Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Roads and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

I recognise that interjection from the current member for Shortland. The final report handed down by that committee, known as the Ships of shame report, was a turning point in Australian maritime regulation and safety. I think it is perhaps why we can acknowledge that that period between January 1990 and August 1991 is now a thing of the past. Six ships going down in such a short period of time was not to be heard of after the Ships of shame report.

The report recommended that Australia take a more active role in the International Maritime Organisation in promoting international solutions to ship safety issues. Acting on those unanimous recommendations, the Howard government achieved an outstanding list of changes. We realised that, to be effective, Australia needed to influence other nations, particularly flag-of-convenience states. It is apparent that all nations concerned with ship safety present a united front in progressing ship safety initiatives through the International Maritime Organisation. From the Ships of shame report came changes to legislation, and it was the 11½ years of the Howard government that ensured that this work was achieved. Some 17 acts and some 38 sets of regulations were made. Australia contributed to 51 separate amendments to International Maritime Organisation conventions and five new conventions.

In 2001 the Howard government introduced the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill. This bill created offences and increased penalties in relation to oil pollution. Changes were made to legislation regarding compulsory commercial ship pilotage in and around the Great Barrier Reef. In 2005 various amendments to various pieces of maritime legislation relating to ship safety, marine environment, general maritime navigation and miscellaneous administrative matters were made. Also, amendments were made to require ships of 150 tonnes or more carrying bulk noxious liquid substances to have a marine pollution emergency plan. In 2006 the Howard government introduced the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Bill 2007. The main purpose of the bill was to amend maritime pollution legislation to enable ratification of annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships—commonly known as MARPOL. The bill added a new part to division 12 of the Navigation Act 1912 to provide for periodical survey of Australian registered ships to ensure that ships are constructed in accordance with the annex VI requirements and for the issue of an International Pollution Prevention Certificate. Foreign-registered vessels are required to have certificates issued by their own flag states when visiting Australian ports.

The bill also amended the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to define the operational measures required in relation to the carriage and use of fuel oil on board ships, including the sulphur content of fuel oil and fuel oil quality requirements. Limits were set on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ships’ exhausts and deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances were prohibited. The annex also included a global cap of 4.5 per cent on sulphur content of fuel oil. The provision of annex VI of the convention allowed for special sulphur oxide emissions control areas to be established with more stringent controls on sulphur emissions in these areas. The sulphur content of fuel oil used on board ships must not exceed 1.5 per cent. Alternative ships must fit an exhaust gas clearance system—that is, a cleaning system—or use any other technological method to limit sulfur emissions. Both the Baltic Sea and the North Sea are designated sulfur emission control areas. This legislation was supported by the Labor government.

In 2006, the Howard government amended the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Act. The bill implemented changes to the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, the HAFS convention, to prohibit the use of harmful organotins in antifouling paints used on ships and additionally prevent the potential future use of other harmful substances in antifouling systems. Again, that was supported by Labor.

In 2006, again, the Howard government amended the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981. The amendment made it possible for the Commonwealth to effectively respond to threats of serious marine pollution arising from maritime incidents. The bill provided greater clarity to the current terms of the legislation to ensure that those in the maritime industry know their obligations and responsibilities. It also ensured that officers of state governments and the Commonwealth are able to make confident and quick decisions in environmental emergencies.

Notwithstanding the importance of this legislation, and the necessity for our marine and coastal environments to be adequately looked after, like most industries international shipping is dollar driven. The decline in quality standards of shipping vessels is a direct result of industry cost cutting from commercial pressure. Sound, strong legislation is essential to drive a responsible international performance.

The Ships of shame report examined the role Australia played as a port state and the role Australia could play to influence improvements to the international marine conventions and observation of those conventions. Australia, as a developed, progressive country, needs to lead by example. The IMO—that is, the International Maritime Organisation—provides a valuable role establishing conventions and codes of conduct to regulate international shipping. IMO standards are recognised as being sufficient, as agreed by the industry.

The setting up of a convention can and does take time—up to five years for a convention to be approved and then many more years to be ratified. The process is time consuming. That is why it has taken since 2002, when Australia signed the convention, until now for this ratification. The bunkers convention, as I said, will come into force on 21 November this year and, with the passing of this legislation, Australia will be part of that convention and contribute to the international example being set.

Safety is of paramount importance at sea. The sea has taken far too many lives and it is necessary for ship owners and operators to be responsible for both the operating efficiency and the effect of their orders at sea, in the safety of their crew. Ratifying the bunkers convention will ensure that Australian victims of bunker oil pollution will no longer have to prove that the shipowner was at fault in order to receive compensation. Until now, shipowners have only been liable for payment of compensation if it is proven that the owner was at fault. The bunkers convention ensures that compensation is available even in the most accidental spill of bunker oil. The consequential amendments bill will ensure that there is no duplication of insurance requirements between Australia’s legislation and the bunkers convention, and amendments to the Admiralty Act 1988 will confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court and state and territory supreme courts to hear and determine matters arising under this bunker oil bill.

Amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 will ensure that there is no duplication of insurance requirements between that act and the bunker oil bill, in view of this act already applying to vessels 400 gross tonnes and over. Amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 are intended to ensure that, even if the owner or master of a ship is the subject of a direction under that act, the registered owner of the ship will remain liable for compensation costs under the bunker oil bill and there will be no effect on court proceedings under the bunker oil bill.

As I said, I have consulted widely with the Australian shipping industry, and the passage of these two pieces of legislation is strongly supported by all three umbrella groups representing the industry. All of those that depend on the bounty of the sea need to protect it. This legislation will further add to the protection of our marine environments, and the alternative government supports both these bills. It is very sensible legislation that I am proud to say was contributed to primarily by the previous Howard government.

See this speech in context