Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. Jacques Cousteau, perhaps the greatest oceanographer of the 20th century, once despaired that the sea and the air had become 'global garbage cans'. Cousteau also described the sea as the great unifier. He said that, when it came to the health of the ocean and its impact on people, all of humanity was in the same boat. He was right. When the seas are polluted, we all suffer. Other species, of course, in our oceans suffer directly, but the entire globe suffers. That is why it is so important that we accept and meet our shared responsibility to care for the health of our oceans. It's why we established the largest ever growth in marine parks and protection of our oceans when we were last in office, a reform tragically reversed by a short-sighted coalition government. It is why it is so important that we accept and meet that shared responsibility that we have to care for the health of our oceans.

We can do this in several ways. As individuals, we must take care not to litter our beaches, throw rubbish overboard from boats or, indeed, put things into the system of drainage that end up, quite often, in our oceans. As members of the community, we need to prevent harmful substances entering the oceans as run-off from our farms and other industries. It is a fact that, if you go into any major city around Australia and look at where the factories were located, they were always on water. In my electorate, along the Cooks River, you had everything from flour mills to sugar producers to industrial factories. The reason why they were located along rivers, canals and creeks, of course, was that they were seen as areas for free waste disposal by industry. That has had an enormous impact on the quality of the water in our urban waterways but also around our coasts and our ports. We know better today, but we need to make sure that legislation points the way forward with the modern understanding that we have that the accumulation of garbage and waste in our waterways has an impact on all of us.

As a nation, Australia must always meet our responsibility to collaborate in the forums of the world to improve international maritime regulations relating to pollution. It is in that context that Labor will be supporting the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill enacts Australia's international obligations regarding the way in which we treat pollution from ships. Australia has been an active participant in the International Maritime Organization. When I was the minister, I directly addressed the international conferences of the IMO, because Australia is an island continent with responsibility for such a large proportion of the world's oceans and seas—some one-sixth. Think about that: one in every six square kilometres of the world's oceans and seas is Australia's responsibility. That is why it is critical that we keep up with those international obligations and that Australia continue to lead on these issues.

In simple terms, this bill puts the responsibility on shippers to classify and declare waste from their solid bulk cargoes and to undertake not to dump waste that is designated as dangerous to the environment. It also prohibits the dumping of waste that is harmful to the environment in designated special areas like the Great Barrier Reef, the Torres Strait, the Coral Sea and the Antarctic zone. When many people think about pollution from boats, I suspect they think of oil spills or garbage thrown overboard, but a lot of the pollution from ships is linked to the shipping of bulk cargo: unpackaged homogenous goods like iron ore, coal, sugar, wheat and livestock. The pollution comes about through operational or accidental events during loading, unloading, cleaning or oil spills. For example, when a tanker carrying bulk goods unloads a cargo hold and is cleaned, it can release between 60 and 100 tonnes of cargo slurry—water which contains residue of the load. Most big tankers have five loads. That's a lot of potential pollution. It's estimated that 0.05 per cent of any given solid bulk load will be lost overboard one way or another. That's about 2.15 million tonnes a year. The waste can also include dead livestock—a matter of real concern, given the horrific revelations that have been made about the deaths of sheep being shipped to the Middle East.

This bill seeks to place restrictions on whether such material can be released into the ocean and, if it can be released, where it can be released. It tightens the existing legislation to reflect Australia's commitments under the latest annexure of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, also known as MARPOL—MARPOL is a convention of the International Maritime Organization—which came into effect on 1 March. The new rules classify pollution from ships as harmful if it poses an environmental threat by affecting the health or reproductive systems of plants or animals, including by causing cancer or mutations. These new rules mean this material cannot be dumped at sea. Some waste that is not designated as harmful may be released; however, this legislation quite rightly prevents it from being released in designated special areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Torres Strait.

