Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join the debate on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011. I say from the outset that the coalition regards this as a non-controversial piece of legislation and we will be supporting the bill in its passage through the parliament. I also acknowledge my good friend the Leader of the Nationals, who is the shadow minister for infrastructure and transport and indeed a former minister in this place. He is unable to join the debate today, but he would like me to highlight that the coalition has a strong record of public policy with regard to these matters. It is certainly an area where I believe the wider community expects us as members to ensure that there are appropriate environmental safeguards for this type of activity. Obviously, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker Livermore, in your electorate of Capricornia you are blessed with some extraordinary marine biodiversity and the community values it very highly. To take appropriate measures in providing sensible safeguards and sensible reforms to accommodate activities in the marine environment is something that the coalition does support.

Australia has been a member of the International Maritime Organisation since its establishment in 1948 and we have played an active role in the development of conventions and treaties over many years. As I said, the coalition and the current government—which I commend for it—have a long history of supporting sensible reforms. This bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to implement amendments to annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL, to prevent marine pollution during ship-to-ship oil transfer operations. These requirements entered into force internationally on 1 January 2011, and this bill will bring Australia's legislation into line with this scheme.

The bill requires that all oil tankers with 150 gross tonnage and above involved in ship-to-ship oil transfers have an operations plan prescribing how to conduct those transfers. It is designed to ensure that consideration has been given to the processes involved in the ship-to-ship transfer and that hazard prevention safeguards are in place to prevent an oil spill. These plans will be checked by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to ensure they meet with their requirements. As you would expect, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the bill also stipulates that ship-to-ship transfers must be undertaken in accordance with the approved operations plan and that ship-to-ship transfers must be overseen by the master of a ship involved or a suitably qualified person.

I believe that that is an important safeguard. The master of an oil tanker involved in such a transfer will be required to notify the administration of the country in whose waters the transfer will take place at least 48 hours prior to the oil transfer operations to ensure that response equipment is available in case of an oil spill during the transfer. That is a very reasonable consideration. We need to ensure that, in what it is fair to say would be the unlikely event of a spill occurring, it is conducted in a proper and correct manner with the appropriate safeguards. But, in any case, we need to ensure that the appropriate equipment is available on the mainland to deal with any unfortunate or unforeseen events. A record of such transfers needs to be provided at least 48 hours prior to the transfer to ensure that the Australian authorities are in a position to respond. Whilst the measures in this bill are important, it should be noted that, to date, there has been only one ship-to-ship transfer, which I am aware of, in Australian waters. In March this year, Caltex conducted a successful transfer off the coast of Sydney. I note from the minister's second reading speech an expectation that, in the future, this will become a more common event, particularly in the sense that Australian ports will not be able to cope with the supertankers that are becoming more commonplace and so there will be a need to provide these transfers to smaller vessels that can access Australian ports. Quite simply, it does not really matter how much we do in terms of dredging some of our ports they will not be able to cope with these vessels of enormous capacity, so these ship-to-ship transfers will become more frequent in the future.

I understand that Caltex operates using world best practice standards and carried out the transfer earlier this year in compliance with the requirements of the MARPOL convention even though it had not been officially enacted in Australia at that point. I understand that the transfer was carefully planned and carried out in close consultation with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and it is my understanding that it was a well-conducted operation. Whilst at this point ship-to-ship transfers of this type are not commonplace in Australia, as I have said, I think it is reasonable and prudent of the government to adopt this amendment to the MARPOL convention into Australian law.

I am pleased to support the bill to implement the amendments to the MARPOL convention annex 1 in Australia. It is important that we take these measures to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place to protect our environment when undertaking these potentially hazardous operations. I thank the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011 amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 so as to give effect to the amendments to annex 1 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, adopted in July 2009. The new chapter 8 included in the annex deals with the prevention of pollution during transfer of oil cargo between oil tankers at sea. The International Maritime Organisation, of which Australia is a member and which oversees the relevant shipping conventions, is a United Nations agency established in 1948 and is responsible for the safety and security of shipping and for the prevention of pollution by ships.

The bill demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to protecting Australia's marine environment. Australia depends almost exclusively on shipping to move its exports and imports. Australia has the fifth largest shipping task in the world in terms of tonnes of cargo shipped and kilometres travelled. Our oceans do not only drive our economy; they are also home to over 30,000 plant and animal species. Australia has some of the most unique and diverse oceans in the world and it is important that we do whatever we can to protect them. From obsolete sea vessels to dangerous uranium and other toxic chemicals, our oceans have been a convenient dumping ground for mankind for too long. Industrial and household waste are commonly dumped into our oceans. The environmental damage caused is immeasurable, but what is out of sight is out of mind for many and, regrettably, serious damage has been done to many ocean areas.

