealing with the acidisation of the Southern Ocean. He is one of three top scientists in the world dealing with that significant matter. He will come to the University of Tasmania—UTAS, as it is known in Tasmania—and work with CSIRO and the Antarctic Division's collaborate area at the University of Tasmania.

That is generating an enormous amount of world interest. When somebody of that calibre is brought to Tasmania to do that research—and he, along with many other people, will most probably be taking trips to Antarctica to do that sort of research—it is critical that that information gets out there in the world of science so that people can use it to better the world and also to counter climate change.

Article IX of the treaty states, 'Measures for the governance of Antarctica may be adopted by the representatives of consultative parties at the annual ATCM for recommending to their governments.' The Madrid Protocol is a multilateral agreement under the treaty. It commits parties to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and its dependent and associated ecosystems, bans mining in Antarctica and designates Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. Under Article 9 of the Madrid Protocol additional annexes to the protocol may be adopted and become effective in accordance with Article IX of the treaty.

This legislation is consistent with Australia's strong support for the Antarctic treaty and for the protection of Antarctica. Australia has been in the forefront of this and certainly does its work—a lot of people do a lot of work to make all that come together at world conferences. And you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the former Prime Minister Bob Hawke led the campaign 20 years ago for banning mining in Antarctica and to protect the continent from exploitation. That, of course, is still the case with this treaty. I think that over the next five or 10 years this treaty will need to be renegotiated with all the parties. One would hope that can only be built on into the future. We are dealing here with bringing out commitment to pulling together some protocols for the pointy end in the amount of tourism that is going on down in Antarctica.

Of course there have been some disasters with ships sinking in that part of the world. I understand that only because it was a very calm day for the open boats that everyone had to abandon ship into—a ship of some great size—and that another ship was in very close proximity that no lives were lost, as that ship went to the bottom of the Antarctic waters. So, there are a lot of issues there.

The other issue that has come up in my work on the external territories committee is the issue of private yachts visiting Antarctica. They do not know if they have any obligations to a sovereign government or not, and therefore if they have some responsibility to the treaty—responsibilities when visiting Antarctica to protect it and not to harm it in any way.

Those are the important points. I would like to also mention the importance of the Antarctic base in Tasmania. There are the scientific gains we make from having such a large body of people coming and working in Kingston and also the wharfage in Hobart, where supplies are put together and loaded onto the ships.

I would also like to mention an old friend of mine, John Coates, who was the member for Denison in 1972. It was a turbulent time in Australian politics—he went from 1972 to 1975. John was the one who really worked very hard and established the that the Antarctic division would move to Hobart and have its base there. John needs to be commended for that, and I am sure he is watching this bill with some hope that it will pass. He did a lot of work and deserves to be recognised.

The supplying of ships of other countries in Hobart is also always going on. You see ships from other countries come in, and of course some of them tie up in Hobart over winter and stay there instead of sailing back to the other side of the world.

As I mentioned, the science of the CSIRO and the Antarctic Division and the links to the university are big and growing, dealing with matters like climate change and the acidisation of the Southern Ocean. In Antarctica this includes drilling through the ice and gaining cores from a long way down. I think the Chinese are drilling to get a mile-long sample. Being able to look at the bubbles that exist in the sample and go back an awful long time will give them more idea of the changing climate of the world. This is a vital bill to meet everything we want to do with the Antarctic Treaty. We will continue to meet our obligations and play a very important role in the Antarctic Treaty and the environmental protection act. This treaty is vital to the long-term importance of Antarctica and keeping it in its present state and using the science it can give us. Over the years, many people have given us a great base of science knowledge from Antarctica, especially about the weather.

The speaker before last mentioned the book about Mawson by the author Peter FitzSimons, which I am currently reading. It is a very interesting book. It gives great coverage of the Australian input into that scientific community in the early days of the Antarctic territory and all the brave men who went there then, which laid down the basis for what we do there now and those who go there now to bring back knowledge for us.

This is a very important bill. It brings our legislation up to date with we want to do, including the world conferences that we are part of, and therefore puts Australia where it should be. I commend the bill to the House, and I certainly hope the opposition will give it their full support.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011, and I support the comments of my colleagues the member for Flinders and the member for Ryan. This bill in part seeks to implement Australia's obligations under the Antarctic Treaty, the Madrid protocol and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals. I note, however, that this bill has been referred to the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves debating this bill without time to consider the recommendations of the committee.