The changes create a requirement for shippers to classify and declare their solid bulk cargoes as either harmful to the environment or not harmful. They will then be required to inform the master of the vessel carrying the cargo. This is about introducing responsibility chains to make sure that people are accountable. The master of the vessel will then determine the appropriate manner of discharge of the waste according to whether the ship is inside or outside one of these designated special areas. For example, while cargo residue not deemed harmful to the environment must not be dumped in designated special areas, it can be released in other places as far as is practicable from land. These are sensible changes. In a perfect world, we would never have to release any waste material into our oceans; however, we have to accept the reality that we need to move cargo by sea and that this will inevitably involve the production of waste that will make its way into the ocean. What we should do, however, is absolutely minimise it—do everything within our power to ensure that we protect our oceans. This legislation is a step forward because it bans the release of waste that is demonstrably harmful, while allowing the release of relatively safer material so long as it is outside of areas that are designated as being particularly sensitive.

This is a good outcome for Australia. As an island continent, we move 99 per cent of our cargo by sea. Sea cargo is critical to our economic wellbeing because ships carry our mineral and agricultural exports to our customers around the world. Ships also bring us consumer goods that people rely upon and take for granted, including motor vehicles.

But at the same time, Australia has some of the most environmentally sensitive marine environments on the planet. These wonderful habitats are not just environmental assets; they are, of course, economic assets. They attract tourists from right around the world. In the year to the end of February, some 8.9 million overseas visitors entered Australia, and between them they spent $41.3 billion. Tourism Australia has conducted surveys asking visitors their key reason for choosing Australia as a destination. Putting aside practical concerns like safety, the key reason given by visitors was Australia's aquatic and coastal experiences. The main reason tourists say they come to Australia is our coastline and marine environment. This tourism industry employs around about a million Australians, large numbers of whom are located along the Great Barrier Reef coast. We owe it to future generations to protect our environment, but we also owe it to ourselves to utilise these resources to create jobs and income. The key is to get the balance right.

Another key interest for Australia in this bill is that the Antarctic region will also be designated as a special area. It's a sensitive environment and, in many respects, it is unspoilt. Increasingly in recent years, cruise vessels have been taking tourists to the region. These provisions will reduce the tourism footprint by prohibiting vessels from releasing waste.

Australia has an excellent record when working with other nations of the world to improve international laws on pollution and maritime issues. We have always been members of the International Maritime Organization, and we play an active part, including through our High Commission in London. Usually our considerations in these areas have not been subject to partisan politics, and that is as it should be. We have a national interest here as a parliament, as representatives, as good global citizens, to make sure that Australia's national interest is protected. This parliament has a responsibility to future generations to continue to play a central role in the protection of our environment. I commend this bill to the House.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. Australia's neighbouring waters are home to beauteous, biodiverse ecosystems of unparalleled wonder. The Australian government has always encouraged the protection of our marine parks, and a recent announcement by our government supports that. Only a few weeks ago, we announced the largest-ever single investment in the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, totalling $500 million.

However, one Google search made me realise that there is still work to be done in protecting the Great Barrier Reef. The statistics are certainly alarming. Each year, 180 million tonnes of toxic waste is dumped into our oceans. In waters around Australia there are, on average, 4,000 microplastic fragments per square kilometre, although some hotspots have concentrations of around 15,000 to 23,000. Further, 100,000 marine creatures die every year from plastic entanglement, and these are only the ones that have been found. Finally, scientists have declared 200 marine areas, amounting to the size of the UK, as dead zones where no life organisms can grow.

