Vince Connelly (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation seeks to amend the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to include further restrictions to enforce a global maximum sulphur cap of half a per cent by weight for ship fuel oil from 1 January 2020 and to ban the carriage of high-sulphur fuel without abatement technology from 1 March 2020. The industry further endorses the implementation of a 0.1 per cent sulphur emission control area for Australia, pursuant to similar moves by the International Maritime Organization. This represents an opportunity to lower our national emissions and support environmentally friendly policy.

To put the global issue into context, it is estimated that one ultra-large container ship emits the same amount of sulphur in one day of steaming as 50,000 cars emit in one year. In contributing to this debate, I'd like to inform the parliament of the role of the LNG Marine Fuel Institute in promoting the maritime industry's transition to the use of low-emissions liquefied natural gas, or LNG, as a marine and transport fuel, thereby reducing sulphur emissions, improving public health and creating jobs.

There is a growing global movement to replace the use of heavy fuel oil as the primary fuel for maritime shipping with the more environmentally friendly LNG, which is conveniently produced abundantly in Western Australia's north-west and in Queensland. Australian LNG has the potential to become the primary fuel for marine transportation. Currently, Australia is more than 90 per cent reliant on imported transport fuel oils, despite extensive domestic natural gas reserves in our nation. Australia is poised to lead the way, ahead of impending regulations, by establishing early adoption of LNG as a marine fuel and providing the Australasian maritime industry with an alternative, sustainable and cost-effective fuel source.

The use of LNG as a marine fuel is the first step towards helping Australia achieve energy independence. Our current reliance on imported fuels is a concerning and unsustainable model that undermines Australia's energy security. By promoting and facilitating the use of LNG as a marine transportation fuel, the federal government can partner with industry and help grow Australia's economy and create jobs while reducing pollution and emissions on a large scale.

By way of background, in 2016 the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, made a decision to enforce the global reduction of sulphur emissions to half a per cent by 1 January 2020. This deadline is fast approaching. The IMO mandated that the North Sea, Baltic and North American emission control areas have a stricter 0.1 per cent sulphur cap, and the Chinese domestic emission controls also mandated a 0.1 per cent sulphur cap from today.

This global emissions reduction regulation will work to reduce the impacts of sulphur, nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide; reduce airborne particulates; and reduce acid rain and ground-level ozone smog, as well as reducing cancer rates and respiratory diseases in port areas due to ship emissions, which have recently been linked to neurological conditions such as dementia. These benefits will in turn have a positive climate change impact and improve public health and water quality as well as increase jobs.

The amendments contained in this legislation are necessary to meet Australia's international obligations. Further amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 are required to permit ships with an exhaust gas cleaning system, called a scrubber, to continue using high-sulphur fuel from 1 January 2020.

The high-sulphur fuel carriage ban will be in place to discourage ships from burning high-sulphur fuel on the high seas, away from a country's jurisdictional waters, and to ensure a level playing field for international shipping. The carriage ban will not impose any additional costs on shipping companies or freight, as ships are already globally prohibited from burning noncompliant fuel from 1 January 2020. The majority of Australia's domestic fleet already use fuels that meet the 2020 sulphur standard and even the stricter, separate International Maritime Organization sanctioned 0.1 per cent in regional emission control areas. The industry is supportive of Australia legislating and consistently enforcing the sulphur cap to ensure a global level playing field.

IMO 2020 standards will come into effect on 1 January 2020, limiting fuel sulphur content to 0.5 per cent. This will force the shipping industry to change from heavy fuel oil, with typical sulphur oxide contents in the range of 2½ per cent, to other options.

The potential for using LNG as a marine fuel is huge. Ships visiting the major ports on the east coast of Australia are currently consuming in the order of 2.1 million tonnes of heavy fuel oil every year. LNG is safe to use, fully compliant with the IMO 2020 standards and readily available as a marine transport fuel. Australia needs to take advantage of its abundant natural resources and significant shipping market by building cost-competitive LNG fuel supply hubs to supply the LNG fuelled shipping market. Currently, countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and Japan have in the order of $10 billion invested and are forging ahead with the development of their LNG fuel supply hubs.

Reductions in air pollution from ships will help protect our natural and built world from the destructive effects of these emissions. Reducing sulphur, nitrogen and carbon dioxide, as well as particulate emissions from ships, ensures positive environmental outcomes now and into the future.

Promoting stricter IMO sanctioned emission control areas similar to those in the North Sea, the Baltic and North America will create a multibillion dollar domestic coastal shipping industry in the Southern Hemisphere, similar to that already established in the Northern Hemisphere, using Australian produced LNG as a marine fuel.

The main constituent of LNG is methane. It is lighter than air and boils at minus 161½ degrees Celsius. Since LNG evaporates, in case of collisions or grounding, the catastrophic effect of oil spills on Australia's pristine reefs and coastline will be eliminated. Australians, particularly those in coastal communities, will reap the tourism, health and environmental benefits of cleaner air through the restriction of sulphur emissions from ships in Australian waters.