Nonetheless, Australia has played a long and leading role in the protection of the Antarctic, and this international leadership has been driven by the coalition. It was the Menzies government that first established Australia's permanent research station in the Antarctic. In 1954 the Australian National Antarctic Research Expeditions sailed the Kista Dan to MacRobertson Land, establishing the Mawson Station at Horseshoe Harbour. The station plays an important role in long-term meteorological and geomagnetic studies as well as ongoing conservation biology studies of both the emperor penguin and the Adelie penguin. Mawson Station, named after the famous explorer Sir Douglas Mawson, is the oldest continuously inhabited Antarctic station south of the Antarctic Circle. It was in 1960 that the Menzies government, which was one of the original 12 signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, passed the Antarctic Treaty Act, which specifically prohibited mining, military bases and weapons testing, among other things, in Antarctica and ensured that the continent remains a place for peaceful research purposes in perpetuity.

Mawson Station was joined by the Davis permanent research station in 1957, and Casey Station, which was named after Sir Robert Menzies's Minister for External Affairs and the CSIRO, Richard Casey, was established in 1969. The leading role of Liberal governments in protecting the Antarctic for future generations also led to the naming of Menzies Mountain after former Prime Minister Sir Robert Gordon Menzies. The prominent mountain, which is approximately 3,228 metres high, is fittingly exactly 1,000 metres higher than Mount Kosciuszko and is situated on the southern side of Fisher Glacier in Mac. Robertson Land.

The Fraser government built on the strong legacy of protecting the Antarctic, overseeing the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 to protect Antarctic wildlife and preserve areas of ecological and scientific importance. That Act applies to the Australian Antarctic territory and addresses three key issues: the conservation of flora and fauna, including the establishment of species protected areas; environmental impact statements; and inspectors and offences. The Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act was followed up by the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act 1981, which gave effect to the international Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Importantly, this convention ensures that in any actions in the Antarctic consideration must be given to the whole ecosystem rather than just using a single-species fisheries sustainable yield approach.

The Liberal Party's leadership in the protection of the Antarctic occurred not only in government but also in opposition. In 1989, international consideration for allowing mining on the frozen continent was seriously threatening the pristine character of the Antarctic. Back then, the Hawke Labor government was an active participant in the Antarctic mining convention. It was only after the intervention by then opposition leader John Howard and shadow minister for the environment Chris Puplick calling on Australia to oppose any convention that allowed mining in the Antarctic that the then Hawke government reversed its position and instead worked with the other signatories of the Antarctic Treaty to establish the Madrid protocol, a binding protocol that prohibited mining on the continent by any signatory of the Antarctic Treaty. In 2006, the Howard government passed into law the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment (Antarctic Seals and Other Measures) Act 2006. The coalition's record on the Antarctic is proud.

But, notwithstanding the bill we have before us and given that only cold-adapted organisms can survive there, the Antarctic may provide the solution to this government's current problems. Seven countries maintain claims on eight territories on the Antarctic continent, yet the entire continent is devoid of any diplomatic representative. We know that the Prime Minister and several of her senior colleagues may wish to send the member for Griffith to a cold, dark and remote place, so why not offer him the position as our first ambassador to the Antarctic territories? If we were to have an ambassador to the Antarctic territories, perhaps he could be actively involved in climate change studies, as we repeatedly hear of the moral challenge of preventing the ice caps from melting and how new taxes will have the remarkable ability to stop this ice from melting. Our first ambassador to the Antarctic territories may be able to report on the scientific fact that the sea ice in the Antarctic is actually increasing at a trend of 100,000 square kilometres per decade, and currently the Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.

As previously stated, the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill seeks to implement Australia's obligations under the Antarctic Treaty, the Madrid protocol for the protection of Antarctica and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals. A significant change to the existing legislation is the transfer of approval processes to a minister of the government. The approval process applies to activity in the Antarctic. The explanatory memorandum says:

An activity in the Antarctic includes, but is not limited to, scientific activities, tourist vessels entering the Antarctic (whether making landings or not), construction of facilities or overflights by tourist aircraft that are made for the purpose of visiting the Antarctic.

