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

The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 implements three unrelated changes to maritime regulation in Australia. Firstly, the bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to implement amendments to annexes IV, V and VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, better known as the MARPOL convention. Australia has been a member of the IMO since it was established in 1948 and has played an active role in the development of its conventions and treaties over many years. The six annexes to the MARPOL convention and their amendments have been implemented in a bipartisan way over many years. On 15 July 2012 the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO adopted the amendments which we are presently considering, and I understand that they will come into force internationally on 1 January 2013. The three annexes amended by the current legislation involve prevention of pollution by sewage, annex IV; the prevention of pollution by garbage, annex V; and the prevention of pollution by air, annex VI.

Dealing first with annex IV of the MARPOL convention, these amendments impose new restrictions on the discharge of sewage from passengers ships in special areas of the sea which are particularly sensitive or vulnerable to pollution. Under annex IV, only the Baltic Sea is considered a special area, and so that is the area affected by this change.

Annex V deals with the prevention of pollution by garbage. This second group of amendments impose restrictions on the discharge of garbage by ships of any nationality in the parts of the sea that are within Australia's territorial jurisdiction, and on the discharge of garbage by Australian ships in all seas, in accordance with the changes to annex V of the convention. The new annex V has not been changed in terms of the types of vessels it applies to but has been strengthened, particularly for garbage discharge in special areas, and broadened to prohibit discharge of plastic.

Special areas in relation to annex V are the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea area, the Black Sea area, the Red Sea, the gulfs area, the North Sea, the wider Caribbean region and the Antarctic area. Common sense exceptions are permitted in certain circumstances and include: water used for washing the deck of external surfaces if the cleaning agents are not harmful to the environment; cargo residues; and animal carcasses. It should be noted that Australia already has mandatory requirements for livestock management in shipping, including requirements for the disposal of animal carcasses. Fishing equipment may also be discarded where it is for the protection of the marine environment or the safety of the ship or the crew. It should be noted that many Australian shipowners and operators already follow a policy of not discharging waste at sea other than food waste in some circumstances. This practice is fully consistent with the revised annex V. The amendments also expand the requirement to hold a garbage management plan and the garbage management book to fixed and floating platforms.

Annex VI deals with prevention of pollution by air. The bill makes mandatory the current voluntary energy efficiency design index for new ships of 400 gross tonnes and over that are engaged in international trade. This will only apply to new ships on 1 January 2013, or to certain ships that have undergone a major conversion. All existing ships will require a ship energy efficiency management plan, which is an operational document that can be implemented at little cost to industry.

The second element of the bill deals with so-called rollback provisions. The Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 includes rollback provisions in relation to offences committed under the act within the sea under the state and territory jurisdictions. To clarify the operation of rollback provisions in the act the bill proposes to distinguish between two areas of the territorial sea by amending the act to stipulate that the area from three to 12 nautical miles off the territorial sea is termed the 'outer territorial sea'. This is the area for which the states and territories have no power to legislate in relation to an incident. The landward side of the outer territorial sea that covers the area from the territorial sea baseline to the first three nautical miles out to sea is called the 'sea near a state', the 'sea near the Jervis Bay Territory' and the 'sea near an external territory'. This is the area for which the states and territories will be able to exercise jurisdiction. If they have no applicable laws, the Commonwealth will have jurisdiction. The amendment will clarify which level of government has jurisdiction over particular sea areas and will prevent Commonwealth legislation from prevailing over state and territory jurisdictions.

Finally, schedule 2 of the bill repeals the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Act 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Act 1998, which are redundant as the stevedoring levy ceased in May 2006. The stevedoring levy was introduced during the waterfront dispute in 1998 to help facilitate the restructure of our ports, to improve productivity and to address overmanning. The government of the time established a wholly owned Commonwealth company called the Maritime Industry Finance Company, or MIFCO, which established a $250 million loan facility to pay stevedoring employees their redundancy entitlements.

This loan amount was then recovered from P&O Automotive & General Stevedoring and Patrick through a levy on the loading and unloading of containers and vehicles in Australia.

Successive independent reports to the former coalition governments, including by the Productivity Commission and the Industry Commission, concluded at the time that stevedoring was an impediment to our competitiveness as a nation. Our wharves were an international embarrassment and the prior Labor government had simply allowed our waterfronts to be the fiefdom of the union movement. Strong action was necessary to turn our waterfront into an efficient and reliable workplace. The coalition government backed employers who also wanted changes. Strong action was certainly needed. As a result of this action, waterfront productivity was greatly improved, with crane movement rates rising from 16.9 per hour in 1996 to 27.7 in June 2007. We moved from the bottom area of developed countries in efficiency on our wharves to close to the top.

Sadly, however, productivity on our wharves has now waned again, with container loading rates again in decline. The government has again surrendered to the union bosses and so it is no real wonder that the productivity level is again on the decline. Is it any wonder that port authorities are now resorting to automated and driverless unloading systems? An independent report released in June 2012 found that wages in Australian ports have been increasing ahead of productivity. The data suggests that the productivity gains which occurred under the former coalition government between 1998 and 2003 have largely dissipated—and that is tragic. This echoes the ACCC's advice from November 2011 that the benefits of labour market reforms are likely to have been exhausted several years ago.

