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

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to make a few brief remarks this morning on the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006. In doing so, I want to say at the outset it has the full support of the opposition. The bill is important when you think about my shadow ministerial responsibilities of resources and tourism and also in the context of the fact that we are an island nation and a trading nation. It is important for the environment. I might also say it is exceptionally important from a health and safety perspective in trying to further guarantee the safety of our Australian seafarers and international seafarers at work.

The opposition therefore clearly states that it is a sensible bill. It is exceptionally important that Australia seeks to align our requirements with international obligations, as a member state of the International Maritime Organisation and as a party to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. As we appreciate, Australia is one of 119 countries party to the agreement and stands alongside countries in our own backyard, including New Zealand, and also other great trading nations, the United States and the United Kingdom, in support of the protocol that seeks to minimise sea pollution through dumping, oil and exhaust pollution and to conserve the maritime environment, which is exceptionally important.

Oil pollution of the seas was first recognised as a problem in the first half of the 20th century. Globally we have come a long way in minimising our impact on the sea so that our ocean transport activities can be maintained at a sustainable level. The MARPOL convention is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. History will show it is a combination of two treaties, adopted in 1973 and 1978 respectively, and obviously updated by amendments through the years, and I think we have debates such as this fairly frequently in the House with respect to our international obligations as a result of MARPOL.

Today the opposition stands in support of the two amendments of MARPOL by the IMO that were introduced in October 2004 and will enter into force internationally on 1 January 2007. In moving to support the bill I also urge that the bill commence in line with the international commencement date of 1 January 2007. The bill will incorporate the amendments into Australian domestic law, allowing Australia to enforce the more stringent technical requirements contained which aim to protect human health and the marine environment. This is not only smart environmentally but also good for Australian business.

Revised regulations in annex I and annex II include two important amendments: firstly, the phasing in of double hull requirements for oil tankers and the separation in different chapters of the construction and equipment provision for operational requirements. Together they are about further improving safety at sea and about protecting our environment. This is important in making clear the distinctions between the requirements for new ships and those for existing ships. Secondly, it incorporates regulations for the control of pollution of noxious liquid substances in bulk and features a new four-category system for noxious and liquid substances. The new requirements under the first annex include pumproom bottom protection of oil tankers of 5,000 tonnes deadweight and above, constructed on or after 1 January 2007. Essentially this means that the pumproom will need to be double hulled. Obviously we should have been thinking about this long ago.

The annex also includes updated standards on accidental oil flow performance and is applicable to oil tankers delivered on or after 1 January 2010, with construction requirements necessitating the need to provide adequate protection against oil pollution in the event of stranding or a collision. I believe this is an important amendment. The tanker industry and its seaborne transportation service of oil is a critical lifeblood for much of the world in satisfying its need for petroleum. Consequently the tanker industry has a unique global responsibility. Tankers account for about 50 per cent of all seaborne trade and transport approximately 50 per cent of the oil that the world consumes. An estimated 2.25 trillion litres of crude oil are transported across our oceans every year, in addition to 1.75 trillion litres of refined product per annum. This figure is likely to increase in the foreseeable future unless new sources of oil are found within pipeline range of existing consumer markets or until alternative energy sources are found at a viable enough standard to replace fossil fuels. Obviously I think that is something Australia has to think about, with a properly focused debate on alternatives to our reliance in the Middle East on oil. I simply say to the government again today, on the energy debate, that it is about time they got serious about working with the private sector to get investment in Australia so as to enable us to pursue the gas to liquids and coal to liquids downstream production process in a more serious way.

I am pleased to say that at least there are some initial investments starting to occur, such as the Monash investment in the La Trobe Valley and some small opportunities in places such as Chinchilla in Queensland. But not enough is being done by the Howard government in terms of the energy debate, and today’s debate on our reliance on international oil tankers again focuses our mind back on the issue of energy security at home, rather than Australia just being concerned with the energy security of Shanghai or Tokyo. It is about time we got serious about the energy security of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Dubbo, Darwin and every other place in Australia.