However, the explanatory memorandum indicates that this will not apply to passenger flights crossing the Antarctic Zone. It states:

The provision is not intended to have application to shipping and aviation passage over or around the Antarctic, or en route to or from Australia to a third country destination outside of the Antarctic.

As indicated in the explanatory memorandum, the approval process will apply to tourist overflights of the Antarctic. This is a potential growth area and tourist opportunity that Australia is uniquely and well placed to capitalise on. However, it is not clear if tourist flights across the Antarctic will be subject to the world's largest carbon tax—the one the Prime Minister promised would never happen under a government she leads but that she is now imposing upon the nation under the government that she leads. Under Labor's planned carbon tax, domestic flights within Australia will pay the carbon tax but international flights departing and arriving Australia will not. So if you are going on holidays and flying from Sydney to—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw the member for Hughes back to the bill before the chamber.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will come back to tourist flights, and the tax implications for them, to the Antarctic, which are the flights that this bill addresses. Now, if you take the effect of the world's largest carbon tax on Virgin airlines, an airline that could consider—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will return to the bill. This is not a free-for-all; it is a piece of legislation. You will either address it or sit down.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an airline that could consider starting tourist flights across the Antarctic.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hughes is defying my call.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I am talking about airlines that fly across the Antarctic.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member was talking about the bill, and he can get back to the bill. If you have to ditch half your speech—

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then ditch it.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Banks is not assisting, but the member for Hughes will be relevant to the bill.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We need to look at what we can do to improve our tourist sector, and that is what this bill refers to. This bill affects tourist flights over the Antarctic—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, tourist flights over the Antarctic. If you get to those, fine.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Therefore, flights and relevant flights across the Antarctic are a relevant subject to this bill. These flights across the Antarctic do provide a unique opportunity for our struggling tourist sector, but we have to be aware how this will be affected by the carbon tax. We know that tourism is not the—

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is absolute defiance of the chair.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hughes will get back to the bill.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The final point I would like to touch on in my contribution to this debate on the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill is the positive step to incorporate recommendations under annex 1 of the Madrid protocol requiring operators to undertake reasonable preventive measures to reduce the risk of environmental emergencies and potential adverse impacts by establishing contingency plans for responding to incidents of potential adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment and to maintain adequate insurance. We have seen examples of rogue operators, and even those that have attempted to do the right thing come into difficulty. I think back to the troubles with a particular cruise ship with a damaged propeller during a voyage deep into the southern oceans. As interest grows in such ventures, we must be sure to mitigate potential harm to the Antarctic environment. I recognise this measure as an important inclusion under the legislation before us.

The coalition supports this legislation. However, we eagerly await the report from the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, and will consider any recommendations that are forthcoming.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011 continues the proud traditions of the Labor Party in protecting Antarctic science. In 1991 the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, with the French Prime Minister worked to secure the future of this pristine continent. The Madrid protocol bans mining in Antarctica and requires that all proposed activities be subjected to prior environmental impact assessment. On 21 August 1990, the then Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, stated in response to a question on notice:

This landmark legislation demonstrates that the Hawke Labor Government is committed to fully protecting the Antarctic environment which we hold in trust for future generations.

This government, 20 years later, continues to build on that landmark legislation. It is worth going back to the second reading speech of the minister, on 14 October 1992:

This Bill gives effect to Australia's obligations arising from the Protocol of Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, known as the Madrid Protocol. The Madrid Protocol designates Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science, and puts in place a legally binding and comprehensive regime for the protection of its environment. The Government has shown leadership in Antarctic environmental matters and already has made significant progress in implementing the requirements of the protocol. This Bill will enable Australia to move forward to ratification of the protocol.

The Madrid Protocol stands amongst the world's most significant environmental agreements. It is unique in setting out to ensure the protection of the environment of an entire continent. It is an outstanding demonstration of countries working together on environmental protection. Australia thus takes great pride in its role in leading its treaty partners to adoption of the protocol in October 1991.