As I noted earlier, the stevedoring levy ceased operation in 2006, with its task completed, but our focus on waterfront productivity and reform should not cease. Our ports are our gateway to the world market, and it is vital that they are productive, efficient and internationally competitive. I thought about whether we should keep MIFCo for another round of reform but I concluded that the next round of reform will probably need to be done differently and a MIFCo structure is unlikely to be necessary. The coalition has taken time to consult with industry about their views on the bill, and industry have raised no objections. The measures contained within the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 are largely uncontroversial and as such the coalition will be supporting the bill.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wide Bay for some parts of his contribution, but I certainly would take issue with some of this earlier comments. I do agree that productivity for a trading nation is most important and it is something I particularly worry about. As every economist would say, with productivity flatlining for the last 10 to 12 years—and productivity is a real indication of whether the engine of the nation is humming—we do need to do more. I also acknowledge Deputy Speaker Scott sitting in the chair. It is always good to speak before you and I hope you continue in that seat for a long time.

I rise to support the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. This year the federal Labor government has introduced into the parliament a suite of bills that represents the most significant overhaul of Australia's maritime industry since 1912, which I think might be before the member for Longman was born, but I am not sure. This side of the House has introduced the national law bills to establish a single national marine safety regulator in Australia, and the government's Stronger Shipping for a Stronger Economy legislative reforms. From 1 July, we have seen the commencement of this legislation, which is revitalising Australia's shipping industry. Furthermore, since coming to power in 2007, the Labor government has significantly improved the protection of Australia's marine environment.

The bill before the chamber is another substantive legislative instrument that is part of the government's record of ensuring that the laws that protect Australia's precious marine environment are up-to-date and remain in step with international developments. The bill also clarifies the application of federal laws in the parts of the territorial sea that lie between Australian baselines, which are generally at or near the shore, and three nautical miles out to sea from those baselines. For students of politics, a former member for Moreton back in the sixties spent a lot of time talking about this particular topic, but it is only a brief blip in today's legislative agenda.

In addition, the bill will repeal the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Act 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Act 1998 which relate to the former stevedoring levy. Payment of this levy in accordance with the two acts ceased in May 2006 and the two acts will no longer have any effect. The main amendments in this bill protect the marine environment and encourage energy efficiency in the shipping industry. The amendments will help achieve cleaner seas and fewer CO2 emissions from ships.

The federal Labor government has increased penalties for the discharge of oil or oil residues by ships in Australian waters from $220,000 to $11 million, banned the carriage or use of heavy grade oils on ships in the Antarctic area, legislated practices for ship-to-ship transfers of oil carried as cargo, and implemented incremental changes to the maximum sulphur level of marine fuel oil. All of these are important environmental advances. Like most Queenslanders, the protection of marine environments and marine life, both now and into the future, is something I am passionate about. In the 2010 election we saw, I would suggest, a misleading fear campaign about people's ability to fish. I have seen comments already indicating, because of the Coral Sea campaign, that there is going to be a campaign around this again at the next election. The reality is that the Labor government is protecting and nurturing fish and therefore protecting the jobs of the fishers but also the ability for recreational fishers to throw a line in.

The Coral Sea is globally recognised as an extremely important marine region, not only because of its unique biodiversity but also because of its important place in World War II history. Recent international studies have highlighted that the Coral Sea is one of the last remaining areas of the world's oceans where large-scale and biologically rich ecosystems remain relatively intact. I have been contacted by numerous groups and many of my constituents urging me to support increased protection for the Coral Sea. In fact, there is a postcard campaign throughout my electorate on this particular topic, so the people of Moreton realise that our precious oceans need to be protected. Preserving the Coral Sea is a rare opportunity for our generation and for this parliament, and this bill is another step to further protect our marine environments. Sadly, as the billions of people in the world have taken over lots of spaces, there are not too many protected and biologically unique places in the world anymore. This bill continues the government's comprehensive marine pollution prevention strategy. I commend the minister for his initiative and the great work that he has been doing in the maritime area generally. That is why I commend the bill to the House.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to lend my support to the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. This bill is the latest in a succession of steps for Australia to participate in and give effect to international provisions regarding the prevention of pollution from international and domestic maritime industries. Only last week I was at Phillip Island, in my electorate, meeting with people from the Phillip Island Nature Park. They have done work which is the practical face of the items intended by the bill.

The nature park, in conjunction with Victoria University, has developed what may well turn out to be the world's leading system for care, prevention and recovery of seabirds and other marine creatures that have been affected by the discharge of oil, diesel or other fuels. So, in the event of an accident, in the event of an incident, the fine grain ionic particles which they have developed would be sprinkled on a bird or animal where they are covered in oil or diesel or other maritime fuels. These are magnetic in nature and the university has developed a short magnetic stick or, as they call it, a wand, which they would then wave over—I participated in these trials—the skin or fur of the animal. The magnetic particles are in turn lifted off and, with that, bring the offending oil or diesel or other maritime fuel with them. This technology is the living embodiment of everything that these bills are meant to support and encourage, which is the care, protection and maintenance of our marine environment.