Of course, not all ocean pollution is deliberate—accidents do occur. To date, one of the greatest threats to the marine environment has been oil spills. Since coming to office in 2007, the government has significantly improved the protection of Australia's marine environment with legislation regarding civil liability for bunker oil pollution damage; the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Regulations; the Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) Regulations; and the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, which dealt with sulphur oxides.

This amendment bill will add another layer of protection for our marine environment. Under the traditional law of the sea, ships have the right of 'innocent passage' when transiting territorial and international waters. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states that passage is innocent as long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. Consistent with this right, a system of global regulation has been implemented to ensure ships are subject to uniform pollution standards whether they are on the high seas, in territorial waters or in port. Generally, shipping is an environmentally friendly mode of transport. Ships are the least energy intensive of all modes of transport. Shipping currently contributes just four per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from the Australian freight transport sector but carries a quarter of domestic freight.

As an IMO member, Australia has adopted several international conventions, including the International Convention on the Control of Harmful and Anti-fouling Systems on Ships 2001; the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001; the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992; the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992; the Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969; the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; the Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Cooperation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances 2000; the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation 1990 and the protocol to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution.

The intention of the amendments associated with this bill is to prevent marine pollution during ship-to-ship oil transfer operations between oil tankers. The new requirements apply to oil tankers of 150 gross tonnage and above. The bill will require such tankers involved in ship-to-ship oil transfer operations to have on board a ship-to-ship operations plan, and for transfers to be carried out in accordance with that plan. The decision to adopt international conventions was taken after extensive consultation with all parties involved, including the oil and shipping industries, state authorities and interested Commonwealth departments

The most common reason for transferring oil between oil tankers is where crude oil is being carried on a tanker that is too big to enter a port where an oil refinery is located. With the new super-size carriers, this is becoming a reasonably common occurrence. When this is the case, the oil is transferred to smaller tankers. This does not yet happen too often in Australian waters. The first and, to this point, only such transfer was successfully carried out off the New South Wales coast in March of this year. When it does happen, it is important that it is done in a responsible manner. The new previsions will apply from 1 April 2012 and substantial penalties may be applied where breaches occur. For example, failure to carry out a ship-to-ship operations plan risks a penalty of 500 penalty units, or $55,000. If the oil cargo transfer is not done in accordance with the ship's operations plan, the master of the subject oil tanker would risk a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units, or $22,000.

The amendments in this bill reflect international best practice as developed by International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Ltd, an international not-for-profit organisation which assists in all aspects of preparing for and responding to spills from ships of oil, chemicals and other substances. Coastal states will be required to be notified in advance of any proposed transfers, which means that they will be able to be prepared to respond in case of any spills occurring during a transfer. The risk of oil spills and other risks associated with shipping increases as Australian ships continue to be replaced with foreign-flagged, substandard vessels crewed with poorly trained seamen. Australian registered shipping numbers have almost halved from 75 in 1996 to 39 in 2010. Australian ships have negligible international trade business and are increasingly losing domestic trade to foreign competition.

A quick scan of shipping accidents on the Australian coastline will expose the poor record of foreign-flagged ships when compared to Australian vessels. It should come as no surprise. Poorly maintained vessels with untrained or low-paid crews inevitably result in disaster.

Supporting an Australian shipping industry would not only reduce the risk of environmental damage but also be good for the Australian economy. Australia's growing resource export trade will mean more ships going to and from Australia. It makes good economic sense, therefore, to see more of those ships registered and crewed in Australia. That would also minimise the likelihood of our sea waters being polluted by accidents. It is clear that there is a very strong relationship between the good record of ships crewed by Australian crews, registered here in Australia, and the incidence of damage that conversely occurs when foreign flagged ships are being used.

It is also of concern that, given that we are likely to see more shipping trade in this country as a result of our resources export trade, foreign-flagged ships will have a clear effect on our economy. Many of these foreign-flagged ships, which are often registered in tax haven countries, are in effect denying the Australian economy of income that should properly be coming back to Australia. It is also of concern that many of these foreign-flagged ships are quite often exploiting their own crews. There have been a number of incidents in recent years in Australian waters of foreign crews being exploited by the masters of their ships.

These are matters that should be of concern to this parliament. On the one hand we have an opportunity to increase the shipping trade for Australia, we have an opportunity to increase employment for Australian seamen and we have an opportunity to ensure that we minimise the risks to the ocean waters around this country but, on the other hand, at the very same time we are seeing an increase in the number of foreign-owned ships carrying out the legitimate business of Australian commodities shipping.