I was proud member of the government at that time. I remember it quite well. It was something that we were all very proud of at the time and are still proud of. Negotiation of the protocol commenced with a decision in 1989 that Australia could not support the mining of minerals in the Antarctic. When the protocol was adopted on 4 October 1991, four annexes were agreed. These provided detailed measures relating to environmental impact assessment, conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora, waste disposal and waste management, and the prevention of marine pollution.

The treaty parties later adopted a fifth annex relating to area protection and management. Twenty years later, former prime ministers Bob Hawke and Michel Rocard celebrated their achievement by attending a symposium of Antarctic policy experts in Hobart, hosted by the Australian Antarctic Division and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Mr Hawke said:

There can be no slipping back on this … There are signs that some countries, in a situation of decreasing oil and resources, have their eyes on the prize down there in Antarctica. They have to be set back. There can be no letting up on the commitment we made 20 years ago … to ensure that generation after generation after generation will have that pristine continent as a nature reserve, preserved only for scientific research.

The bill before the House today builds on those environmental credentials. It amends the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 to further improve the rules around protecting the Antarctic environment. These measures will align the act with our obligations in the act. These include measure 4, relating to insurance and contingency planning for tourism and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic treaty area, which was adopted in June 2004; measure 1 relating to liability arising from environmental emergencies, which was adopted in June 2005; and measure 15 relating to the landing of people from passenger vessels in the Antarctic treaty area, which was adopted in April 2009.

Overall, these measures will further protect human and vessel safety in the Antarctic and its environment. Measure 4 is designed to ensure that tourism operators take all reasonable care in their activities, part of which is to provide contingency plans together with appropriate insurance. Measure 1 provides that, should an environmental emergency arise, there is a prompt and effective response. It also includes a provision to ensure that operators take adequate preventative measures to reduce the likelihood of such emergencies. A liability regime is also to be established if an operator fails to take measures in the event of an emergency. Subsection 13BJ provides the applicable criminal and civil penalties for non-compliance.

An operator contravenes this subsection if (a) the operator holds an environmental protection approval in relation to an activity; (b) the person carries on the activity; and (c) the conditions imposed on the approval are not complied with. An operator commits an offence if the operator contravenes subsection 1. The physical elements of the offence are set out in that subsection. The penalties are imprisonment for two years or 120 penalty units, or both. We should note:

The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (2). See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the civil penalty provision:

(4) … operator is liable to a civil penalty if the operator contravenes subsection (1).

The civil penalty is 500 penalty units. The penalties are designed to ensure that the inherent dangers involved in carrying out activities in the Antarctic are minimised and are carried out safely.

Measure 15 regulates the procedures for landing passengers: the number of passengers allowed on any one vessel, the number of those passengers allowed on shore at any one time and provides a specified guide to passenger ratios. Few international agreements have operated more effectively for such a period of time than this treaty. It has continued to promote its objectives of multilateral cooperation. Because of this cooperation, Antarctic research and monitoring has allowed the international scientific community to see and anticipate specific atmospheric and climate trends. The ozone layer deterioration is an example and our response to that problem would not have been as timely and effective without that science. The Antarctic remains a fundamentally pristine natural environment and an environment generally free of conflict. This bill continues its protection and I commend the bill to the House.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011. I begin by saying I might be somewhat more reserved than the member for Hughes in my comments. Australia has a long and intimate history with Antarctica. It was before Australia's Federation, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, that Australia pioneered exploration and research into Antarctica. It was the geographical and scientific research of Australian scientists in particular which has revealed so much about this mysterious and interesting continent, helping to inform international environmental guidelines. Without the expeditions and research of Australian scientists we would not have the same understanding of the unique environment that is Antarctica. To share with the House just one example, the work of Australian scientist Douglas Mawson was instrumental in revealing biological, meteorological and geological information about Antarctica, including the location of the south magnetic pole. Douglas Mawson's Australian Antarctic expedition in 1911 ventured into areas of Antarctica which were at the time yet to be visited and gathered data which has ultimately informed actions to protect this unique and precious region.

It is from humble early beginnings that Australia's legacy with Antarctica has grown. As a nation, we have been instrumental in developing protocols to protect Antarctica from human impacts and in promoting the Antarctic environment. It is known and respected internationally that Australia has a strong record on groundbreaking environmental work in Antarctica, and it was this side of the House who first acknowledged the environmental and cultural significance of Antarctica, resulting since in over 70 years of bipartisan support.