Australia's beaches and coral reefs have been detrimentally affected by this futile dumping of waste. Contrary to popular belief, our beaches aren't littered with plastic dumped a million miles away and brought here by ocean currents; our beaches are littered with the plastic remnants of our own consumption. What litters our waters isn't merely solid plastic waste. Large amounts of toxic liquids, including dredge materials, industrial waste, sewage sludge and radioactive waste are illegally dumped in waters near our island home. Moreover, operational discharges from ships, such as sewage, galley scraps and cargo residues, are also tipped into our bordering oceans. Given the fact that five to six million shipping containers are sailing the world's oceans at any one moment, these operational discharges amount to a vast proportion of waste.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL, in which Australia takes part, aims to reduce the amount of dumped operational discharges through six annexes which respectively regulate the following pollutive substances: oil, noxious liquid substances in bulk, harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form, sewage from ships, garbage from ships and air pollution from ships. These annexes are made Australian law via the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983.

The amendment bill suggested today aims to implement in the act alterations to annex V. The existing legislation outlines several conditions to be met before the discharge of cargo residues is permitted. For instance, with exception, the discharge must occur in seas outside a special area of Arctic waters, and the discharge must occur while the ship is proceeding en route and is as far as practicable from the nearest land. The amendments to such conditions are as follows: if the cargo residues are residues of solid bulk cargoes, the discharge will only be permitted if the master of the ship has a written declaration that the solid bulk cargoes have been classified in accordance with the criteria in appendix I of annex V of MARPOL and found to be not harmful to the marine environment. Essentially, this amendment will make it mandatory for shippers to classify and declare their solid bulk cargoes as harmful to the marine environment or non-harmful and inform the master of this classification. The master will thus be able to determine the appropriate manner of discharge for the residues of these cargoes according to whether the ship is located outside or within a special area of Arctic waters.

There are additionally a couple of minor amendments included in this bill. If legislated, the bill will alter provisions of the act to allow regulations and orders to apply, adopt or incorporate relevant documents or instruments. This change parallels provisions in other existing legislation that implements MARPOL and allows Australia to keep up with the frequent amendment and adoption cycle of the International Maritime Organization. The bill will also alter the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy Collection) Act 1981, removing the need for regulations to prescribe the manner in which a protection-of-the-sea levy notice may be served in particular circumstances. This will allow obsolete and now pointless regulation to be repealed. Just like any other Liberal policy, these two amendments will enhance efficient practices in this industry.

In my electorate of Mackellar, almost every suburb is bordered by a beach—a beach where children build sandcastles, bury themselves in the sand and swim until the sun goes down. I'm therefore focused more than most on the health of our seas. We must ensure that our water, in which our children—and my daughter—swim, remains free of toxic substances and grimy waste.

Scientific research has shown that polluted oceans potentially engender hormonal and reproductive problems, nervous system damage, kidney failure, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and heart disease. Of even greater significance is the fact that 70 per cent of the oxygen we breathe is produced by marine plants. If we continue to dump toxic waste in the ocean, our sources of oxygen will diminish.

Those who do not care for the environment should at least care for the health of their own children, not to mention themselves. I want my daughter to be able to play on a beach as clean as those in my youth. We should aim to be the first generation that can say we left our children a better environment than we inherited. Through Australia's participation in the international marine organisation, we have taken steps to count back the years and bring our oceans to the state they were in 50 years ago. We have enacted legislation to prohibit sea dumping, conserve our biodiverse marine ecosystems and protect our waters from the adverse effects of shipping.

We have made great progress, but there is still a long voyage ahead. The fact that it takes 400 years for plastics to degrade in the water, the fact that we have spilt 1½ million tonnes of oil in the past 30 years and the fact that our millions of crates of cargo are producing tonnes of ocean-dumped waste are ringing alarm bells, reminding us to take action for our sake and for the sake of future generations.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, and I do so because it is a good bill and the right thing to do. We heard the member for Grayndler earlier talk in support of this bill and about why it's important to do so. I've spoken about this issue many times before in this parliament, and I would just like to reiterate one more time that the seat of Hindmarsh that I represent has 18 kilometres of seafront, coast, that affects our tourism and recreation. They are the beaches for the western suburbs and, in fact, for most of the metropolitan area of Adelaide, so it's very important that we keep them pristine, beautiful and very well looked after, as we have done so for many years.