The regulations in this bill quite properly need to be imposed, and I believe they will help minimise the risks associated with ship-to-ship oil transfers. However, I believe there is a bigger issue at stake here and that is to ensure that more of that ship-to-ship trade is managed by Australian shipping organisations. I commend the bill to the House.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011. By way of background, Australia has been a member of the IMO since its establishment in 1948 and has played an extremely active role in the developing of conventions and treaties over many years. One of the good things about our engagement through the IMO is that it has always had bipartisan support in this parliament. The Marpol has six annexes which deal with different aspects of marine pollution, and all six have been implemented by Labor and coalition governments over time.

Relevant to this bill, annex 1 relates to the prevention of pollution by oil, and it entered into force internationally on 2 October 1983 and in Australia on 14 January 1988. Its introduction received bipartisan support, as I said before, and in 2004 the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO adopted a revised version of annex 1 which entered into force in Australia and internationally in 2007. The current amendments to annex 1 were adopted by the MEPC of the IMO on 17 July 2009 and came into force internationally on 1 January 2011. They recognise the potential for pollution damage resulting from oil spills during ship-to-ship oil transfer operations. Amendments to other annexes of Marpol have consistently received bipartisan support. Most recently the coalition has supported bills which update liability provisions for oil spills, in 2008, and which implement improved air pollution standards for ships, in 2006. The most distressing things that I ever see on our televisions in our marine environment are large-scale oil spills. Whether they have come from submerged rig blow-outs or indeed from grounding of ships, the environmental damage they do is extreme, costly and of benefit to no-one. This bill seeks to put into place plans for ships above 150 gross tonnage to develop and submit an approved plan prior to any ship-to-ship operation. It also means that there is a responsibility of the master. Just by way of background, as far as I understand, there are only two people in this parliament that have held levels of ships master certificates and they are Senator Nigel Scullion and me. I have now rescinded my ticket because I had an inability—working in this place—to keep up my sea time. It was very disappointing.

I have been around boats and vessels for a period of years. Making sure that situations on boats are environmentally managed is extremely important. What is also important is that we have in place measures so that, if such spills do occur, they are addressed as rapidly as possible. Making sure that plans are adequate is a position that is coveted by the Maritime Safety Authority to make sure they meet their minimum requirements. As I said, this then becomes the responsibility of the master of the vessel. The master of the vessel can delegate that to a suitably qualified position but, as always, it is the master of the vessel that is responsible for the operations of their vessel.

Why do we need this bill to be in place given there has only been one, as I can recollect, ship-to-ship transfer? I think that was by Caltex vessels. It is because the increase in size of the tankers moving oil and fuels in and around our coastline may require a debunkering into smaller vessels to be able to access smaller ports as we see more growth into smaller regions. That said, it is important that this government, through its actions, is proactive in these measures. There is no point in waiting until an incident has occurred to work out what is going to be done.

One of the important things about being in and around the sea—as I said, I have spent a number of hours, days and weeks out on the water—is the people who help make sure that our seas remain safe. I would like, as I speak to this bill, to also recognise the work and support work that happens through organisations such as the volunteer marine rescue services. In my area at Nelson Bay and through areas in the Great Lakes, Foster, Newcastle and Lemon Tree Passage, volunteers support the marine environment through Marine Rescue NSW. Marine Rescue NSW is a newly merged body of all the various marine rescue organisations in New South Wales. One of the important things they do is maintain a radio watch 24 hours a day. They work with AMSA and other organisations to make sure the quality of the service they are providing, albeit a volunteer service, is up to scratch.

Having been out at sea, sometimes in less than favourable conditions as I have been doing delivery voyages and things like that, it is always refreshing to know that when you put out a radio call, even checking in your daily position, there are people there to receive those radio calls and acknowledge that you are there. It is all part of our maritime safety regime we have in Australia. In fact there are 56 unit bases along the east coast from Eden to Point Danger which provide that great service. A couple of weeks ago, on 5 June, I had the honour to attend a recognition ceremony for the volunteers from Marine Rescue Australia.I would like to point out to this chamber that these people are volunteers who will go to sea in the roughest of weather to save other individuals. The key point here is that they are volunteers, usually in their senior years, who are putting their lives on the line in atrocious conditions to provide safety at sea for others when most people should be at home in bed. They do it and they get away with what they do because they are highly-trained individuals dedicated to the pursuit of survival at sea.

In recognising these volunteers, some who have provided decades of service, I would like to put their names on the record in the Hansard. From the Lemon Tree Passage unit there was Ray Conibear and Alan Ford who both joined in 2001, Dianne Wilson who has been volunteering since 1995 and Richard Osborne who entered the unit back in 1982. From the Nelson Bay unit, Brian and Maureen Wheatley signed up in March 2001, Heather Harmer, June Toms, Colin Bain and Patrick Johnson have been members since 2000, Marshall Britts, George Lawson, David Fairless, Malcolm Milliken, Nigel Waters, Geoffrey Moore, Joe Kolossa, Louise Moore, Eryl Thomas and Arthur Heiler joined in 1999, Ken Ross-Sampson, James Benson, Yvonne and John Almgren joined in 1998, Barry Hayes and Ramon Calvert joined in 1996, Kevin Lanyon, Bruce Shade and Alvin Kemp joined in 1994, John Smith joined in 1993, Shirley Clark and Lloyd Cropper joined up in 1991, Peter Phillipson and Rod Reeson joined in 1987, Harold Gibson joined in 1985, Mary Penny joined in 1983, Kevin Clark and Peter Shevlin joined in 1982 and last but by no means least John Thompson, who has been helping keep people safe on our waterways since 1968. That is more than four decades of volunteering service.