It was Lord Richard Casey, a member of Sir Robert Menzies' government and Minister for External Affairs, who first promoted scientific research to help Australia learn more about the Antarctic environment, and helped make the Antarctic Treaty possible. Lord Casey's extensive international negotiations with 11 countries, including Argentina, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States, formed the groundwork that resulted in the signing of the Antarctic Treaty. Lord Casey was also instrumental in gaining the support of what was at the time the Soviet Union, in order to give the Antarctic Treaty the essential international credibility and authority that it has today. The foundation work of Lord Casey was further pursued at the time by Prime Minister Menzies at the inaugural Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Canberra in 1961.

It was this side of the House that took these important first moves which have resulted in ongoing bipartisan support for the Antarctic Treaty, including other significant moments such as the signing of the Madrid protocol in 1991, and more recently the work of former Liberal Senator Robert Hill, who, in an attempt to support and understand ongoing trade and research, personally ventured to Antarctica twice during his time as minister.

Australia's international track record on Antarctica is clear for all others to see. As a country we have been at the forefront of decisions to cease mining activity on Antarctica and preserve the environment in the Antarctic region. It makes sense, then, that as a country we put in place measures that have been agreed to at an international level that will continue to promote good safety and environmental guidelines for the future of the Antarctic region.

These are the very things this bill seeks to redress. This bill adopts these measures which have been agreed to by the parties to the Antarctic Treaty. This bill will give effect to Australia's international obligations set out under the Madrid protocol and the Antarctic Treaty, including specific changes agreed to during the international Antarctic Treaty consultative meetings in 2004, 2005 and 2009. The first measure that this bill addresses is ensuring responsibility for environmental emergencies. The adoption of annex 6 to the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which has informed this measure in the bill, is the most significant addition to the Antarctic Treaty since it was first signed in 1959. Consequently, it is appropriate that it be reflected and given proper authority under this bill. Environmental emergencies may take the form of, for example, oil spills or disease introduction and can pose real and dangerous threats to the future of our Antarctic environment. Under this measure, all government and non-government bodies operating in the Antarctic, whether they are conducting scientific research, tourism, shipping and transportation or logistical support, will be required to prepare detailed plans to manage and reduce the risk of environmental emergencies. Under this requirement, it will be mandatory for these operators to prepare plans which have detailed contingency measures and responses to environmental emergencies. Operators will be obligated to present their management strategies for approval before they can operate in the Antarctic region.

This bill will allow for the minister to grant safety and environmental approvals for operators, and these measures will hold operators legally accountable for implementing contingency plans. This should cause operators in this region to take their personal responsibilities very seriously. Of course it is vital that, as Australians, we are taking measures to protect Antarctica against environmental emergencies. Over the past couple of years we have seen examples splashed across the media both domestically and abroad of the devastating impacts of environmental emergencies and the wide-reaching consequences they can have on natural habitats.

We have seen the Shen Neng 1 run aground on the Great Barrier Reef, and we have seen a catastrophic oil spill in my own backyard in Moreton Bay. These examples spell out the urgency of putting into place appropriate precautions to prevent environmental emergencies. The cost to communities and governments in these two cases were extensive, and in both these cases the operators responsible were not the ones on the ground after the incident who were working to minimise the damage to the environment. This bill holds any operator that causes an environmental emergency responsible for their actions. This bill holds operators accountable for cleaning up environmental emergencies and, as a contingency, it enables third parties to claim compensation from the polluter if the third parties themselves have taken action in the polluter's stead to clean up after an environmental emergency.

Antarctica is a treasure, and, as a country with a 42 per cent stake in its territory, we cannot afford to be complacent in ensuring the protection of its environment. As we are all aware, Antarctica is unique—it cannot be replaced or replicated anywhere else. It is vital that we take our part in protecting it for future generations by respecting this pristine environment.