Reducing emissions not only benefits the environment but also has an important, positive impact on public health, infrastructure development and jobs. According to studies in Europe, 50,000 premature deaths a year can be linked to air pollution from ships. To emphasise this further, a recent study in China found that at least 24,000 premature deaths per year in East Asia were related to air pollution from shipping. These diseases were most commonly in the form of cancers and heart and lung diseases. These preventable diseases not only impact health and social welfare but also limit resources in an already constrained public health system.

The LNG Marine Fuel Institute works with affiliated government and non-government bodies around the globe and regulatory bodies to advocate to government, to industry and to the public for the use of LNG as a marine fuel, ensuring stable and environmentally sustainable growth for the maritime sector. The institute brings together key agencies, federal, state and industry regulators, and businesses throughout Australasia. It has a partnership with the Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel in the Northern Hemisphere, working towards securing LNG as a marine fuel for the global maritime industry.

I acknowledge the exemplary work of the founding directors of the LNG Marine Fuels Institute, Captain Walter Purio, Richard Sandover, Tony Brooks—who is here with us today—Professor Stephen Smith, Rod Duke, Mary Hackett and Meg O'Neill, in raising public awareness of this issue and advocating for industry transformation. The national launch of the institute occurred on 21 June 2017 here in Parliament House, by the then environment minister, the member for Kooyong.

The institute is uniquely positioned as the only independent not-for-profit organisation in the Southern Hemisphere servicing the needs of the LNG marine fuel industry, working cooperatively to design best-practice use of, and creative solutions for, LNG as a marine fuel. This best practice will help position the use of Australian LNG as a marine fuel in a global context, ultimately benefiting all LNG stakeholders in the domestic and global LNG supply chains.

Renewable technologies are only part of the solution to power the nation in the medium term. The LNG fuels industry has the potential to power our nation's marine, road, rail and mining industries using our domestic gas reserves. The measurable benefits include energy independence and ensuring ongoing trade with countries with even more strict emission control areas and countries surrounding the North and Baltic seas, which will have a positive impact on Australia's exports, balance of payments and global reputation.

Reducing Australia's reliance on imported fuels is a strategic benefit, and LNG offers an economically viable solution through the development of new technologies to power industry. To achieve this, it is necessary to allocate adequate funding into research and development of future fuels technology. The barriers preventing the transition from heavy fuel oils to LNG include a lack of appropriate infrastructure, such as bunkering facilities and appropriate policy frameworks. We have the opportunity to encourage institutional investment in the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support this environmentally friendly industry. It should be a priority for the Commonwealth to implement an emissions control area covering Australian ports, as has already been done for ports in the USA, Canada, China and elsewhere.

The bill also proposes other minor administrative amendments to exempt naval and foreign government vessels from provisions of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act. These minor amendments do not impose any new regulatory burden on industry. Passage of this legislation through parliament is vital before 1 December 2019 to ensure Australia is ready to enforce the global sulphur cap from 1 January 2020.

It is exciting for Australia to be part of a growing global movement to replace the use of heavy fuel oil as the primary fuel for maritime shipping with a more environmentally friendly alternative in LNG, which is produced domestically. LNG is seen as a transition fuel to a low-carbon economy. It provides substantial environmental benefits over conventional fuels, in terms of improving air quality and for human health, which is particularly important in ports and coastal areas. LNG emits zero sulphur oxides, virtually zero particulate matter and significantly fewer nitrogen oxides. LNG is clean, posing no pollution risk to the environment in the ocean, and has no waste disposal or discharge issues. LNG as a marine fuel, in combination with efficiency measures developed for new ships, provides a way of meeting the IMO's decarbonisation target of a 40 per cent decrease by 2030 for international shipping. I commend this bill to the House.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the House: the original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question before the chair now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Anika Wells (Lilley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Lilley, we have around 28 kilometres of coastline, and we are surrounded by waterways, from Kedron Brook to Cabbage Tree Creek to Nudgee Beach and the Sandgate and Brighton foreshores. We want these waterways to be cared for, and we want these waterways to be protected. Our glorious Moreton Bay has more coral than the Caribbean and the most southern population of dugongs, and it is easier to access than the Great Barrier Reef. Yet it stands at risk of being taken for granted.

The Healthy Land and WaterReport Card is an annual study of the health of South-East Queensland's waterways. The 2018 report cardfound that, overall, the waterways draining into Moreton Bay were in poor health, due to the high levels of mud and other pollutants that ultimately flow into the bay.

This bill, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019, is necessary to help combat emissions, stem the growth of sulphur emissions and reduce acid rain, and so I support it. But there is more work to be done to protect our waterways in Lilley, and I will continue to work with our local community groups and organisations to ensure that we achieve our goals together.

In Australia, we have ocean-exposed and high-energy sandy beaches stretching for over 10,000 kilometres, covering approximately 49 per cent of the coastline. In my electorate of Lilley, we have approximately 28 kilometres of that coastline—easily the best 28 kilometres!