I quite often say to Thommo, 'Mate, you've got to get a life.' But he is typical of all those people in Marine Rescue who put their lives on the line regularly, going out to save people who are in distressed vessels off our coastline. Quite frankly an oil spill coming from a yacht, a fishing boat or a large cruiser can be equally as damaging as a small spill from a ship. Even though one might be pumping crude and the others have pure dieseline or petrol they can equally be damaging.

These are the people who have an absolute commitment to our community. I will give you an example. In 2009 our local marine rescue unit performed 140 maritime rescues. That is 140 times; not all of them in bad and atrocious weather—the boat might have broken down on a perfectly sunny day. I have sat around and talked to these guys. They inherited a boat that was given to them called the Daniel Kane which came out of England and was a lifeboat there. It is a fully enclosed boat where the people who work on it are all below decks and strapped in and it will go out in absolutely atrocious conditions.

Our region is no stranger to ship disasters, and I would remind this chamber of the fate of the Pasha Bulker. It was only by sheer good fortune when she was beached in that massive storm that there was no massive oil spill. I know that besides the professionals there and the tugboat drivers it was the volunteers like the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service who got people onto the ship and evacuated the ship. It was people like our Marine Rescue units who were standing by ready to help in case they were needed.

Protecting our seas is important and that is why this legislation is another pathway forward to protecting that marine environment. We can remember things such as the Exxon Valdez and the devastation that that created up in the north Pacific. We can remember the Gulf of Mexico, that is only a year on, and the devastation on a very broad scope that had on the southern states of the USA. It was not just that the oils and crude got washed up in the rivers, it went all the way up through into the Everglades area and it affected the marine nurseries and the financial liabilities of those towns. That is why in conclusion it is critical to be proactive. It is critical to have plans that are evaluated by professionals independently and, as always with the master of the vessel, it is critical to hold the master of the vessel responsible for the operations and safety of the vessel. The coalition commends this bill before the House.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a lovely tribute to those volunteer organisations right around our coastline.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011. This bill will certainly assist in protecting one of our most important national and international natural resources: our ocean. I have heard it said that roughly 80 per cent of Australians live within 80 miles—to use the old measure—of the sea, and half of our houses are within 15 kilometres of the ocean. Such an ocean-looking nation we are, quite different from the images of the Red Centre that we so often see that typify Australia. We are also famous for our beaches and we want to keep it that way.

It is no wonder that the ocean is a treasured part of Australia's heritage. It has provided many generations with a living and the ability to raise a family, right back to the very first Australians. As a parliament, it is imperative that we are proactive in ensuring that such an important component of our livelihood and heritage is protected. This bill aims to do that.

This bill is concerned with the transfer of oil between oil tankers carrying crude oil for cargo purposes. These ship-to-ship transfers of oil occur when an oil tanker carrying crude oil is too large to dock in a port where an oil refinery is located. So ship-to-ship transfers are actually a necessary event. Those ship-to-ship transfers are currently very rare and, to the best of my knowledge, only one has occurred this year—in March. So they are rare circumstances. But one mistake is one too many. This legislation is needed because it is absolutely vital that ship-to-ship transfers, if they occur, are carried out in a responsible manner. Our ocean is just far too important to allow risk to be a part of the equation out there.

Additionally, with a growing international economy, there is a chance that ship-to-ship transfers of crude oil will become more necessary into the future. It is therefore imperative that this parliament respond, and appropriately regulate such transfers to ensure that they are carried out successfully. As I understand it, responsibility for the safe regulation of domestic New South Wales coastal trade is a responsibility shared between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments. New South Wales is generally responsible for intrastate voyages. Trading vessels that operate on interstate voyages or are recarrying domestic cargo are part of an international voyage and are regulated by the Commonwealth.

All trading vessels operating in Australian waters are required to comply with the Commonwealth and state marine pollution legislation. Trading vessels arriving at and departing from overseas destinations have to comply with a number of Commonwealth laws. They have a requirement to exchange ballast water en route to prevent marine pest incursions, as happened quite infamously in the 1990s with the Japanese starfish which devastated the Tasmanian scallop fishery. So these regulations are very, very significant and highly practical in their impact.

