Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006. This bill will amend the Navigation Act 1912 and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 by implementing two revised annexes to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. This is commonly known as MARPOL. The two specific annexes I want to refer to are annex I, the regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil, and annex II, the regulations for the prevention of pollution by noxious liquid substances.

The International Maritime Organisation, the IMO, adopted the revised annexes back in October 2004 and, like most international agreements, there is a long lead time before coming into force. In this case it will not actually come in until January 2007. This bill should commence on 1 January 2007, which will coincide with the international entry into force of revised annexes I and II.

Australia is a member state of the IMO and this bill is required under Australia’s obligations as a member. I believe there is certainly no argument from the opposition about the importance of these matters, as there should not be any from the government. This bill will pass through this House as a matter of course. It is important because it contains a number of significant environmental measures. It takes some sound steps in the right direct in terms of protecting the sea. We need to do everything we can to make sure we have legislation in place to protect Australia’s pristine coastal environment, our heritage and our wildlife. So I welcome this bill.

Revised annex I regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil incorporate the amendments adopted since the 1983 MARPOL agreement. These include the regulations on the phasing-in of double hull requirements for oil tankers. That is an important step forward. As we have seen historically, over time single hull tankers can weaken, break up and have mishaps, resulting in them losing their cargo, losing their load. Spilt oil causes environmental disasters, and we have seen many examples of that. Of course, the clean-up costs are often more expensive than it would have been to properly maintain the ship or to have had a double hull to start with. In addition under annex  I, separate chapters have been created for the construction and equipment provisions out of the operational requirements. The distinction between the requirements for new ships and those for existing ships has been made clear.

The requirements in revised annex I include: firstly, for oil tankers constructed on or after 1 January 2007, a pumproom bottom protection on oil tankers of 5,000 tonnes deadweight and above; and, secondly, for oil tankers delivered on or after 1 January 2010, accidental oil outflow performance. Construction requirements for these tankers are to provide adequate protection against oil pollution in the event of stranding or collision. Both of these changes are a step forward in protecting the environment in the case of accidents. They are certainly a step in the right direction and are supported by Labor. We have a number of speakers on this bill who will be making these points and supporting that view.

Revised annex II, the regulations for the prevention of pollution by noxious liquid substances, includes a new four-category categorisation system for noxious and liquid substances. These new categories are categories X, Y, Z and ‘other substances’. Category X includes noxious liquid substances that, if discharged into the sea from tank-cleaning or deballasting operations, are considered to present a major hazard to either marine resources or human health. That is something that needs to be dealt with and done properly under these new categories. Category Y includes noxious liquid substances which, if discharged in the sea from tank cleaning or deballasting operations, are considered to present a hazard to either marine resources or human health or to cause harm to amenities or other legitimate uses of the sea. Category Z includes noxious liquid substances which, if discharged into the sea from tank-cleaning or deballasting operations, are considered to present a minor hazard to either marine resources or human health. The fourth category is classified as ‘other substances’, which includes substances which have been evaluated and found to fall outside the other three categories because they are considered to present no harm to marine resources, human health, amenities or other legitimate uses of the sea when discharged into the sea from tank-cleaning or deballasting operations. The discharge of bilge or ballast water or other residues or mixtures containing these substances are not subject to any requirements of MARPOL under annex II. So this covers the broad range of all circumstances in terms of deballasting operations and substances which may be bilged out from the ship into the sea.

We have seen many technical improvements in shipbuilding over many years. Some members and senators would be aware of a program that was on not too long ago showing South Korea’s shipbuilding operations at its Hyundai plant and some of the amazing technology and the systems and methods used in shipbuilding today. Technology has improved shipbuilding in incredible ways. Efficient stripping techniques have made it possible to significantly lower discharge levels of certain products. Therefore, this has been incorporated into annex II.

For ships constructed on or after 1 January 2007, the maximum permitted residue in the tank and its associated piping left after discharge will be set at a maximum of 75 litres for products in categories X, Y and Z. This compares with previous limits that set a maximum of 100 litres or 300 litres, depending on the product category. So this is a significant reduction. Depending on how you look at it, 75 litres is either a lot or a little. Depending on the type of substance, the type of product, 75 litres can be absolutely disastrous. Even at that figure we need to be cautious about what is discharged and the potential harm to the environment. It really does depend on the product. But 75 litres is certainly a lot better than up to 300 litres.

Alongside the revision of annex II, the marine pollution hazards of thousands of chemicals have been evaluated. This has resulted in a hazard profile which indexes the substance according to its bioaccumulation, biodegradation, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, long-term health effects, and effects on marine wildlife and benthic habitats—the habitats of animals and plants that live on the floor of the sea.

So it is important to recognise that all these substances have been evaluated. There have been research and studies done in this area. While it is part of the International Marine Organisation—and Australia is a signatory—we should encourage other countries and the rest of the world to sign up to and adopt the same principles and make sure that we do not have repeats of the Ships of shame report and all those instances where rusty hulks are bobbing around our oceans, coming perilously close to our shores and often right into our pristine marine environment.

There have been some significant advances made. Obviously it is very important that the detrimental effect of substances are known so that we know at least how to deal with them. This certainly will assist, in cases of accidental spills, in knowing the requirements for actions that need to be taken. It will certainly make the clean-up process speedier, more accurate and more involved. It will also make it safer—something that may not be recognised—for the people who have to work in those environments if they better understand what the substances they are dealing with actually are and how to treat them. It will improve safety not only for the environment, marine life and a ship’s crew but also, in the case of an accident, for those people who are charged with the responsibility of having to clean up the mess. Such things as vegetable oils, which have previously been categorised as being unrestricted, will be carried in chemical tankers. The revised annex includes provision for the administration to exempt a ship certified to carry individually identified vegetable oils, subject to certain provisions relating to the location of the cargo tanks carrying the identified vegetable oil.

This is a good bill, supported by the Labor Party—a bill that is very much needed in terms of protecting our environment and our sea. I fully commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context