Spilt oil can affect marine organisms via several pathways, such as the physical coating of organisms, the penetration and persistence of component petroleum hydrocarbons in the sediments, and the uptake of petroleum hydrocarbons by both plants and animals, leading to lethal and sublethal toxicity. Impacts to mobile species such as fish, sharks and marine mammals are most likely to occur due to the flow-on effects of impacts to their habitat and food sources. However, direct contact with oil can result in direct impacts to the animal, due to the toxic effects if ingested, damage to the lungs when inhaled at the surface, and damage to the skin and associated functions such as thermoregulation. Waterbirds are particularly susceptible to impacts from oil spills as, if the birds come into contact with the oil, the hydrophobic nature of hydrocarbons can cause reduced waterproofing in their plumage, and reduced insulation and buoyancy of the plumage if the animal comes into direct contact with spilt fuel. This may cause death due to hypothermia, starvation or exhaustion.

The international importance of the wetland areas within our Moreton Bay has been recognised, with parts of the bay and surrounds being designated as a Ramsar site in 1993. Covering more than 120,000 hectares, the Moreton Bay Ramsar site is extremely varied, ranging from perched freshwater lakes and sedge swamps on the offshore sand islands, to intertidal mudflats, marshes, sand flats, coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves next to the bay's islands and the mainland. This varied landscape enhances the bay's biological diversity, which includes an overlap of both tropical and temperate wildlife species. The site contains extensive intertidal areas that are valuable for supporting waterbirds and fauna of conservation significance as well as providing important nursery conditions for fish and crustaceans.

I would like to take this opportunity to note the good and dedicated work of the Sandgate Wildlife Network, who spend their volunteer hours caring for our waterways and wildlife. I would like to acknowledge the Ocean Crusaders. While they are based in the electorate of Bowman, they do come to the beaches at Brighton and Sandgate, when they can, to assist in protecting our waterways and looking after our wildlife. I thank them too.

I want to speak about pollution in Moreton Bay. Like I said earlier, the most recent report card—the report card of 2018—found that overall the waterways draining into Moreton Bay were poor in quality due to mud and other pollutants flowing into the bay. Professor Connolly believes that Moreton Bay will likely deteriorate in the years ahead due to pressures including urbanisation, increased and more intense weather events and strong population growth.

Lilley constituents are aware of the threats to our beautiful corner of the world, and they dedicate many hours of their time to preserving our environment. I'd like to acknowledge the Keep Sandgate Beautiful Association, the Nudgee Beach Environmental Education Centre, the Boondall Wetlands Environment Centre, the Northern Catchments Network and the Cabbage Tree Creek catchment coordinating network for their hours and hours of dedicated efforts to keep our beautiful corner of the earth as clean and as protected as they can.

Lilley's youngest citizens are also switched on to these dangers and to the issues of climate change and the threat it poses to our environment, our public health and our economy. They are taking some initiative and doing their part, even before they can vote. I congratulate the environmental clubs in schools, such as the Sandgate environment committee, based out of Sandgate District State High School, the Craigslea State High School environmental committee, Mount Alvernia College, Mary MacKillop College, Northside Christian College and Wavell State High School, all of whom are currently involved in the 2019 Brisbane City Council's Green Heart Schools Program. Like these Lilley volunteers, I recognise that protecting our environment is something we must act on every day, and today I am supporting this bill as part of our fight to protect what we love.

Australia is a proud signatory of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. We first gave effect to our obligations under the convention through the passage of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. Since then, numerous regulations and the Navigation Act 2012 have also ensured that Australia meets its international obligations. MARPOL provides for a global cap of 0.5 per cent on the sulphur content of fuel used on board ships. This cap will come into effect on 1 January 2020, as the member for Stirling detailed before me. The International Maritime Organization has also agreed to a ban on the carriage of fuel that does not comply with the new cap on the high seas from 1 March 2020.

This legislation gives effect to both of these new requirements and ensures that they're legally enforceable in Australian waters. Ships burn heavy sulphur fuel oil, which releases air pollutants. Shipping currently contributes approximately 13 per cent sulphur oxide and approximately 15 per cent nitrous oxide to global emissions. This new cap is necessary to help combat global emissions, stem the growth of sulphur emissions and reduce acid rain. Any breaches of the carriage ban as contained in this legislation will be subject to the same penalties as the use of non-compliant fuel, which will remove the incentive for ships to switch to the higher sulphur content fuel on the high seas. All international shipping is required to comply with the new fuel obligations contained within MARPOL. This legislation and the implementation of the MARPOL obligations are necessary to allow Australian authorities the power to enforce the convention in Australian waters.

As an island continent and trading nation, Australia cannot isolate itself from the impacts of marine pollution and any potential increases in the costs of marine fuel oil. International shipping covered by this new cap carries 99 per cent of Australia's trade by volume. Most large-scale transport providers have long-term fuel contracts in place and/or hedge against any fluctuations in the price of fuel. Given these arrangements, it is difficult to predict what impact, if any, the likely increase in the price of marine fuel will have on goods purchased in Australia. This legislation also better aligns the POPS Act with MARPOL by providing an exemption for naval and government vessels, and clarifies the definition of a number of key terms provided for in the current act.

Labor is a proud supporter of Australian shipping. During his time as minister and shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, the current Leader of the Opposition outlined a number of measures that would prevent further undercutting of the Australian flagged fleet.