These are important threats, but perhaps the threat we fear most as a coastal nation is the threat of serious pollution from ships. Maritime oil spills are one of the greatest possible threats to our marine ecosystem that we can imagine. In protecting marine ecosystems it is absolutely vital that we do all we can to prevent maritime oil spills, because the cost of a cure far outweighs any cost of prevention. The cost of any regulation and prevention measure really is naturally much less than the overall cost of cleaning up a maritime oil spill. The economic and social costs of such a catastrophic event are just too high even to contemplate. Indeed, communities in Alaska are still bearing the repercussions of the Exxon Valdez having run aground in Prince William Sound so many years ago. Many in this parliament represent these coastal electorates. We understand the immense importance of coastal environments. The electorate of Robertson contains many beautiful beaches and other coastal environments, many of which have become national landmarks. This was demonstrated with the great public interest generated by the scuttling of the former HMAS Adelaide in the seat of Robertson. Additionally, the beaches on the Central Coast have attracted holidaymakers for generations. Living in a coastal area, you understand the importance of beaches to our local communities. Indeed, it is part of our national character. It is for these reasons that it is important, in representing the people of Robertson, that I support this fundamental piece of legislation.

Every bill passed by this parliament is of national significance and this bill is certainly no exception. Indeed, any bill that aims to prevent an environmental catastrophe that would potentially have irreversible effects should be of national significance. Last Saturday, I was privileged to participate in the Five Lands Walk, an annual event aimed at increasing awareness of the spiritual importance of the natural environment. Having participated in the event for several years, I am heartened by the connection that the participants in the Five Lands Walk have with our local environment. This type of spiritual connection is indeed the type of connection that the very first Australians had for millennia. This is the environment that we need to protect and it is the role of this parliament to pass appropriate legislation to achieve these ends.

Saturday was the sixth annual walk and it has become a tradition that young, local Indigenous dancers call in the whales. This is the time of year that the whales are migrating up the eastern seaboard of New South Wales. On the weekend of the winter solstice, while others are making merry in the hinterland—I know there is a big festival up in the Blue Mountains—the whales are passing right by our coast. They passed Tudibaring Headland and Bulbaring Headland, to use the Indigenous names for those areas, on Saturday at exactly the time the girls did their dance. That is something that has happened every year. This intimate connection with our environment is something we should never underplay and this bill is a reflection of that deep understanding of our connection with our environment.

This legislation is constructed to ensure a very practical end—that the transfer of crude oil between ships in Australian waters reflects international best practice. As stated in the minister's second reading speech, these standards are contained in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation, recognising risks associated with ship-to-ship transfer, adopted this international convention. It is important that as a nation we take our responsibility and adopt those same standards.

An example of a new provision contained in this bill is that proposed in section 11B. The proposed section requires that, if a ship-to-ship transfer occurs, it must be carried out in accordance with the ship-to-ship operations plan. The plan is the critical element. This means that a ship-to-ship transfer of crude oil must commence with a planning phase and both ships have to comply with that plan. If they fail to do so, they will be subject to criminal sanction. Additionally, under the proposed section 11E, a master of an Australian oil tanker—and I was quite surprised to hear about the level of expertise here in the House, as mentioned by the previous speaker—involved in a ship-to-ship oil transfer will be subject to criminal sanction if the master fails to make a record of the transfer as soon as practicable. So there is planning and reporting. Subsection 11F(1) also provides that the master of a tanker which has been involved in a ship-to-ship oil transfer operation in Australian waters will have committed a criminal offence if the master has failed to notify a prescribed officer of the transfer at least 48 hours before the transfer began. The regulations of this bill therefore ensure that such transfers of oil are carried out with appropriate notice and in accordance with a plan and that they are recorded once completed successfully. This is vital considering the amount of oil that ship-to-ship transfers involve. These transfers typically do occur in accordance with very strict guidelines and practices which cargo ships abide by. Despite this it is vital that we legislate to ensure standards are high and complied with when these transfers occur in Australian waters or when involving Australian ships. This government has ensured that the standards set down in this bill do reflect best international practice. It is worth noting that the standards embedded in the key elements included in this bill were developed initially by the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Ltd. This is an international not-for-profit service organisation that, throughout its history, has been predominantly concerned with the administration of compensation schemes. Not surprisingly the ITOPF has quite naturally developed an important role in providing advice in regard to the response to oil spill incidents. In addition it has a keen interest in preventing such spills.

We need only cast our minds back to the devastating oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico last year to observe the absolute devastation of an entire marine environment. In addition there was the terrible economic impact that flowed on from that environmental devastation. We have seen what oil can do when it is not carefully managed and when preventative action is not properly managed. I hope that throughout my lifetime this nation never has to deal with a major oil spill of such magnitude.