I'm very proud to represent such an area. It has some of the best beaches in Australia, like Glenelg, Henley, Grange and all the way up to West Beach, Somerton, Tennyson and parts of Semaphore Beach. These are absolutely beautiful seafront, sandy beaches that the entire Adelaide region uses for recreation, barbecues, swimming and a whole range of other things. Not only South Australians but also many international tourists use them. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see why a bill like this is so important. A short distance further north is the port of Port Adelaide and the harbour of Outer Harbor, which have lots of ships coming in. We want the ships that visit the coastline all around Australia to do the right thing and to do what they can, through legislation such as this, to ensure that our beaches around the country and their beautiful ecosystems are kept in place.

As I said, my electorate and its beaches are a tourism hub that draws people from all over the state, all over the country and, of course, all over the world during the summer. I and my constituents are privileged to be surrounded by such a beautiful environment, and that is why this bill is so important. The international treatment of pollution from ships is something that we have to be engaged in as a nation. We have to ensure that we take part, as we heard from the previous speakers earlier, in international forums, agreements and discussions that support and strengthen our ability to keep our coastlines pristine. In fact, this is such an important issue to South Australians that back in 2001, I think it was, there was a Senate inquiry into the Gulf St Vincent, which is basically the gulf that Adelaide's coast is on. The inquiry recommended that action needed to be taken to ensure that the gulf and its recreation fishing, fishing businesses and tourism et cetera were there for many years to come. We also had, back in 2005, Labor's inquiry—we were in opposition at the time—into the Gulf St Vincent, and many of the issues in this bill were mentioned at that time. When we came into government we implemented many of those findings, but there is still a long way to go.

This legislation affects just about every coastline around the country. In my electorate, the coastline is home to a variety of birds, insects and reptiles, many of which are native to the area. I also have one of the last sand dunes in the metropolitan area, Tennyson Dunes, which is a pristine environmental ecosystem that is being preserved. We also have some dunes further south at Somerton Beach. This is why my constituents recognise that this is such an important issue and such an important bill. It is a delicate ecosystem, and we appreciate the area for what it is. We can see how perhaps some ships that are coming in aren't doing the right thing and could damage the entire coast. They could damage not only the coastline and its waters but also the tourism, businesses and a whole range of other things that go with it. This is something that I've fought very hard for to ensure that we can preserve and conserve it for future generations. I'm sure that all members in this House whose electorate has a coastline feel the same way.

The River Torrens goes through the middle of my electorate. Many years ago, there were lots of industries along this river such as Onkaparinga Textiles, Michell leather, and Mason and Cox. They were all put there for a reason, and that was that the waste would go straight into the river and out to sea. Lots of those archaic practices have now stopped, because the flow to the sea means damage to the ecosystem in our waters, the Gulf St Vincent. I suppose this bill is there to do the same thing: so that ships who are carrying goods that shouldn't be let out into the sea are stopped from doing so. That is why it's an important bill and something that we on this side are supporting.

The first Sunday of March each year is Clean Up Australia Day, a day where thousands of Australians go out and clean up in their areas and on the coastline. We had some wonderful groups that did some clean-up on the day. We saw the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Adelaide West community create a Clean Up Australia Day event along Tapleys Hill Road, which is basically the coastline of my electorate. The danger of everyday littering is a real concern to our coasts, and we recognise the efforts of the people who volunteer their time for the sake of conservation. The local community are committed to the conservation of our environment and they do their part. Accordingly, all of us in this place should stand up for legislation such as this that will protect the marine environment and our coastlines.