Given all this activity and the hazardous nature of the seas, for those very reasons we have to have practical standards in place, and that is what this bill is about. It is about further improving the safety standards that Australia has historically been prepared to support, despite the fact that I continue to have serious questions in my mind about the government’s unwillingness to promote the Australian maritime industry and its too-ready acceptance of continuous and single voyage permits. That also raises questions about the security of Australia and terrorism and whether or not the crews on board some of these ships are being properly examined prior to them coming into port. These are serious issues which will be raised by a number of members of the opposition in this debate. With that aside, can I say that many in the seagoing industry accept that advancements made over the past 15 years, in particular, in the building, operating and maintaining of double hull oil tankers has made them considerably safer. That is important because it is also about these tankers being more environmentally friendly and, in the long term, far more economical than their predecessors, the single hull ships.

However, it is also important to note that the double hull tankers are only a part of the present-day operation of the forward-looking tanker industry. The picture also involves qualified officers and crews—something the Howard government forgets from time to time—dedicated shore staff, continuous training, information technology and a committed, transparent management team. These aspects of modern shipping sometimes escape the attention of people who tend to focus on only one aspect instead of considering a more global perspective—a whole-of-industry approach. However, as has been said on many occasions, a good ship with a poor crew is a disaster waiting to happen. And we have to be conscious of that as a nation—a nation that has historically prided itself on its ability to train locally Australian seafarers, not only for our own local trade but also for the international trade.

That takes me to the second annex, which reflects the improvements in ship technology such as the efficient stripping techniques which have made possible significantly lower permitted discharge levels of certain products, which are laid out in the amendment. The new four-category categorisation system has resulted from the evaluation of the marine pollution hazards of thousands of chemicals and the creation of a hazard profile which indexes the substance according to its bioaccumulation, biodegradability, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, long-term health effects and effects on marine wildlife.

The opposition believes that this is an important aspect of the bill. As the shadow minister for tourism I want to stress today the need to conserve our marine environment through embracing and putting in place these new international standards. On that note I refer to the fact that, in 2004, a Queensland Tourism Industry Council report estimated that the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef contributed in excess of $5.8 billion to Queensland’s $11 billion annual tourism budget. This is important, with growth forecast in the next decade ranging from five per cent to 10 per cent.

So these amendments are also about us protecting other export-earning opportunities for Australia, including the important tourism industry not only on the Great Barrier Reef but generally in Australia. It is not surprising that tourism is the largest commercial activity in the Great Barrier Reef. We all appreciate its international importance. For that very reason—just as an example—in 2005 there were approximately 820 operators and 1,500 vessels and aircraft permitted to operate in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. That is exceptionally important not only for employment in Queensland but also for international export earnings. It is an industry that was virtually non-existent in the area in 1950, so it has grown significantly over a very short period. I refer to a 1946 report produced by the then newly established Queensland tourism development board, which stated proudly that 5,000 visitors a year were visiting the group of Barrier Reef islands off the Whitsunday passage, already selected by the board as one of Queensland’s outstanding tourist attractions—so we have come a long way.

The number of companies involved in the industry at the reef, like the number of tourists, has increased dramatically over the years—from fewer than 12 operators in 1968 to 180 in 1987 and 742 in 1998. Similarly, there has been a huge increase in the number of visitors. In the early 1980s this was estimated at 150,000 visitor days per year—40 times the visitation of the pre-1950 period. In 1987, this had risen to 450,000, and 10 years later, 1997, 1.6 million visitor days were recorded. Last year the visitor numbers topped 1.9 million.