This government since being elected has been committed to ensuring that safety at sea and the safety of our environment is ensured. I am proud to support a government that has significantly improved the protection and sustainability of Australia's marine environment. This is demonstrated by our legislative record with the passing of legislation regarding civil liability for bunker oil pollution damage. Also this government has been proactive in enacting regulations including the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Regulations and Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) Regulations.

Such legislative activity is rarely commented upon by our news media. I am sure that if some oil spilled we would all hear about it, and there would be so much blame apportioned and so much regret. Prevention is less engaging for the media, but is a vital part of good governance and that is what is happening here today. Often preventative legislation is regarded as unexciting in comparison to other matters being debated in the parliament or sometimes unexciting simply to debate or for the entertainment that it provides. But we in this place are in the business of governing, not in the business of entertaining. This legislation is a fair reflection of that.

I assert most forcefully that the prevention of major oil spills is vitally important in securing our environmental and economic future as a coastal nation. Whilst ship-to-ship transfers of crude oil rarely occur in Australian waters, when they do happen they must occur under appropriate regulation that meets the world standard. Anything less would incur far too great a risk of environmental tragedy. The ocean is one of our most treasured and important environmental assets.

In representing my electorate of Robertson I will always think of our sparkling eastern seaboard. I think of the people who enjoy it for fishing, for swimming, for surfing, for boogie boarding, for sailing and even for those new things where you stand up and paddle; I see them all the time at Avoca. We have wonderfully innovative ways of enjoying the ocean. We need to have legislation that is preventative and innovates and moves us to a safer place. I commend the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011 to the House.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011. The intent of this bill is to ensure that amendments to annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships are implemented in Australia. The amendments have been made in recognition of the potential for pollution to occur when oil is being transferred from one ship to another. Whilst this happens rarely in Australia it is important that all reasonable measures be taken to reduce the risk of an oil spill when these types of transfers occur at sea. Under this legislation oil tankers with 150 gross tonnage and above that are involved in ship-to-ship oil transfers must have a ship-to-ship operations plan that details how such transfers are to be managed. Australian oil tanker operation plans will be checked by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and approved if they comply with the provisions of the legislation. Importantly, the master of an oil tanker that will be undertaking the ship-to-ship transfer is required to notify the administration of the country in which the transfer is to take place at least 48 hours before the operation in order to ensure the presence of the right equipment to clean up an oil spill should it occur. That way, serious damage to waterways and coastlines might be prevented by early intervention. It is my understanding that ship-to-ship transfers of oil have occurred in Australian waters on only one occasion, off the coast of Sydney, by Caltex. Caltex have advised that they are already compliant with the provisions of this legislation.

I have a personal interest in this legislation. Honourable members will be aware of what has become widely known as the Queensland summer of disasters, during which our beautiful region suffered through the worst season of natural disasters in the state's history. We were buffeted by floods and cyclones all through the summer, and these have done untold damage to our state and have robbed us of too many lives. However, in March 2009 Queensland suffered from one of its worst man-made disasters, when the container ship Pacific Adventurer spilled approximately 270,000 litres of oil into Moreton Bay. The oil spill affected 20 kilometres of pristine coastline from Cape Moreton to Blue Lagoon in South-East Queensland. It was a shock to my community when, on Thursday, 12 March 2009, the Premier declared Moreton Island, Bribie Island and more southern parts of the Sunshine Coast a disaster zone. Bribie Island, in my own electorate, was one of the worst-affected areas. Queensland beaches are famous all over the world and the tourism industry was seriously threatened by the oil that was spilled. Community safety was compromised and our precious beaches and waterways were closed. This caused untold distress and economic damage to the region, its people and its wildlife. Some of Queensland's major tourist attractions along the Sunshine Coast were affected, together with Moreton Island and Bribie Island.

This legislation will require that all transfers of oil are carried out in accordance with an oil tanker's ship-to-ship operation plan. This will apply when the transfer occurs in the sea near a state or territory in Australia's exclusive economic zone, or when the supertanker is involved in Australia and the transfer occurs while the tanker is outside the Australian exclusive economic zone. Most of the oil that was spilled into Moreton Bay polluted our sandy beaches, but when the oil spill occurred the weather was terrible. This resulted in a lot of the oil that had been buried in the sand being deposited back on the beaches by the rough seas. Without exception, all the areas affected have tourism as one of their major industries, so the clean-up effort was huge and aimed to ensure that people's expectation of Queensland's fabled beaches were met. Clean we did, for two months. Up to 2,500 people were involved in the clean-up and, reflective of the true Queensland spirit we saw this summer, volunteers came from everywhere: from the community, from agencies, from interstate and from the oil industry. At times during the response there were up to 400 people working on Moreton Island. During the cleanup approximately 3,000 tonnes of oil-soaked sand was removed from Moreton Island. It was backbreaking work but mostly done manually, using shovels and rakes to fill about 8,000 bags each day. Fortunately, the affected areas are now back to their pristine condition.