Shipping is an important national strategic industry. Maintaining a domestic shipping industry is critical for an island nation. Ships are efficient, require no built infrastructure for navigation and are the least energy intensive of all freight transport nodes. Over 99 per cent of trade to and from Australia is carried by ship. Australia has the fourth-largest shipping freight task in the world. Australia is inherently and increasingly reliant on international shipping for our coastal trade, underlying the critical importance of international conventions to the protection of our coastline. With the expansion of Australia's commodity trade, international shipping is becoming busier. Cruise shipping is also growing rapidly, delivering more international tourists to Australia and around the coast.

Labor has a proud history of supporting the vital role Australian maritime industries play in securing our economic, environmental and national security interests. We had committed to revitalising the industry if we were successful at the May election. We would have stopped the abuse of temporary licences that has occurred under this government and in breach of the existing legislation, and ensured that the national interest was prioritised when it comes to licensing foreign ships to work in Australia. We would have worked towards creating a strategic fleet of Australian flagged vessels that could be called upon in areas of strategic importance to the Australian economy, such as the distribution of liquid fuel. Unlike this government, Labor supports Australian maritime workers and Australian flagged vessels. Australia needs a vibrant maritime industry that serves the nation's economic, environmental and national security interests, and we want to see that vibrant industry serve our shipping needs, create profit for industry, secure a strategic set of maritime skills, and provide jobs and opportunities for our young people.

I want to speak about the Moreton Bay oil spill—because it is solid bulk cargoes like oils and fuels that are occasionally spilt into the sea, coastal and inland waters in large volumes as a consequence of infrastructure and transportation failures. On 11 March 2009, in one of Australia's worst oil disasters, we saw the container ship Pacific Adventurer lose 31 containers overboard and leak approximately 270 tonnes of bunker oil into Moreton Bay, blackening beaches on Moreton and Bribie islands and along the Sunshine Coast. Fifty-six kilometres of beach from the coastline of Brisbane right through to the Sunshine Coast were affected by this oil spill. The oil slick damaged beaches, rocky reefs and wetlands on Moreton Island, and beaches and mangrove wetlands between Bribie Island and Coolum on the Sunshine Coast. Premier Anna Bligh declared the area a disaster zone. The captain of the Pacific Adventurer and the four companies involvedwere each charged with one count of discharging oil into the ocean. The captain faced additional charges of failing to notify authorities. The ship was sailing north from Port Kembla in New South Wales when it hit rough weather off the south-east coast of Queensland. More than 30 containers fell overboard, piercing the ship's fuel tanks and spilling 270,000 litres of oil into the ocean. Prosecutors alleged that each defendant was reckless, that the ship was not properly maintained and that ship lashings were faulty. Ultimately, the defendants were fined and convictions were recorded. The clean-up and compensation bill amounted to around $31 million. But what was the ultimate cost to the quality of our water in Moreton Bay; the health, life and vitality of the animals; and the flora and fauna that live there?

In conclusion, Queensland's streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries and open coastal waters are essential to maintaining the health of our environment and our quality of life. Preventing or reducing water pollution improves water quality, and it helps to underpin our healthy natural ecosystems that stand at risk. Moreton Bay contributes approximately $7.6 billion of value to the South-East Queensland economy each year. The bay indirectly employs thousands of people, and it provides countless social and lifestyle benefits to our community.

South-East Queensland's unique lifestyle depends on healthy waterways. This is why acting now is so important. More than 3.6 million people visited Moreton Bay in 2017, only slightly fewer than the combined 3.8 million who visited the southern Great Barrier Reef, the Whitsundays and Mackay. Community groups in Lilley already put so much thought, time and care into preserving our local waterways, and I thank them all for their service to our part of the world. This is a bill that helps protect Australian waterways and upholds our international obligations, but I look forward to doing more.

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

I thank the member for Ballarat, the member for Lilley and, of course, the member for Stirling for their contributions to this debate. I have put myself in the unenviable position of being just in front of the member for Kingsford Smith, who no doubt will surpass anything I have to say in this chamber, especially on this critical topic.

I am, however, somewhat confused by what the member for Lilley said when she claimed that Labor are in favour of a domestic maritime fleet for Australia, because when they were in power they moved legislation that saw the number of maritime vessels under the Australian flag decimated. I can't understand how on one hand Labor can say that they're in favour of it but on the other hand introduce policies that see our fleet decline to virtually nothing.

I rise to speak, though, on this important bill, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019. The motivation behind this amendment bill is cleaner air and cleaner oceans. I am therefore proud to speak in support of this bill today. My electorate of Mackellar is home to some of Australia's most beautiful coastal gems, including Long Reef Aquatic Reserve and various pristine breaches that draw thousands of visitors every day. It is my duty to act and speak in a way which advocates for the health and sustainability of these places.

The people of the Northern Beaches of Sydney pride themselves on their clean beaches, their relaxed atmosphere and the care they take in looking after the community they live in. This wonderful community deserves a voice in this parliament, and it is only right and proper that I represent their views on environmental responsibility and environmental sustainability in this parliament on this day. This bill will have a direct impact on my constituents' home beaches, with their sandstone and whitewash and therefore is a matter of utmost importance to me. My electorate values environmental responsibility and sustainability very highly, and therefore I must express my complete support for this bill and the motivations lying behind it. Fresh air and thriving oceans must be high on Australia's list of priorities, because without these it will not be possible to survive. The vast majority of Australia's population can be found in coastal areas, and hence the health and cleanliness of our air and oceans has to be a focal point for discussion in this House.