In raising these issues today I want to stress the responsibility of the Australian government and our state and territory governments for making sure that we are especially cautious when it comes to the seagoing industry around Australian shores, because just one accident can have a huge impact on the whole Australian economy—when you think about an accident that could occur, for example, off the Queensland coast. It is therefore clear that areas such as Queensland, in terms of tourism, have become key components of the economy, underpinning, as I have said, many jobs and enhancing the attraction of Australia to international tourists.

We also have to make sure we go out of our way to preserve our opportunities because the international tourism market is now very tough. Not only have we got problems on the domestic front; we are actually going backwards, unfortunately, in one of our very strong markets, the Japanese market. Obviously there is a growth in Chinese numbers, but there is a huge different between Chinese tourists and Japanese tourists. The Japanese tourists are high-yield tourists. They spend a lot more money. It is important, because obviously Queensland and our coast have been very attractive in the past to these high-yield tourists, that we preserve our coastal opportunities for the purposes of tourism.

I simply raise these issues to again remind the government of why we must always go out of our way to be vigilant, not only locally but also internationally, to play our role in strengthening these international protocols. It is to our long-term betterment and economic prosperity as a nation.

In conclusion, I seek further feedback from the minister as to what stage the proposed ratification of the ILO convention on seafarers’ rights has reached. The convention was ratified by the ILO last year. It brings together a series of historically important international conventions going to the health and safety and the entitlements of seafarers. The Australian government voted in support of this convention. It represented the outcome of a lot of hard work by government, employer and union representatives. The government has previously given a commitment to pursue the ratification of this convention. I think it is important that it engages with the state and territory governments and employers and unions on this as a matter of urgency because that is the normal process for the consideration of ratification of ILO conventions in Australia. Just as we are embracing the amendments in terms of the protection of the Australian coast by the bill before the House this morning, I think it is imperative that the government seek the ratification of this workers convention with the support of employer representatives sooner rather than later. I seek information from the minister as to where that process is up to in his response to this debate. I thank the House for the opportunity to address this bill. It might not be seen to be contentious, but I must say it is exceptionally important to Australia.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to support all of the speakers who so far have dealt with the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006. I note at the outset, in the brief time that I have, that I went to consult the Parliamentary Library’s Bills Digestalways the best source of objective information about this—and I found that the only Digest I could have a look at was for the previous bill, of 2003, because the library is under a great deal of stress from the demands put on it to produce material for us to use related to this.

However, that Digest, the work of Angus Martyn, goes to the core of why we are dealing with this particular bill now, what generated it. And what generated it was that there was recognition that the sea could no longer be a dumping ground, accidental or otherwise, for massive amounts of pollutants. That goes back to the 1960s when the Torrey Canyon oil tanker was grounded in the English Channel. There were 120,000 tonnes of crude oil poured into the sea, causing massive environmental damage.

It is a result of that particular damage—and we have seen plenty of other examples since then on a massive scale—that MARPOL, the International Maritime Organisation’s International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, was incorporated. It has six different annexures. In 2003 an annex that had not been ratified domestically, or indeed internationally, was put before the House in order to try to kick along Australia’s participation within that.

What is important about this is that it is an international activity. Tanker operations are international in their scope. Their impact is felt on every corner of this globe, and deleterious impacts can be felt right around the shores of this continent. Those come not only from the things we are dealing with today—chemical pollution or pollution from oil—but also from other things that members are aware of. There can be not just noxious substances but also noxious little beasts which enter our ecosystems, as they have done in Tasmania—the black-lipped mussel being one of those, I think. They can be easily carried in storage areas and, being carried in those storage areas, they are allowed to go out when the ships are being cleaned out and they cause massive environmental problems.

This bill is about international cooperation and putting a set of standards into place. The federal government is doing absolutely the right thing in saying that measures need to be taken with regard to two of the annexures of this agreement—that is, annexures I and II. Annex I seeks to put in place two forms of protection. One form of protection is absolutely fundamental, and that is double hulls. Why is that critical? We know from the Ships of shame report that having ships with a single hull and rusted hulks that were not looked after by the people who ran them led to a greatly increased possibility that if they were grounded or otherwise impacted upon there would be massive spillages of oil or other pollutants. That is the first measure that we are supporting here.