As recently as April of last year, the Shen Neng 1 ran aground near Great Keppel Island on the Great Barrier Reef. In this instance there were serious concerns that the ship would break up, spilling its 975 tonnes of oil into the fragile environment of the Great Barrier Reef. As it was, some oil was spilled, requiring the use of chemical dispersants to break up the oil slick, which measured 3,000 metres by 100 metres. It was very fortunate that the skills of the salvage effort ensured that only a minimal amount of oil was spilled and that the ship was prevented from breaking up. Nonetheless, the incident serves as a stark reminder that we need to do all we can to protect our valuable and fragile marine environment. There is not a lot we can do to prevent rain and cyclones; however, it is our responsibility to do what we can to prevent man-made disasters, such as oil spills, from damaging our coast and waterways. In this context, the coalition supports this legislation.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the provisions being put forward in the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill. This legislation derives from changes internationally through the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL, which commenced in 1983 and itself derives from UN activity through the International Maritime Organisation, established in 1948.

As many speakers will indicate, there is a very real reason for trying to avoid oil spillages at sea. Obviously for this country there would be a threat to our tourism industry and to fishing, but more particularly there is the impact on wildlife, particularly birds but also whales, otters et cetera. Those impacts include hypothermia, the poisoning of animals and birds as they try to clean themselves, the effect on reproduction, the problem of blinding which makes them vulnerable to predators, many birds become too heavy to fly, oil bubbles in the fur of some animals lead to their inability to float, and whales' blowholes become plugged so they basically cannot breathe. That is another reason why we should be very vigilant and very active in this area. We hear people denigrating international activity and international cooperation through organisations such as the UN, but the fact is that trying to overcome national self-interest and corporate power to reach agreements such as this and have parallel legislation in countries is a worthwhile human endeavour.

Perhaps the most extreme example of what can occur is demonstrated by the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident. A quarter of a million birds are believed to have perished as a result of that leakage—it was more than a leakage; 25 olympic pools of oil were lost, spreading over 28,000 kilometres. This case was also indicative of corporate power in the world, because in one of the most infamous examples of corporate power and doubts arising over the US Supreme Court, the initial penalties resulting from the Exxon Valdez were reduced from $2.5 billion to $500 million, and court cases were stretched out over a decade. Despite efforts by the US Congress to ensure there were measures to counter disregard, disinterest and negligence by corporations in regard to the carriage of oil, we had an example where the political nature of members of the US Supreme Court led to a massive reduction in punitive damages.

Whilst it is estimated that the contribution of oil spillages to the overall problem is of a lower order—estimates go between five and eight per cent of the oil pollution in the world—it is still important. If we can take action internationally and as a nation to reduce the possibility, it is a worthwhile venture. It is of interest that 70 per cent of oil pollution comes from consumer use—run-off, et cetera. As I say, that five or eight per cent is important when we are trying to ensure that we move in the right direction. As well as Exxon Valdez, there has been a focus on the Gulf of Mexico over the last year or so. That certainly gained international attention because of the huge media coverage and the impact on Louisiana's wetlands and fishing and shrimp industries. There was the image of a US President not acting strongly enough. It focused international attention, in the globalised world of media presence, on making sure we all have some indication of what can occur. There have been multiple examples—Exxon Valdez, the Kuwaiti oilfields, whether it involves spillages through ship crashes or negligence in ship maintenance or, as I say, the search for oil itself.

This legislation includes a commendable series of measures designed to reduce the problem. It includes penalties for ships not having plans of action for problems that might occur; equally, there are penalties of up to $6,000 for inappropriate qualifications of people on ships, with some leniency depending on how much notice the ship operators have had. There is a penalty of $22,000 for failure to report incidents and strict liability in regard to a ship-to-ship plan. So there is a series of measures here to bring Australia into line with international provisions. This is as a result of international action. While I heard one speaker saying that Australian waters have not been affected by this many times, there is always the possibility. Who would have foreseen 20 years ago what is happening in international transport? Who knows what is going to occur with oil shortages over the next few decades—how it will be transported, in what kinds of vehicles, the nature of Australian ports? The degree of caution, vigilance and action early on are commendable. We are, through this legislation, moving on the threat of spillage from ships transporting oil, chemicals and other substances.

In conclusion, I commend this as a necessary measure and stress again both the threat to the environment and an indication of this country being involved in international organisations, and the very positive outcomes which occur through international cooperation.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia is fortunate to be home to some of the most spectacular environments in the world, in particular our marine life. Being the world's largest island, our coastline boasts hundreds of beautiful islands and reefs and each of these provides support to their unique ecosystems. From whale sharks in Western Australia to the heritage listed Great Barrier Reef, our marine environment is worth protecting. The bill we are debating today, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011, relates to safety measures which are to be implemented by oil tankers during ship-to-ship transfers. They are important. Imagine the damage an oil spill would cause to our marine environments.

