Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, I know that this is an area that you have great interest in and I know that you have spoken on shipping legislation on many occasions in this parliament. I know that you are committed to ensuring that our marine environment is protected and that our shipping industry continues to grow and prosper in a safe way. My electorate of Shortland is a coastal electorate and as such is very vulnerable to pollution of the sea by ships traversing the coastline. I have expressed my concerns about this on many occasions in the House and I have taken great interest in shipping and shipping activities around the coast of our great island nation. As a member who is concerned about the protection of our coastline and pristine beaches, I know that one of the greatest threats to our beaches and marine life is pollution caused by oil spills emanating from ships traversing our coastline.

We often forget that the seas around our nation are actually highways for ships that are carrying goods around our coastline, delivering from one port to another and also delivering overseas. Particularly with our export of coal at such a high level at the moment, we really need to make sure that we make the commitments that are included in this legislation before us today.

The Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is intended to implement the supplementary fund protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage in schedule 1, introduce MARPOL amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 in schedule 2 and implement amendments relating to shipping and marine levies in schedule 3.

In this House we have discussed many of the MARPOL amendments over a long period of time. There have been a number of them and the Australian parliament has signed up to a number of them. Schedule 1 amendments of this particular legislation commence on a date set by proclamation, because an instrument of accession of a protocol needs to be lodged with the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organisation following the passage of the bill through parliament. Schedule 2 amendments commence on various dates. Items 1, 2, 5 and 6 commence on the day when the act receives royal assent, and items 3 and 4 commence on 1 January 2010 and December 2008 respectively. This legislation follows another piece of legislation, the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Bill 2008, which we discussed earlier this year. A number of members made contributions to the debate on that bill in the House.

I became interested in shipping and the impact that it has on our coastline and nation when I spoke to my predecessor in this parliament, Peter Morris. Peter Morris was a previous transport minister. He chaired the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure in the House of Representatives when they brought down the Ships of shame report, as well as ICONS, when they prepared a report on shipping from an international perspective, Ships, slaves and competition.

The Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government of this parliament have been looking at shipping and they are currently conducting an inquiry into coastal shipping policy and regulation. I understand that they are moving towards the end of that inquiry at the moment. In the report, the committee is going to look at the nature and characteristics of the Australian shipping industry and international and coastal trade. It will review the policy and regulation arrangements in place for the coastal shipping sector and it will also assess strategies for developing an adequately skilled maritime workforce in order to facilitate the growth of the Australian shipping sector.

I might add at this point that unfortunately, over the years of the Howard government, our maritime shipping industry and the industries that are associated with it have been on the decline. The previous government did not have a commitment to a sustainable Australian shipping industry. With us being an island nation, as I have already mentioned, I believe that it is incredibly important that we embrace the opportunities that a strong shipping industry can provide to us as a nation and not limit our thoughts to the actual ships but include all the onshore industries that are associated with them and maybe follow the lead of the United Kingdom, which has reinvested in a UK shipping industry.

The committee will also consider the effect of coastal shipping policy on the development of an effective and productive freight transport system, taking into account issues such as environmental and safety impacts and competitive neutrality between coastal shipping and other modes of transport. When we are looking at it from an environmental perspective, which brings us back to the legislation we are discussing here in the parliament today, it is very important for us to sign up to the MARPOL protocols. This legislation will allow us to do that. The final point of that House of Representatives inquiry that is underway is to look at coastal shipping from defence, maritime safety and security, environmental sustainability and tourism perspectives.

That is a very important inquiry that has been taking place within this parliament. For a long time—and I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, that this has been of some concern to you—there has been the issue of continuing voyage permits and single-voyage permits, which really flourished under the previous government. These permits have allowed foreign-flagged ships to traverse the shores of our country with crew from various countries. One example of this is a ship I visited a few years ago at the port of Newcastle, the Angel III. That was flagged as a Greek ship and had a Burmese crew. A number of issues were raised when I visited that ship and I think those issues continue today. I know the committee conducting the current inquiry has looked at those issues.

That is why these protocols are so vital—because they do afford protection to our environment. It is really important from a global perspective that Australia becomes a contracting party to the supplementary fund protocol, because our ratification will add support and will encourage more countries to be part of it. The simple fact that not all countries have signed up to this protocol, and with us having these foreign ships traversing our coastlines, really shows how important it is for more countries to be involved.

Australia is one of many countries to have signed up to the protocol. Other countries have already made that commitment, including France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. When we have a Greek ship such as the Angel III travelling, as it was at the time, around our coastline, it puts responsibility on the shipowner to ensure that if there is an oil spillage they will be responsible for cleaning it up—and that the financial means will be there to allow that to happen.

Compensation costs resulting from oil spills will often exceed a tanker’s own liability limit. Compensation above that limit is then payable by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, known as the IOPC Funds. The amount of compensation payable by these funds has limits on it. The maximum amount payable by a tanker owner in the IOPC Funds is, as at 22 May this year, approximately $350 million.

It is important that I refer to the fact that there have been significant spills from oil tankers overseas in the past, and I know other members have mentioned them in their contributions to this debate. There was the Nakhodka oil spill off the coast of Japan in 1997, the Erika spill off the coast of France in 1999 and the Prestige spill off the coast of Spain in 2002. The amount available under the two-tiered system was insufficient and the claimants could not be fully compensated.

In my own region last year, the Pasha Bulker was grounded off the coast of Newcastle. I would like to acknowledge the fine work of the rescue workers, as has been mentioned in the House this week, in their efforts at that time. It was a situation where, if things had deteriorated further, we could have had an oil spillage of enormous significance in my own region. It is when you are faced with a situation like that that you realise the implications and the vulnerability of our seas, our marine environment and our coastline. It is at times like that that you understand why we as a parliament and we as a nation are prepared to make the commitment to sign up to the protocol that we have before us today.

For many years in the Shortland electorate, on a daily basis, coal was taken on the MV Wallarah from Catherine Hill Bay, where there was a mine that is no longer operating, to the coal loader. We had confidence in that ship because it was an Australian owned and operated ship with Australian crew, a rarity at the time. At any time, though, even with its high safety standards and such wonderful crew and it being Australian owned, it could have been subject to an incident that might have led to pollution of one sort or another. It would have had an enormous impact on the environment between Catherine Hill Bay and Newcastle. It would not only have affected the marine life; it would have affected the beaches and had an enormous impact on the fishing industry and on the tourism industry.

Without funds being available to deal with such an incident, to make sure that the oil spillage was properly cleared up and that there was proper compensation, it could have been quite a nasty situation in my own area. That could be replicated in every coastal electorate around Australia. I see the member for Leichhardt in the chamber. His electorate includes—

See this speech in context