The second measure—as the member for Batman, the shadow minister, pointed out, it is probably something we should have got onto earlier—concerns pumproom bottom protection. On oil tankers of 5,000 tonnes dead weight and above constructed on or after 1 January 2007, the pumproom shall be provided with a double bottom. That is another area that has been identified as being fundamentally weak. Under this bill we will deal with tankers produced from now in one way—there will be a series of prescriptions in relation to them—and the ones produced previously will come under a different regime.

The second set of changes are also important. Annex II lists a range of noxious chemicals. Depending upon their nature and impact, they are dealt with in particular ways. There are categories X, Y and Z. There is an absolute prohibition on any of the X chemicals being discharged from ships because of the damage they could do to the marine environment or to humans. There is a sliding scale in terms of Y and Z in relation to the amount that can be discharged relatively safely and there is a catch-all beyond that. That catch-all goes beyond those noxious substances in the sliding scale to something as simple as vegetable oils. In the past, vegetable oils have been allowed to be ejected from ships. They have been allowed to be carried without any specific protection. The provision recognises that the sea should not be an accidental or deliberate dumping ground for our waste. Vegetable oils can have a dramatic impact on the environment and, therefore, they should be carried in the kinds of vessels that are appropriate for the purpose. So the containers should be the equivalent of the chemical containers that are used to run chemicals from one end of the planet to the other.

I congratulate the government on the technical measures contained in this bill and on being part of an international regime for standardisation of the carriage of these noxious substances. I also congratulate it on being part of an international attempt to not only get better standards and controls but also ensure that there is a greater understanding of the fact that the sea, despite its breadth, its depth and its capacity to absorb the damage we have done to it as a worldwide civilisation, is not just treated as a dumping ground, that it is protected from the products of our industrial civilisation and that it is allowed to be in as pristine a state as possible, and also a state where we can not only clear up the damage that has been done but prevent further damage in future. I thank the Deputy Speaker for his indulgence for staying in the chair so I could say a few brief words on this bill.

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

I would like to commence my contribution to this debate by thanking you all for your cooperation in allowing the member for Blaxland to continue to speak although he was due to take the chair. That was greatly appreciated by those on this side. I know how hard it is at times to organise the speakers panel and the speakers. We really appreciated your cooperation, and I want that placed on the record.

The opposition welcomes the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006. It is legislation that will actually improve the situation in relation to protecting our waterways, protecting the sea and protecting the ocean from pollutants from ships—action on this issue that I think all of us here are very mindful and very supportive of. The bill will amend the Navigation Act 1912 and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983, implementing two revised annexes to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, commonly known as the MARPOL convention.

Annex I looks at the prevention of pollution by oil and annex II looks at the prevention of pollution by noxious liquid substances. The International Maritime Organisation adopted the revised annexes in October 2004. Like most international agreements, this will have had a long lead time before it comes into force, and in this case it is due to come into force on 1 January. As part of Australia’s international obligation as a member of the IMO, it is necessary for this bill to pass through the House.

I always take great interest in legislation that looks at shipping and at preventing the pollution of our oceans. The Shortland electorate is a coastal electorate, so it is very vulnerable to pollution caused by shipping. I think that when we look at this piece of legislation it is important to highlight the fact that if we do not protect our waterways there is the potential to have some serious problems.

There have been many examples of our environment being damaged at times. Environments throughout the world have been damaged by pollution. In the past few years there have been many collisions. In the seven years preceding 2003, there were 35 collisions and groundings of more than 50 large commercial ships in the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait waters. Since 1995 there was the Corolla which is a German ship—a Danish ship, a Panamanian ship, an Egyptian ship, an Indian ship, a Singaporean ship and a Malaysian ship. The Corolla had been responsible for pollution.