The second measure that this bill addresses is the requirement of non-government operators to make contingency plans for health, safety, search and rescue—including insurance coverage—as well as medical care and emergency evacuations. This measure is extremely important in light of the dangers associated with operations in this region, which is undeniably isolated and inhospitable. Between 2007 and 2010 there were seven serious incidents involving tourist vessels in the Antarctic region requiring evacuations and rescues. Most of these situations involved vessels running aground in the treacherous conditions that the Antarctic region is renowned for, and all resulted in emergency evacuations. Additionally, in recent years there have been mishaps which have involved private Australian adventurers and drawn-out and complicated search and rescue missions.

Having grown up around family and friends involved in ocean racing and sailing, in the course of which records have been set in Antarctica, I can personally attest to the importance of these measures. The costs incurred in response to all of these emergencies are significant and cannot be dismissed. It is only responsible to expect that organisations and individuals who venture into this region take sufficient precautions to prevent emergencies and act in a way that is respectful of the resources which would be necessary to respond to emergency situations they may find themselves in. Not only do these emergencies incur a financial cost; they also incur a human cost and a resource cost. All rescue missions present a possible compromise to rescue equipment and unplanned diversions of limited available equipment in the region. This can potentially disrupt national Antarctic programs, including important scientific research. Additionally, each rescue mission can be a life-threatening situation for the rescuers. These costs, along with the financial costs, need to be the responsibility of the operators, and should be minimised with appropriate contingency planning.

The third measure that this bill seeks to address is a requirement to manage the number of tourists disembarking in the region. This measure is an important means to regulate and protect both safety and the environment. The measure prevents tourist vessels that are carrying more than 500 passengers from making landings, and for smaller vessels it restricts the number passengers able to disembark from a vessel at any one time.

Operators will be required to coordinate with their counterparts to ensure that only one operator has tourists disembark at any point. In addition to these limits on disembarking, this measure imposes a minimum passenger-to-guide ratio to limit dangers for tourists and to ensure that safety is paramount. As with any tourist activity, operators are responsible for ensuring the safety of their participants. Antarctica is undeniably dangerous and unpredictable. Without appropriate safety attire it is uninhabitable. With this in mind, limiting the number of tourists in any one area at any time is a very fitting measure that forcibly manages the safety of tourists in a highly challenging environment. Previous expeditions have demonstrated that even the most experienced and prepared teams can run into danger. This measure will minimise risks as much as possible for those disembarking onto the land.

Not only is the safety of tourists a priority but so is the safety of this environment. As I mentioned earlier, it is highly critical that we get this right. As history has shown us, human activity has the potential to undermine an environment. For an environment such as this, with so much yet to be learned and gained from scientific research, we cannot afford for human impact to deteriorate the quality of this pristine region. Researchers have a justified fear of introducing disease and causing degradation. By limiting the number of tourists at any one time, there is a better ability to prevent disease outbreak and a higher chance of containing an outbreak if one were to occur.

As Australians, we have a significant responsibility to uphold in Antarctica. Already the Australian Antarctic Division has undertaken an extensive consultation process with stakeholders regarding the measures proposed in this bill. We know that many Australian tourism operators are largely meeting the requirements of these measures voluntarily and, by extension, generally supportive of the nature of this bill. As signatories to the Antarctic Treaty and the Madrid Protocol, it is our international responsibility to ensure safety and environmental protection for this region.

The environment and safety measures outlined in this bill will be an important part of Australia's leadership on environmental protection in Antarctica. In June of this year Australia will be hosting the 35th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. The signatories to the Antarctic Treaty are all in various stages of legally implementing the measures agreed to at the previous meetings. This bill will see Australia in a position of strength at the June meeting. These actions will be a strong endorsement and encouragement to those parties yet to make decisive action in this direction, and will encourage them to take their international obligations seriously.

Until all the signatories to the Antarctic Treaty legally implement these measures they will not enter into force. For this reason I believe it is important that this bill is passed by the House. Thank you.

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011. I support this bill not only because the Antarctic is an important place in Australian history but because of its unique connection to my electorate of Macarthur. I am not so sure that any electorate can make such a claim. This connection involves Sir Douglas Mawson, who led the first Australasian Antarctic expedition more than 100 years ago in 1911. He established our first scientific research base in Cape Denison, where Australian scientists have developed a strong reputation for their Antarctic studies over the past century.

