Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that:

(a) the cruise liner industry makes a significant contribution to the regional economies of Sydney, Fremantle, Brisbane and Melbourne;

(b) sulphur dioxide emissions are a significant source of air pollution from cruise liners docked at ports in Australia and are harmful to human health; and

(c) by 2020 the cruise liner industry will implement new measures to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from cruise ships docked at ports under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; and

(2) calls on the cruise liner industry to introduce measures ahead of 2020 to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from cruise liners docked at ports near residential areas including through the use of low sulphur diesel fuels.

This is an opportunity for us tonight to recognise the extraordinary contribution made by the cruise liner industry in Australia—a $3.2 billion industry—and I am probably one of the first people to rise in this place and say thank you on behalf of the millions of people who have enjoyed a cruise at an affordable price for a unique and special experience.

There is another level of this debate that has been brought to light in New South Wales, and I want to highlight that Australia is probably the last major economy in the world—certainly we stand apart from the EU, the Caribbean and the Americas—where cruise ships visiting our ports are burning the thick black stuff and not the clear stuff. We need to get these emissions down in all our cities. It happens in the rest of the world and I think tonight is an opportunity for us to appeal to the cruise liner industry to do just that, and to do it through corporate social responsibility and not through further regulation.

Just this week we heard an announcement from the New South Wales Liberal government that as soon as possible after this week's election they intend to introduce regulation to require cruise ships at berth in New South Wales to use ultra-low-sulphur diesel with a sulphur content of less than 100 parts per million. By July of next year they will be moving to a situation where cruise ships use low-sulphur diesel at all times in Australian areas—certainly in zones around major ports. I commend New South Wales for that but I ask the logical question: what happens in the rest of Australia? This is a federal issue but, more importantly, it is an opportunity for the cruise ship industry to step forward and do something as a form of corporate social responsibly.

Now I acknowledge the economic impacts of cruise ship liners in major cities. I acknowledge the impact in regional economies, like Townsville, like Burney, like parts of Western Australia and up the Queensland coast. But above all, I think about the fact that it is no-one's fault that there is high-density living right next to cruise ship liners, and where these overseas terminals exist. It is no fault of anyone's that people want to live next door to where these large shipping liners berth. This is far away from ports, and I know the objections from the cruise ship industry about burning clean fuel. They are predominantly based around price—that there is a 16 cents per litre difference, that the supply is not guaranteed, that they do not all have an auxiliary fuel-tank, particularly in older cruise-liners, and that the long-term plan is a MARPOL 2020 target of scrubbers.

But that is not the answer for residents living close to these shipping terminals right now, with high-sulphur fuels being burnt—effectively a bunker oil, with 2,700 to 3,500 parts per million—just a hundred metres away from where they live. They cannot move, and I know that in many cases you might say 'they might have been there first'. It is unlike the ports where we have large carriers burning this stuff, because they are not in densely-populated locations, and, to be honest, the ships were there first. But in overseas cruise-ship terminals, all I ask is one thing of the cruise-ship industry: 'Do what is affordable, reasonable and feasible, and if you can minimise an emission for the cost of a Big Mac per person, just do it, and don't be dragged to that point and look completely reluctant about it.' I have talked to the ship owners and I have talked to the cruise ship industry, and I must admit that I have encountered shifting opposition and a whole lot of reasons of why they cannot do it. But Caltex has popped the bubble: they can deliver it in five days. Caltex has told us that it is not even half a tanker to refuel one of these shipping liners, thus making sure that kids living nearby are not breathing in high-particulate, high-sulphur matter, that turns to sulphuric acid when you breathe it in.

It is not good enough. The Industrial Revolution dragged England out of the Middle Ages, but we can do better than having kids working in coal mines and we can do better than having this kind of emission a hundred metres away from living areas and high-density residential areas. The New South Wales coalition are going to act. Every other state in Australia will be asking exactly these questions. Why is it good enough that in the EU you cannot travel between ports without burning the clean stuff? Why is it that in the US you cannot even come near a port without burning the clean stuff? All of these liners have the clean stuff on board in an auxiliary tank, but they will not flick the switch. Why? Because it cost as Big Mac meal deal per person. It is a $4,000 dollar cruise ship ticket. It is eight bucks to burn the clean stuff. It is such a simple request, and I am stunned that when you are sitting around a boardroom table discussing your corporate social responsibility, that someone is still saying in a 1970s attitude 'Whatever you want for corporate social responsibility, as long as it does not hurt our bottom line.' Well this one barely hurts your bottom line. This stuff is sixteen cents a litre cheaper. This stuff should not be burnt close to where people live. This stuff is revolting. It should not be burnt anywhere near where children live. We can do better than that.

See this speech in context