It is clear that this bill serves to implement the maximum allowable sulphur content in ship fuel oil, which the International Maritime Organization will make universal come January 2020. By lowering the high sulphur content in ship fuel oil, this government is committing itself to a vision of environmental sustainability and caring for the majority of its population, who live along our beautiful coastline. This amendment bill is also necessary to fulfil our duty under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, to which Australia is a signatory. We must continue to uphold the values which we have signed up to, and we must continue to foster our great relationship with the prevention of pollution from ships convention in order to progress in reducing emissions into our great oceans and waterways.

This amendment bill also allows for the advancement of environmentally protective technology. This comes in the form of air-pollution cleaning systems, known as scrubbers or EGC systems. Such cleaning apparatus remove toxic and damaging components, such as sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides, from the air. If untreated, these harmful pollutants can cause high levels of air pollution and thus pose a large threat to our beautiful coastline and ocean based ecosystems. The bill provides that ships can only continue to use high-level sulphur fuel oil if the boat is fitted with a scrubber or EGC system, which means that the overall emissions from the boat are lowered to the equivalent of using 0.5 per cent sulphur content oil fuels; hence the bill supports increased air quality and the preservation of our ecosystems. From 1 January 2020, it is hoped that nearly all boats and ships will be held accountable for the levels of sulphur pollution and air pollution they emit.

Australia is a category B IMO Council member, hence we must align ourselves with initiatives that reduce ship pollution and ensure our maritime regulatory framework complies with global standards. It is important to iterate that 99 per cent of Australia's trade is carried by international shipping, by volume. That means that our country, an open and free country, a country that trades with other nations and shares the jewels of our great land, has one of the largest interests in international seaborne trade and therefore it is imperative that we continue to foster our relationships with the international maritime trade community and promote a progressive and up-to-date approach to trade regulations and frameworks, because that is what the Liberal Party have always done and that is what we will do here today.

It is also of great importance that Australia not isolate itself from the global trade community. As the sulphur cap is expected to be implemented globally on 1 January 2020, Australia will be impacted by the change whether or not we enforce the rule in our own regulations. It is very important to also consider that our largest trading partner, China, has already implemented the 0.5 per cent cap on sulphur content in fuel oils for all ports and sea territory since the beginning of 2019. We must follow; we must lead. If we do not pass the caps, it will make us look as though we do not care about the increasing rate of air pollution and increased emissions into our airspace over our water jurisdictions. We must be clear to those we trade with that we demand these changes. We must work with our global trade partners and therefore should recognise the benefits of this bill and how it will protect our great climate and those who inhabit it.

The underlying push behind this bill is that Australians will be the ultimate benefactors of this change. Our coastal communities and sea life will see major benefits and rewards that come with cleaner air and cleaner oceans. These benefits relate to both health and the environmental factors which increase the life of our planet and ensure our oceans can be utilised by future generations for millennia to come.

Ocean acidification is an important issue in today's world and it is an issue that we as a coastal population must take very seriously. Toxic and unhealthy emissions, such as sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide, can contribute to increased levels of ocean acidification, and thus present a danger to our marine ecosystems and ultimately to the temperature and cleanliness of our oceans.

This amendment bill aligns with the Morrison government's policy on protecting Australia's wildlife and protecting the environment in which its citizens live. Therefore, it is only logical that we follow along with this push to cut out unnecessary air pollution arising from high-sulphur-content fuel oils being burnt to propel boats in our waters. It is from this that I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the positives of this amendment bill greatly outweigh any drawbacks.

The notion of obligation is also a major necessity in the debate on this amendment bill. Australia is a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and therefore we must follow through with our agreement to the terms and conditions of the convention. This is the main international convention for addressing pollution from ships caused to the marine environment from both operational and accidental causes. The convention was first adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 1973 and came into force in Australia in 1988. It must be acknowledged by the House that we implement the terms of the convention through the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 and the Navigation Act of 2012.

The bill in front of us today primarily proposes amendments to these acts to implement amendments to annex VI of MARPOL in relation to the new sulphur requirements. The point here is that we have signed an agreement and we must view it as an obligation on our part to adjust our regulations and to replicate and enforce the regulations that have been put forward by the convention and the International Maritime Organization.

A key aspect of this amendment is whether the change will be welcomed by the bill's key stakeholders. In response to this, it is very pleasing to note that the Australian maritime industry has openly expressed its support for Australia proposing to legislate and enforce the implementation of the 2020 sulphur cap in order to maintain a level global playing field with other major trading partners. It is reassuring to know that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority will be the body responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the newly proposed sulphur regulatory regime being introduced on 1 January 2020. When noncompliance to the amended bill is found, appropriate action will be taken by AMSA. This action could include detaining a ship at port or even the commencement of legal proceedings. On top of this, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 already includes penalties, which the member for Lilley generously spoke of, for the use of fuel with sulphur content higher than the prescribed limit. It must be noted that the amendment bill will offer similar penalties for the carriage of high-sulphur fuel from 1 March 2020 onward.