I am completely supportive of, and utterly committed to, the broader notion of marine protection. I played a small role whilst we were in government in helping to advance this cause and also, more broadly, to look at cases such as those currently being developed by the Phillip Island Nature Park in conjunction with Victoria University. I happen to think that, if this technology is given support, it has the capacity to be a 21st century stump-jump plough for Australia. It will be Australian technology being used to try to deal with the consequences of marine accidents wherever they occur around the world.

This bill is about preventing those sorts of incidents. To the extent that it extends and advances the implementation of the MARPOL convention and the entire marine apparatus, I am delighted to support it, but it is one part of three elements going forward. Firstly, we implement the conventions. Our approach has been well elevated and set out by the Leader of the National Party, Mr Truss, this morning. Secondly, we need to have these measures in place, particularly for care and maintenance where there are spills. Thirdly—and this is the last thing that I want to address so as not to detain the chamber—we still have an issue of ongoing shore based pollution, which is an extraordinary element of legacy waste in the 21st century.

We use our coasts as dumping grounds for sewage around the country. We have well over 1,500 billion litres of waste water discharged off our coasts each year, every year. In Sydney, that includes primary treatment at Malabar Headland off Bondi and off the northern shores. We are effectively using our coasts as sewers, and that is a 19th century concept in the 21st century, and it simply cannot stand. We need a national ocean outfalls plan. This is something to which I have now been committed for many years. If we are in a position in government, we will work with the states to develop an ocean outfall plan so that each of these outfalls is cleaned up to an acceptable standard and that water is progressively recycled for industry and agriculture around the country. We are in a wet period at the moment, but the dry times will come again soon enough. To be wasting that water and to be discharging pollution off our coasts completely undermines, I think, the intention of this bill. How can it be that we are taking steps to ensure, as we should, that our maritime operations do not despoil the seas whilst, at the same time, discharging 1,500 gigalitres, 1,500 billion litres, of sullied water off our coasts each year, every year, forever?

I am delighted that the Gunnamatta outfall is about to be treated to tertiary level. Within the next year that process should be completed. In my own electorate, 150 billion litres of waste water have been discharged at a very polluted and unacceptable level. That is multiple times greater than any ship discharge.

We can see that we have to take steps to prevent pollution occurring at sea, steps to allow for the clean-up and care and maintenance of those animals affected by sea-borne pollution and then we have to address the third part of the process—the extraordinary damage caused by 1,500 gigalitres, as well as the waste of water from that 1,500 gigalitres of sewage discharge around our oceans. We need to set time frames and targets to end that waste. I commend the bill and I thank the minister. It has our support but there are broader steps which we also need to take.

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

I thank members for their constructive comments on this legislation, including the contribution just made by the member for Flinders. This is important legislation. Pollution from ships is indeed a significant threat to our pristine marine environment. Shipping is a crucial part of the Australian transport system. Each year almost 4,000 ships transport goods to and from Australia, carrying 99 per cent by volume of Australia's imports and exports. This constitutes the world's fourth-largest shipping task. The increase in demand for Australia's exports and new resource developments means that Australia's sea freight task is likely to double by 2025. Ensuring that shipping can meet these demands safely and efficiently is crucial to Australia's economic prosperity.

This bill continues the government's efforts to protect the marine environment by enacting revised measures adopted at the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation on 15 July 2011. Just last week I had the pleasure of having dinner with the new Secretary-General of the IMO in welcoming him to Australia. It was indeed an important recognition in the visit of the Secretary-General of the role that Australia plays in international maritime.

The amendments in this bill reflect international best practice. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships—MARPOL—is the key international convention addressing issues around the marine pollution from ships. It has six technical annexes dealing respectively with oil, noxious liquid substances in bulk, harmful substances in package forms, sewage, garbage and air pollution. The amendments to MARPOL, which enter into force on 1 January 2013 and which are reflected in this bill, will impose new restrictions on the discharge of sewage from passenger ships in special areas of the sea which are particularly sensitive or vulnerable to pollution, strengthen the regulations relating to the disposal by ships of garbage at sea by updating definitions and including new discharge requirements, and make mandatory an energy efficiency design index for new ships of 400 gross tonnage and over that will be built on or after 1 January 2013 for international trade, and a ship energy efficiency management plan from that date for all ships of 400 gross tonnage and over that are engaged in international trade.

The bill also clarifies the application of federal jurisdiction in the parts of the territorial sea that lie between Australian baselines which are generally at or near the shore and three nautical miles out to sea from those baselines, and repeals the Stevedoring Imposition Act 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy Collection Act 1998. These acts impose the stevedoring levy and are redundant as the stevedoring levy ceased in May 2006. This bill and others already before the parliament position Australia to make the most of our future as a shipping nation while ensuring that safety and the protection of our treasured marine environment is paramount. I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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