Members in this chamber will be well aware that nearly all of Australia's exports travel via ship, with a significant portion consisting of solid bulk cargo. In fact, we heard earlier speakers say that one-sixth of every kilometre of water in the world is Australia's responsibility. That's why this bill is so important. It's important to our national export trade, and it does no unnecessary harm to our shores and our imports. It's crucial that we take action—in particular, in sensitive marine areas such as the Great Barrier Reef, the Torres Strait and Antarctica. What is terrifying about bulk cargo shipping is that we do not know for certain what the environmental risks are. This bill will ensure that shippers classify and declare solid bulk cargoes which could be harmful to the marine environment, and goods which are not harmful to the marine environment, and inform the master of this classification. This will allow us to determine the appropriate manner of discharge for the residues of these cargoes according to whether the ship is located outside or within special areas, or Arctic waters.

It's estimated that 2.15 million tonnes enter the ocean every year just as the result of bulk cargo shipping. Deputy Speaker, you can see what this does to our environment. Australian households—each and every one of us—are also encouraged to do our part for the environment and to introduce environmentally conscious measures that work for everyday household goods as well. As such, I welcome this reform, which ensures that this parliament does its part for conservation and for our seas. Australian cargo that ends up in the sea ends up there as a result of the ship which holds the waste being washed, or because the waste was dumped, or for one of a range of other reasons. This bill will put the responsibility back onto the shippers. Shippers will have to classify and declare their cargo. Shippers will be advised of the methods of discharge which are the safest for the environment, depending on what's appropriate to their circumstances.

This is not a reform that's done in isolation. It's done to align Australia with its latest obligations internationally. As I said earlier, it is our duty to ensure that we take part in forums, international discussions and international agreements, because one-sixth of the ocean is Australia's responsibility. We're an island, we're surrounded by water, most of our exports and imports come via the water, so it's very important to ensure that we keep our beaches and our environment and a whole range of other things pristine and clean. Worldwide, 9.5 billion tonnes of solid bulk cargo are transported annually.

Our overseas friends, neighbours and trading partners have already stepped up and implemented protection for the sea from ships, and they follow the convention put forward by the International Maritime Organization. The IMO is the UN agency which is responsible for improving maritime safety and preventing pollution, and Australia is a member state. For five decades the IMO has worked with governments and industry to establish less harmful systems that won't affect the environment in an adverse way. Internationally, this convention came into effect in March 2018, a month ago. There are many other nations which will be encouraged to ratify this convention as well. There is broad support internationally for the further prevention of pollution from ships, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see further international agreements being signed, strengthening the prevention of pollution from ships et cetera as much as possible.

As a resource-rich maritime nation, which Australia is, we should be cooperating internationally to prevent toxins and anything else from being dumped into the sea. Loading and unloading of bulk cargo presents a risk. There'll always be a risk with it for Australian ports, and we should have regulations that encourage the very best practice. We need to do much more to prevent further accidents that risk the condition of the sea. As I said, we're an island nation, so it's understandable that 99 per cent of all our trade is done via bulk cargo shipping. It's important to highlight that this bill does not seek to impact this trade—far from it. In comparison to Australia, there would be very few nations in which a strong shipping industry is so imperative.

I support this bill and I ask that other members consider doing so, to protect the sea not just for now but for future generations of Australians who will continue to use our pristine beaches and our pristine environment, and to ensure that the enjoyment that we get out of the beach and through recreational fishing, swimming et cetera is handed down to many generations of Australians.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 and in support of the comments made by the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Grayndler earlier on. This is important legislation because the world's oceans are critical to our wellbeing. We have a responsibility, as do all countries, to protect the ocean environment. The world's oceans are already heavily polluted, and marine life is dying. Oceanic ecosystems are seriously at risk. Land based runoff, oil spills, floating plastics, radioactive waste, untreated sewage, pesticides and other matters are all making their way or being directly discharged into the oceans, with catastrophic consequences. Inside the Pacific Ocean, it is reported that there is an island of garbage, mainly plastics, twice the size of Texas. That's just one location. There are now several dead zones in ocean waters across the world.