This bill has two annexures. Annex I looks at regulation for the prevention of pollution by oil and incorporates amendments adopted since the 1983 MARPOL agreement. It includes regulation on the phasing in of double hulls for oil tankers. In addition, separate chapters have been created for the construction and equipment provisions taken out of the operational requirements and the distinction is made clear between the requirements for new ships and for existing ships.

I believe that the phasing out and the phasing in of double-hull requirements for oil tankers is very important from the point of view of ensuring the safety of our coastline from pollution because it makes it much less vulnerable and particularly because we have many foreign owned and foreign flagged ships circumnavigating the coastline of Australia. These issues were identified in the Ships of shame report, which has already been mentioned in this debate, and also mentioned in the report of ICONS and then more recently in the Independent Review of Australian Shipping, IRAS, where they have been looked at once again.

The simple fact has been found that we have so many foreign owned ships that are flagged in one country, but often the captains of those ships come from another country and the crews of those ships come from yet another country. I have often used in this parliament the example of one of the ships that I visited, Angel III. It was a Maltese flagged ship, it had a Greek captain and it had a Burmese crew. This ship had a continuing voyage permit and it was constantly circumnavigating the coastline of Australia.

This legislation, which will come into effect after it passes through this parliament, should at least give us some certainty or put us in a bit better position when it comes to ensuring the safety of the ships. I am still very concerned about the fact that we are going to have ships of very dubious character with SVPs and CVPs circumnavigating Australia, but at least when we look to the future we can hope that the double-hull requirement for oil tankers will improve the situation, at least in that area.

I do note that there is a very clear distinction in the legislation between existing ships and new ships. So existing ships, such as the Angel III, will continue to circumnavigate Australia, traverse our waters, put Australian waters in danger of pollution and create situations where our Great Barrier Reef, one of our greatest tourist icons, is constantly put under threat. That ship can continue to do so, but the simple fact that we are signing up to this convention, which member states of the IMO are required to do, I think will improve the situation.

The new requirements in annex I include oil tankers constructed on and after 1 January 2007, but I do really worry how much longer those rusty hulks will travel around our coastline. This is the future. I think the government needs to think very seriously about the past and about delivering some safety to the Australian shorelines. It can do this by recognising the importance of the Australian shipping industry to Australia. Australia has been noted for its maritime expertise internationally. Australians working in the maritime industry are highly respected for their knowledge and their professionalism. Unfortunately, the Howard government has undermined the shipping industry, which provides jobs for Australian workers in an Australian industry.

Countries like the UK appreciate the importance of a strong shipping industry. It is important from the point of view of onshore and offshore activities, and considerable effort has been put into rebuilding the industry because of the benefit it provides to nations. The UK, the European Union and, for that matter, the USA have all recognised the importance of the shipping industry to their nations.

I hope that the parliamentary secretary who now has responsibility for shipping will really embrace all the issues and make a commitment to seeing that our shipping industry motors along as it is doing at the moment. She can be the person who is responsible for a growth in our shipping industry and for giving a real commitment to an Australian shipping industry, a real commitment to jobs and a real commitment to the future. By doing that, I think she will place herself in the history books as a person who has really benefited her nation.

Annex II deals with regulations for the prevention of pollution by noxious liquid substances. The revised categories are categories X, Y and Z—and I am not going into those categories, because previous speakers have done so. Other substances which will be evaluated fall outside categories X, Y or Z 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 mixtures contained in these substances is not subject to any of the requirements of MARPOL annex II. I add the quick comment that we always have to be careful of what we discharge into the sea.

Technological improvements in the shipping industry, such as efficient stripping techniques, have made possible significantly lower discharge levels of certain products and therefore that has been incorporated into annex II. For ships constructed on or after January 2007, the maximum permitted residue in the tank and its associated piping left after discharge will be set out as a maximum of 75 litres for products in category X, Y and Z.