With regard to identifying noncompliance, I support the process by which the AMSA propose to ensure that boats carry sulphur-compliant fuel. Port state control officers will conduct ship inspections in line with usual port state control practices, which means thorough inspections of incoming and exiting boats. This will result in adequate protection and reasonable rates of detection. This amendment does not introduce any new regulatory burdens on the industry. It needs to pass this House for Australia to be ready to enforce the sulphur cap, as proposed, on 1 January 2020.

It is said that to creep furtively is to prowl. This legislation does none of that. We are being very clear about what we as a parliament and as a government seek to achieve and wish to achieve. Therefore, it is right to conclude that this carriage ban aims to discourage ships from emitting unnecessary amounts of harmful fuels and toxins into our air by burning high-sulphur fuel oil. The key aims of this bill are to ensure that we will level the global playing field for international shipping and to protect our jurisdictional waters from air pollution. I speak in support of the bill today to show my backing for highlighting the importance of environmental sustainability and the great responsibility that we hold—as the government and as the parliament—for ensuring our citizens have fresh air to breathe for generations to come. We do not prowl into this debate; we stride proudly into it, and we will reduce pollution.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor is a proud supporter of Australian shipping, and shipping is a vitally important strategic industry. Maintaining our domestic shipping industry is critical for an island nation like Australia. Over 99 per cent of trade to and from Australia is carried by ships, and the electorate of Kingsford Smith, which I represent, is home to one of the nation's largest container ports—a deepwater sea port at Port Botany, located in Botany Bay. Botany Bay also has a gas terminal and a fuel terminal. As a result, unfortunately, Botany Bay is one of the most polluted areas in Australia's capital cities, based on data from the National Pollution Inventory.

Of course, ships burn heavy sulphur fuel oil that releases air pollutants, and we know that shipping currently contributes approximately 13 per cent sulphur dioxide and approximately 15 per cent nitrous oxide to global emissions. This bill, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019 gives effect to new international requirements to cap the sulphur content of fuel used on board ships and ensures the requirements are legally enforceable in Australian waters. Australia first gave effect to obligations under MARPOL, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, with the passage of Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act in 1983. The Navigation Act 2012 also includes clauses that implement subsequent agreements reached through MARPOL.

A new global cap of 0.5 per cent sulphur content of fuel used on ships will come into effect on 1 January 2020. This new lower cap is enforced through that international convention. The prevention of pollution from ships act was amended in 2010 to prescribe the new sulphur limit in marine orders. In October 2018, the International Maritime Organization agreed that from 1 March 2020 ships will also be banned from carrying fuel with a higher sulphur content on the high seas. This legislation is necessary to ensure that Australian law and regulations reflect those new international requirements, and to enable the enforcement of the requirements in Australian waters.

This particular bill amends the primary legislation to allow ships to use noncompliant fuel from 1 January 2020, if they're fitted with a scrubber or other equivalent compliance methods to reduce sulphur from their emissions to below the prescribed limit, and implements the global carriage ban on high-sulphur fuel from 1 March 2020. This is necessary legislation for Australia, because it will help to combat global emissions that stem from the growth of sulphur emissions, and it will also help reduce the incidence of acid rain.

For the community that I represent, legislation like this is vitally important because, as I mentioned earlier, we have a very busy container shipping port with both oil fuels and gas being shipped into Botany Bay. As a result, as I mentioned earlier, Botany Bay is unfortunately one of the most polluted areas in the country. Botany Bay is not distant from residential housing; in fact, it is on the doorstep of it. Many people in our community in the electorate of Kingsford Smith live quite close to this important infrastructure. So it's vitally important that legislation like this, that improves the environment and makes sure that Australia meets international commitments, is passed by this parliament. That's why Labor is moving this amendment and supporting this legislation.

What will not help in the area of Botany Bay is the New South Wales Liberal government's proposal to build a massive cruise ship terminal in Yarra Bay. Yarra Bay is one of the most picturesque areas that is left on the northern side of Botany Bay. Most of the northern side of Botany Bay is taken up with heavy industry: you have Sydney Airport; you have the container port; you have the gas terminal; you have the Elgas Cavern there as well; and you have the Caltex fuel terminal and other container logistics support businesses that exist on the breakwall opposite Yarra Bay. When a lot of this infrastructure was built, it required the bay to be dredged. When the third runway was built back in the 1990s, Botany Bay was again dredged. When the Hutchison extension to the container terminal at Botany Bay was built, again, the bay was dredged. As I mentioned, heavy industry at Caltex and Elgas exists on the cusp of the bay as well.

When those dredging events occur, there is scientific evidence that they do harm to the marine life and, particularly, some endangered species that exist in the area—most notably the weedy sea dragon colony that exists around Bear Island and the pygmy pipehorse colony that exists in those waters as well. Yet the Liberal government is pushing ahead with another proposal that will require the dredging of the northern side of Botany Bay. That is why the community that I represent is strongly opposed to this proposal to build a cruise ship terminal in Yarra Bay. It would be devastating for many aspects of that local community. The local Aboriginal community of La Perouse, who have called those waters their home for tens of thousands of years, are opposed to this proposal because it would mean that the terminal would potentially be built in traditional fishing areas—areas where the Aboriginal people have been fishing for tens of thousands of years as a food source for the local community. That is why the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council has passed a resolution opposing this proposal.