Sir Douglas Mawson was the brother of a Campbelltown local, Dr William Mawson. Dr Mawson was a highly regarded citizen who provided medical services to the Campbelltown community for 28 years. He also opened the Milby Private Hospital and built the Macquarie Centre in Campbelltown. In January 1938 a park in my electorate was officially named Mawson Park in honour of Dr Mawson. A pergola, shelter and entrance were erected and two plaques were placed on the pergola which read 'Commemorative pergola to William Mawson' and 'Erected by the citizens of Campbelltown in appreciation'. The park now has three service memorials for those who have fought for our country in the Army, Navy and Air Force and is home to many memorial services in Campbelltown each year.

Aside from this unique connection to my community, I also support this bill today so that we can ensure the Australian Antarctic Territory is protected for generations to come. This bill builds on the measures that the coalition put in place whilst in government to ensure this protection. Put simply, the aim of this bill is to ensure better control and coordination of Australia's Antarctic waters. It implements Australia's obligations under the Antarctic Treaty and the Madrid protocol for the protection of Antarctica. It will provide this government with the ability to grant safety approval and environmental approvals for people operating in the Antarctic.

The coalition has always been a friend of Antarctica. We are proud to be part of this country's strong ties with the continent. Australia has played a leading role in the protection of the Antarctic environment, including an important ban on mining. The ban was incorporated into the Madrid protocol which protects the Antarctic environment. The Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011 gives effect to our country's obligations under the Madrid protocol and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals. The protection of the Australian Antarctic Territory is the responsibility of both sides of this parliament, and we need a bipartisan approach to protect this beautiful and pristine wilderness.

Australians should feel proud of this country's strong history of protecting this majestic place. We were one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed by the Menzies government in December 1959. The treaty was signed by the governments of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, the French Republic, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America.

The treaty recognised that it was in the interests of all mankind for Antarctica to continue to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and that it should not become the scene or object of international discord. The treaty also acknowledged the substantial contribution to scientific knowledge resulting from the international cooperation in scientific investigation in Antarctica. I believe that what we are doing here in this place today follows on from that treaty and our country's proud history of protecting Antarctica for future generations.

The key aspects to the amendments to this environment protection bill include amending the long title of the Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protection) Act to extend the scope of the legislation; providing the ability for the administrative grant of safety approval and environmental protection approval and to impose conditions on such approvals; implementing new offences and civil penalties regarding unapproved activities, activities carried on in contravention of the conditions imposed by an approval, and offences and civil penalties related to environmental emergencies; establishing a liability regime for environmental emergencies that occur in the Antarctic; the establishment of an Antarctic environmental liability special account to receive payments from operators for costs for response to action to an environmental emergency caused by their activities in the Antarctic; implementing new offences and civil penalties applicable to tourist vessels operating in the Antarctic; and making minor and technical amendments to the Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protection) Act. These are positive amendments that will help Australia continue its strong leadership in the protection of Antarctica for the future.

Macarthur has another very unique connection to Antarctica. Our former federal member of parliament, Pat Farmer, recently raised the Red Cross flag at the South Pole after running two marathons every day all the way from the North Pole to the South Pole. One hundred years after my community's first connections was established with the region, Pat has returned to strengthen Macarthur's ties with the Antarctic. Pat set out from the North Pole in April last year to raise money for the Red Cross. He ran through Canada, the United States, Central America and South America to his final destination in Antarctica. The 21,000-kilometre trek saw him brave minus 40 degree snow blizzards; get lost in blazing deserts in Peru; dodge polar bears, snakes, crocodiles, armed bandits; and narrowly miss being wiped out by an out-of-control truck.

As you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, Pat has suffered with severe dehydration and stress injuries after an incredible 80 kilometres every day to achieve his goal. His hope for the run was that the money he raised would inspire people from all over the planet to donate to the Red Cross's clean water and sanitary projects in the Third World to help save lives. My community has watched Pat's courageous battle very closely since April last year and has shown great support to Pat and his cause. I believe that this has resulted in a further strengthening of Macarthur 's ties to the Antarctic region.

It is clear that Antarctica will always hold a special place in the hearts of many residents of Macarthur, just like it does with many people around the nation. I am proud to support this bill today that will ensure the safety and protection of Antarctica for many years to come. It is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:4 5 .