Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—Mr Speaker, can I also take the opportunity to personally congratulate you on your election as Speaker. In my 19 years in this place it has always been the case that speakers from Victoria have done a lot more for the dignity and reputation of the House than speakers from other states, and I am confident that you will continue that tradition.

The amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships that we are reporting on today are a step towards a more coherent and environmentally-sound standard for global shipping. While the eight-month delay between the amendments being agreed to and being tabled in parliament raise questions as to process, the amendments are not controversial and should be supported.

One amendment clarifies the prohibition on the carriage of heavy fuel oil in the Antarctic and the closing of a loophole that might otherwise allow vessels to escape culpability to the detriment of the environment. It is encouraging to know that Australian ships are certainly not engaging in this practice.

While the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code now regulates the carriage of radioactive materials in packaged form, and where reference to it remains included, it is difficult to mount a case in support of the duplication of this provision. In saying this, it is essential that the regulations in the code are as comprehensive as those included within the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

In light of the not insignificant emissions generated by gas-fuelled ships, the extension of the regulation of nitrous oxide emissions to ships fuelled solely by gas fuel is welcome. Given that the technology required to ensure compliance exists, the committee's suggestion that this amendment is unlikely to be a regulatory burden on Australian ships is positive. While cognisant of administrative pressures faced by vessel operators, where there are opportunities to enhance transparency we should endeavour to do so. Therefore, the requirement for vessels over 400 gross tonnes to maintain a record of compliance should be supported. Advice from the Office of Best Practice Regulation that suggests that there is not expected to be any additional cost for Australian businesses as a result of the discussed amendments is welcome.

Australia has a responsibility to be a leader in marine environment protection and to uphold internationally consistent standards in the maritime industry. I acknowledge the work of both marine conservation groups and unions like the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers and the MUA in promoting high standards. Australia's reliance on the international maritime industry, which underpins its international trade, is substantial. If we were to reject, for example, the amendment clarifying the prohibition on the carriage of heavy fuel oil in the Antarctic, we would risk falling below internationally adopted standards. We would expose ourselves to heightened environmental and financial repercussions if a heavy fuel oil spill were to occur in the Antarctic area, and this of course could potentially undermine our influence in protecting Antarctica's environment. For these reasons, the amendments to the annexes of the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships should be supported.

By way of some additional background, this convention, which is referred to by the initials of MARPOL, provides an international regulatory framework for dealing with six classifications of marine pollution: oil, noxious liquid substances in bulk, harmful substances in package form, sewage, garbage and air pollution. Regulations for each of these classifications are contained in annexes to MARPOL. It is administered by the International Maritime Organisation, and decisions on amendments to MARPOL are made by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of that organisation.

In 2014 a fishing vessel using heavy grade oil as ballast sank in the Antarctic. The National Interest Analysis states that the flag state refused to take remedial action as it interpreted regulation 43 as not applying to heavy grade oil used as ballast. The department of infrastructure explained to the committee that water is usually carried as ballast. Nobody anticipated this sort of occurrence. Water is the ballast of choice, for fairly obvious reasons. So the amendment to annex I will close this apparent loophole.

I will also briefly comment on the amendment to annex 1 of the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels. This adds the pink-footed shearwater to this agreement. The impact of this on Australia is negligible because this species does not occur in fisheries within Australian territory or any part of Australia's jurisdiction, so it will not involve any change to the practices of Australian fishers. I have previously expressed concern about the plight of albatrosses, petrels and other seabirds whose numbers have declined rapidly in the past few decades as a consequence of marine pollution, longline fishing and the loss of food sources due to industrial fishing. I repeat that concern today. We have an obligation to future generations to pass on a world that includes albatrosses and seabirds, and I strongly support this international agreement.

See this speech in context