I will go on to some other statistics, which obviously are very hard to verify, but I can only take them at face value. Ocean pollution is killing one million seabirds each year. Over 100,000 marine mammals die every year from plastic entanglement and indigestion, and 300,000 dolphins and porpoises die each year because of entanglement with discarded fishing nets. There are other statistics that I could allude to as well which just highlight the incredible damage and destruction that is being caused throughout our oceans each and every day. If the same level of destruction were occurring on land, there would be widespread public outcry, but, because it is occurring in the oceans, the damage is out of sight and out of mind. Of course, it is also much more difficult to bring to account those responsible for the pollution and to quantify the pollution itself.

We also know that a considerable amount of ocean pollution is directly caused by sea vessels. The latest figures state that there are at present about 11,000 bulk carriers operating around the world and over 52,000 merchant ships. The combined pollution to oceans being caused by those vessels is immeasurable, but it is never quantified or seen. Yet we have come to rely on them, because 90 per cent of goods are transported across the world on sea vessels. As the member for Grayndler pointed out, for Australia the figure is 99 per cent because we are an island country and, indeed, we are also a great exporter of minerals and the like, and those all require bulk carriage, whether it's oil containers, gas supplies that we sell overseas, coal or iron ore.

The member for Grayndler also pointed out—and I want to quote these figures—that it is estimated that 60 to 100 tonnes of cargo slurry per hold is discharged into the ocean after washing down at the end of each voyage. The average bulk carrier has five holds, which equates to, on average, between 300 and 500 tonnes of slurry dumped into the ocean waters at the end of each journey. When you multiply that figure by the thousands of carriers operating throughout the world, the pollution levels are staggering. Just as concerning is that many of the carriers are operated by entities that have shown little regard for ethical practices with regard to both the crews they employ and their general operational methods. As we know, many of those carriers are flagged in jurisdictions such as the Bahamas and others where oversight is at best questionable. Being on the ocean and out of sight makes it extremely difficult for authorities to monitor their activities. Indeed, I ask the question: who does monitor activities on the high seas? Australia has jurisdiction over its own coastal waters. Perhaps that jurisdiction in some cases extends to the 200-kilometre mark or thereabouts, but what happens beyond that? That would apply to each country: who does monitor the activities of ocean vessels once they get into the high seas and outside of jurisdictional waters?

I note that this legislation relates to the transport of solid bulk cargo, which includes iron ore, coal, bauxite, alumina, minerals, sugar and wheat. It also includes livestock. As we know, Australia is a major exporter of live animals. It's a subject we debated in this House only yesterday. It was the matter of public importance. It's a matter which has been the subject of much public interest and controversy over many, many years. The debate to date has been essentially about live animal exports, and it's been focused on the horrific cruelty associated with that trade. Today I want to raise an additional concern that I have about the trade: the ocean pollution that is associated with live exports. Over the eight-year period between 2010 and 2017, according to government figures, Australia exported 25 million live animals. That number was made up of mainly cattle and sheep: 7.6 million cattle and 17.4 million sheep. Of those animals, 144,000 died. Two questions arise in my mind from those figures. Firstly, how much waste was created from those transports; how was that waste disposed of; and where was it disposed of? I don't know. I doubt that anybody else knows. Secondly, how were the dead livestock disposed of? If we look at the photos and the footage of the recent incident, where 2,400 sheep died aboard the Awassi, we can see how they were disposed of. They were simply dumped into the ocean. Many of those dead animals were already infected. They weren't just dead; in many cases they died because of disease and infection, and yet they were simply dumped overboard. The reports would suggest that they were in a terrible state. What damage is that doing to our ocean waters? Indeed, which waters were they dumped in and was there a management plan for the way that they were discarded? I doubt that very much. I also doubt very much that the figures that we have on the number of animals that were thrown overboard are accurate. Quite frankly, looking at some of the material that's been provided to us in the past about those carriers, the figures that they provide, I believe, are at best questionable.