I mentioned the dredging that would occur, which would be a disaster for the local environment. I have consulted with a number of scientists about this proposal and they tell me that the area around Yarra Bay is a seagrass sanctuary that is beginning to regenerate after recent dredging events. So why would you risk that regeneration with another proposal that will involve dredging of the bay? The Yarra Bay Sailing Club, which has been on that picturesque beach for decades and has been a nursery for many sailors throughout the country, would have its sailing course affected if this particular proposal goes ahead. And, of course, more cruise ships means more large pollutants into the local atmosphere—notwithstanding this legislation that we hopefully pass here today—and it will also mean increased traffic for the local community with transport in and out.

A cruise terminal doesn't make sense in Yarra Bay. The only reason that it is proposed is that the previous Prime Minister, the former member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, ruled out Garden Island as the venue for another cruise ship terminal in Sydney. The New South Wales government established a cruise industry reference group and they asked them to explore the alternatives to Circular Quay in Sydney for another cruise ship terminal. They came up with, as a priority, Garden Island. It makes perfect sense. With Garden Island, the infrastructure is there, and there is plenty of space for the Navy to coexist with these cruise ships were it to occur there. That was their recommendation to the government—that Garden Island be used for the cruise ship industry as well. It makes perfect sense.

If you're travelling on a cruise ship in and out of Sydney—with no disrespect to Botany Bay—you don't want to go to Yarra Bay, where you would get off the cruise ship and see, 'Welcome to Sydney; here's one of our largest cemeteries and here's our biggest container port and oil terminal.' You want to go into Sydney Harbour and see the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge and the like. That is why it made perfect sense for Garden Island to be the primary option. But then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ruled out Garden Island as an option for the cruise ship terminal—I suspect because it would have been in his backyard and would have destroyed his view from Point Piper—and the Morrison government is continuing with that decision.

So the New South Wales government have now decided, 'We'll put it in Yarra Bay and we'll destroy whatever semblance of beauty and originality there is left in Yarra Bay and the northern end of Botany Bay,' which is an historic place, I might add, and not only for the Aboriginal community. There's plenty of evidence that La Perouse set foot on that particular area of Botany Bay, as did Governor Bligh on coming to Australia.

It is well known that the cities of Newcastle and Wollongong would also love a cruise ship terminal in their harbours because of the economic benefits that that would bring to their community. I know that the member for Newcastle in the state parliament has campaigned for something like this. So we say to the New South Wales government: don't bring more pollution to Botany Bay; look at the alternatives of Garden Island, Newcastle and Wollongong for another cruise ship terminal.

Turning back to the bill, Australia is inherently and increasingly reliant on international shipping for our coastal trade, underlying the critical importance of international conventions to the protection of our coastline. With the expansion of Australia's commodity trade, international shipping is becoming busier; yet there are now only 14 flagged vessels operating domestically and internationally. Less than half of one per cent of Australia's seaborne trade is carried by Australian flagged ships. The high levels of use of temporary licences that have occurred on this government's watch has enabled foreign flagged ships to do the work of Australian maritime workers, and the government has done nothing to stop the abuse of temporary licences to ensure that the national interest is prioritised when licensing foreign ships to work in Australia. There has also been concern about the effects on the environment of internationally flagged ships—flag-of-convenience ships—and there have been cases, I understand, around the Great Barrier Reef where there's been damage caused by foreign flagged vessels. So it's not only the issues of Australia's sovereignty, the protection of the rights and working conditions of Australian workers, and the protection and promotion of Australian jobs in our shipping line but also the issue of protecting our environment.

Unlike this government, Labor support the Australian maritime workers and Australian flagged vessels and we've been consistent in our approach to that. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have wilfully undermined the policy settings put in place by the Labor government and have failed to offer an alternative vision for the Australian maritime sector. In 2015 the then Minister for Transport and Infrastructure introduced legislation which sought to rip up the Labor government reforms that aimed to protect Australian shipping. They've missed the opportunity to create a strategic fleet of Australian flagged vessels that could be called upon in key areas of importance to the Australian economy such as the importation and distribution of liquid fuels.

Australia needs a vibrant maritime industry that serves the nation's economic, environmental and national security interests. We want to see a vibrant industry that serves the nation's shipping needs, secures the strategic set of maritime skills, and provides jobs and opportunities for more Australians. If this government were fair dinkum about Australian jobs, they'd support Labor in our calls to establish a strategic fleet of Australian flagged vessels, manned and operated by Australian workers under Australian conditions with Australian environmental protections in place. If they were fair dinkum about Australian shipping, they'd support Labor's reforms in this area.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019—and I'm glad I don't have to say that 10 times fast! This bill is an important bill. The reduction of sulphur content in fuels is an important reform, and is not only one that industry has had to deal with but also one that has a significant impact on residents, especially in my electorate of Macnamara. If you go down to the iconic beachfront in Port Melbourne and you land in Station Pier, you might not only enjoy one of the great restaurants that we have on offer on Station Pier but you'll also see the iconic Spirit of Tasmania, the TT-Line fleet that connects the two finest parts of the country—and I see the shadow minister nodding away there at the front table. Station Pier is actually Melbourne's third-largest terminal. After Tullamarine and Avalon, it is the place where the greatest number of people land inside Melbourne and it is a real gateway for our city. But it is also a place where ships come, and, over time, they have emitted a significant amount of sulphur content into the air, and residents have come to see me about that.