Along with the revisions of annex II, the marine pollution hazards of thousands of chemicals have been evaluated. This has resulted in the hazard profile, which indexes substances according to bioaccumulation. These are significant advances. Vegetable oils, which have previously been categorised as unrestricted, will be carried in chemical tankers. I think members of this House would appreciate the reason for that and the danger that vegetable oils—oils of all kind—create for our marine environment. The revised annex also includes provision for the administration to exempt ships certified to carry individually identified vegetable oils.

In conclusion, I would like to return to the comments I made just a moment ago about hoping that the parliamentary secretary can be a breath of fresh air for our Australian shipping industry and will make a real commitment to the growth and rebuilding of it. In that vein, I would like to support the request that the member for Batman made about the ILO convention on seafarers. When will it be ratified? As you know, I am particularly committed to health and safety issues, and the health of safety of seafarers, as with other workers, is paramount in my mind. I think that it is very important to get all parties together and see if we can work on this and bring it into effect as soon as possible.

De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to sum up the debate on the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge the contributions from the member for Oxley, the member for Batman, the member for Blaxland—your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton—and the member for Shortland. Australia is a member of the International Maritime Organisation and, as such, we are party to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships with both annex I and annex II. Annex I deals with prevention of pollution by oil; annex II deals with prevention of pollution by noxious liquid substances. This international convention is commonly called MARPOL.

In October 2004, the International Maritime Organisation adopted the revised text of both of those annexures and they reflect the development of technical best practice in the maritime industry. Amendments to annex I include phasing in double-hull requirements for oil tankers and designating oil discharge prohibited special areas under that annex. For instance, it requires that tankers of 5,000 deadweight tonnes or more constructed after 1 January 2007 should have a double hull. There are also accidental oil outflow performances applied to oil tankers delivered after 1 January 2010 and there are construction requirements to provide adequate protection against oil pollution in the event of stranding or collision.

In terms of revisions to annex II, there are now four categories of noxious liquid substances. All of these apply to vessels which have tank-cleaning or deballasting operations. Category X is deemed to be a major hazard to both marine life and human health and therefore the substances in this designation are prohibited from discharge into the marine environment. Category Y, again, is seen as causing a hazard to marine resources or human health and there are limitations on the quality and quantity of the discharge. Category Z presents a minor hazard and therefore there are less stringent restrictions on the discharge of those substances. There is a designation for other substances which are seen as presenting no harm.

There has also been considerable work done on preparing hazard profiles, which have enabled these categorisations. This indexes substances with regard to bioaccumulation, biodegradation, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, long-term health effects and effects on marine wildlife and benthic habitats. As a result of these categorisations and the hazard profile, vegetable oil, for instance, which was previously categorised as being unrestricted, is now required to be carried in chemical tankers.

Many members have quite rightly touched on the Great Barrier Reef, which, of course, runs up and down the Queensland coast and is very near and dear to the hearts of many Queenslanders, who quite rightly want to see the Great Barrier Reef and other significant marine environments protected. I am pleased with the support the legislation has had from those who have spoken. The member for Blaxland—your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton—has congratulated the government on its responsible approach; the member for Batman has seen the legislation as sensible; and others have likewise supported the government’s initiatives.

The member for Batman asked about the progress of the International Labour Organisation convention on seafarers’ rights. He mentioned that the Australian government voted in support of this and asked whether we are in fact pursuing ratification and consultation with the states and territories. I advise the member for Batman that this is the responsibility of Minister Andrews, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. However, the government is aware of the necessity for a full consultation process including the states and territories and takes this responsibility very seriously. But that is rightly a matter that should be addressed to Minister Andrews.

In conclusion, I thank those who have made such a worthwhile and energetic contribution to this debate and assure the parliament that the Australian government is committed through this bill to ensuring that marine life is protected and human health is protected as well through these measures. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.