In 2003, when the Cormo Express was in the Middle East and there were suggestions that all of the sheep on board—in excess of 50,000—should be dumped overboard as a way to save them from further cruelty, the Australian Veterinary Association president at the time said that to dump those sheep overboard would be 'an environmental disaster'. In other words, it would be an environmental disaster for the ocean waters where they would be dumped. Yet that is exactly what we continue to do with animals that die on board these ships. And that's not to mention the risks to the crew that have to handle those dead animals.

So, I say, with respect to this legislation and that particular matter, that it is important legislation, because government should know what's on board vessels, what is being discharged into the oceans and how it is being discharged. If we at least know, there might be some opportunity to establish regulations, procedures and protocols for how it should be done. Again, whether it can be monitored and regulated is another matter, but at least knowing what is occurring is a very good start to managing a very serious problem. It's all well and good to say that the oceans cover 75 per cent of the earth's surface—that there's a lot of water out there and anything that is discharged into the oceans will inevitably dissipate and present little environmental risk. But the evidence shows otherwise. Discharge presents a very serious risk, wherever people are across the world, because of ocean currents which carry the waste material from one side of the world to the other, and so we are all affected by the bad practices of those who use our ocean waters and are prepared to turn a blind eye to, or not apply, the standards that one would expect of them. The International Maritime Organization standards try to manage that as best as they can.

For Australia there is additional importance to all of this. As other speakers have pointed out, the Great Barrier Reef has an economic value of some $56 billion and an annual economic contribution of $6.4 billion to this country. We're talking about serious values here which in turn generate economic activity and jobs for the people of Australia, but this will only continue if we're able to preserve the Great Barrier Reef in its current state. Similarly, we have a fisheries and aquaculture industry in this country that was worth some $2.8 billion in 2014-15, according to ABARES. I expect the figure might be even higher today than it was two or three years ago. Whether it is or not, we're talking, in round figures, of a $3 billion fishing industry in this country, which would be predominantly sea based. Therefore, it's in our economic interest as a nation to ensure that we preserve the quality of the waters in our oceans. The constant environmental damage that is occurring, as I pointed out with the figures I referred to earlier on, is destroying marine life. If it destroys marine life then the ecosystem cycle will continue and ultimately our fishing stocks will be depleted. That will in turn directly affect the fishing industry of this country, something that Labor tried to protect when it was last in government through the conservation-of-marine-parks proposals that we had in place.

This is important legislation. It's important legislation because it goes to the heart of environmental matters that affect the people of the world, and it goes to the heart of economic matters which, in turn, go straight to the social interests of the people of this country. It is important legislation. I hope it does make a difference. It's legislation that goes in the right direction. Only time will tell what difference it has made.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my fellow MPs for their support of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 and for contributions that have been made. I look forward to this bill passing the House and the other place.

The amendments contained in this bill primarily implement international maritime environmental protection obligations adopted at the International Maritime Organization into our domestic law. Through the IMO Australia has played an important role in developing the amendments. The key amendments will ensure the master of a ship has vital information in relation to the cargo on board. This allows the master to discharge cargo residues appropriately, depending on the location of the vessel and the nature of residues discharged. Importantly, those residues can now be discharged into the sea in a defined set of circumstances where it has been determined that the residues are not harmful to the marine environment.

The amendments are consistent with Australia's longstanding support for protecting the marine environment, and implementing them further highlights our commitment to the International Maritime Organization. It is my view that Australia's maritime interests are best advanced through internationally agreed arrangements, including through the IMO. These amendments will also allow Australia to apply our international obligations through domestic legislation and ensure we are keeping up with the IMO's frequent amendment and adoption cycle.

The bill also makes a machinery change to the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy Collection) Act 1981, removing the need for regulations to prescribe the manner in which a protection of the sea levy notice may be served in particular circumstances. This minor change will allow the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy Collection) Regulations to be repealed, removing a dated and now unnecessary piece of legislation.

Combined, these amendments will ensure Australia remains compliant with our international obligations and has consistent and effective maritime legislation. I thank the House for its support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.