I especially want to note in this chamber the work of the Beacon Cove Neighbourhood Association and their members, who have advocated for a reduction in sulphur content. One of the things, interestingly, with Station Pier is that there's been a differentiation between the amount of sulphur at Station Pier versus the amount of sulphur content that's allowed in Sydney Harbour. While we have been lagging behind on 3.5 per cent for quite some time, in Sydney they've enjoyed the low rate of 0.1 per cent in Sydney Harbour. Not to get too competitive with Sydney, but this is a significant difference in the amount of sulphur in the air, and residents certainly have noticed the difference. This change to bring us in line with the international obligations under MARPOL is a good step, and one that will be welcomed by the residents in my electorate. I commend the government for drafting this legislation and bringing it before the House.

I will finish with this one point. While 0.5 is a significant step forward and a significant improvement on a 3.5 per cent sulphur content, given there is still a difference between the level that is allowed in Sydney Harbour and the level that's allowed at Station Pier in and around the port, we continue to work with the government and with industry to move eventually towards aligning the sulphur content. I would like to acknowledge TT-Line, who over 2021 are bringing in two new Spirit ships—

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing and Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're going to be late.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, they're going to be late. Well, we won't hold our breath. Maybe I'll scratch that from Hansard! But eventually that change will actually have an effect on the air quality from the fuel as well—one that will be welcomed by residents. I also want to acknowledge the Port of Melbourne, which has been very good about communicating, liaising and speaking with me and residents about ways that they can make sure that the air quality is monitored.

Finally, the last point I want to make is that air quality is a crucial aspect for many residents. Given it is under the federal government's jurisdiction to legislate for the sulphur content on ships, it would be very helpful if the federal government also assisted in monitoring air quality around these areas to ensure that residents who are living in close proximity aren't exposed to these sorts of high rates of sulphur and other chemicals. But overall this is an important reform that will be welcomed by those in coastal electorates such as Macnamara, and I again want to thank all of those from the Beacon Cove residents association who have worked with me over many meetings and who have hosted me in their homes very graciously to work on behalf of other residents to improve air quality on our iconic Station Pier. I think that this is a good step, and we will keep the work up and keep working with the government on this reform.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to start by thanking all the members in the House who have made a contribution to this debate this afternoon. From 1 January 2020 ships worldwide must use fuel that does not exceed 0.5 per cent sulphur by weight. This global sulphur standard has been adopted by the International Maritime Organization and is prescribed in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, also referred to as MARPOL, to which Australia is a signatory. This is a substantial reduction from the current 3.5 per cent limit on sulphur emissions for shipping globally and will have major environmental and health benefits. Sulphur dioxides are one of the major contributors to respiratory illnesses and increased rates of lung cancer. They also result in acid rain, which damages crops, livestock and infrastructure and contributes to ocean acidification.

The growth prospects for maritime global trade continue to be strong, so sulphur dioxide pollution from ships will continue to increase if no action is taken to restrict these emissions. The cumulative impacts of air pollution even away from the coast and ships add up and have economic costs. The Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 already legislates for new sulphur limits in 2020. However, further provisions are required to ensure consistency with global implementation of that sulphur cap. The Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019 amends the act to ensure that Australia has appropriate legislation arrangements in place to implement a new global sulphur standard on ship fuel from the year 2020.

The bill will primarily (1) allow ships to use high-sulphur fuel oil with sulphur content above 0.5 per cent by weight from 1 January 2020 if they are fitted with an exhaust gas cleaning system or equivalent compliance method to reduce those sulphur emissions below the prescribed limits and (2) implement a global carriage ban on high-sulphur fuel oil from 1 March 2020. These amendments are necessary to meet Australia's international obligations under MARPOL.

The bill also seeks to make other minor administrative amendments to the POTS act. They are to exempt naval and foreign government vessels from the provisions of the POTS act, in alignment with MARPOL, which is current practice, and to clarify obligations of fuel oil suppliers to provide greater certainty to the shipping industry.

The Australian government has consulted widely with the Australian maritime industry, fuel oil suppliers and ports over the last 18 months in preparation for the new sulphur regulatory regime. The majority of the Australian domestic fleet already uses fuel that meets the 2020 sulphur standards. The industry is supportive of Australia's legislation and consistently enforcing implementation of the 2020 sulphur cap to ensure a global level playing field. I add that five or 10 ships currently run on LNG and are refuelled at the liquefaction projects off the coast of Western Australia. I believe another 10 orders for LNG ships have been placed. Ship manufacturers are busy getting those ships underway.

A consistent global standard reduces inefficiencies for the international shipping industry in potentially having to comply with multiple local regulatory regimes. The Australian government remains committed to ensuring that the Australian maritime regulatory framework remains up-to-date and fit for purpose to protect our maritime environment, coastal communities and trade. I commend this bill to the House.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.