We saw the devastation caused last year by the massive deepwater oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet even spills on a smaller scale can have hugely detrimental effects on an environment and can occur from ship-to-ship oil transfers. One of the most serious cases of a ship-to-ship oil transfer spill occurred off Texas in 1990, which resulted in 4.3 million gallons of crude oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. Oil spills are hugely destructive. We saw for ourselves a major impact on our islands and coastline north of Brisbane from a relatively smaller oil spill from the Pacific Adventurer, as detailed previously by my colleague the member for Longman. I commend Brisbane City Council and the then Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman, for their response and for the subsequent campaign by Brisbane Marketing to reinvigorate the region. Oil spills damage the environment for marine wildlife and cause stress to the complex ecosystems which exist along our shore lines. As well as the environmental harm they cause, the economic repercussions of a clean-up can be quite drastic. We do not want to see this happen in Australian waters. That is why the coalition is supportive of today's amendments.

As a nation we have always valued our unique biodiversity and have been a member of the International Maritime Organisation since its establishment in 1948. It has always been acknowledged that the best way of increasing safety and reducing pollution at sea is by developing international regulations that all shipping nations adopt. Australia has played an active role in the International Maritime Organisation over the years, helping to develop conventions and treaties. It is wonderful that our nation is part of such a successful, multinational organisation that continues to adapt to the changing conditions of the world in which it operates.

As part of the IMO, the MARPOL convention is part of the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. All of its six annexes have been implemented over the years by both coalition and Labor governments to ensure that Australian standards are in line with international conventions. Today's amendments, which deal with protecting the sea from pollution caused by vessels engaged in ship-to-ship transfers of oil, were adopted by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO in July 2009 and came into force internationally in January this year. Amendments to the annexes of the MARPOL have consistently received bipartisan support, reflecting the importance of those sensible measures as well as the value Australia places on protecting our marine environments. The amendments today bring Australia's legislation in line with the relevant MARPOL convention annex and, therefore, in line with international standards.

This bill will implement safety measures which will require all oil tankers of a gross tonnage of 150 or more involved in ship-to-ship oil transfer operations to have a ship-to-ship operations plan on board. This plan will prescribe how to conduct oil transfers, the implication being that the fact that a tanker does not have this plan on board indicates that it may not have sufficient safeguards in place to avoid an oil spill. The scheme is designed to ensure that oil tankers give due consideration to the ship-to-ship transfer practices and that their hazard prevention safeguards adequately prevent an oil spill. These ship-to-ship operation plans will be checked by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and if they are found to comply with the bill's requirements they will be approved for use. These requirements will apply to ship-to-ship transfers carried out from April next year. After this time, a record of ship-to-ship transfers occurring near an Australian state or territory must be kept, and a 48-hour notification of a transfer must be given to the country in whose waters it will take place.

Given the disastrous effect an oil spill could have on the Australian coastline, it is important to note that ship-to-ship transfer is uncommon in Australian waters. In fact there has been only one ship-to-ship operation conducted near Australia in our history. That case occurred in March of this year and was administered by Caltex, as they have advised that this method of transfer is a cost-effective way of transporting oil from distant locations in Africa. This transfer was completely successful and in full accordance with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. This method of ship-to-ship transfer is important for companies such as Caltex as they can use a large vessel or supertanker to transport the oil over great distances, but they need to be able to transfer to smaller vessels which can then take the commodity to port.

Another environmental benefit of this is that it reduces the number of oil tankers travelling on the sea, thus reducing the increased pollution that multiple vessels travelling large distances would cause. For the foreseeable future it is likely that Caltex will be the only company engaged in the ship-to-ship process. As they already operate under best practice, the company believe that they are already compliant and the amendment will have no negative effect on their business. So whilst a current company already employs these standards, today's amendments will ensure that the standards are already in place to protect our marine environment from any future tankers that use ship-to-ship transfers.

The coalition will always support sensible policies which deliver real outcomes for Australia. Both sides of this place have given support to MARPOL amendments over the years to ensure that Australia upholds international standards wherever possible. It is said that the best defence is a good offence and these measures will help to protect our precious marine environment from the disastrous effects an oil spill would cause. I am pleased to support this bill.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As someone with a keen interest in the marine environment, it gives me great pleasure to speak today on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011. This bill seeks to implement amendments to annex 1 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The intention of the bill is to prevent spills occurring during ship-to-ship oil transfers between oil tankers. The new requirement under the bill will apply to oil tankers over 150 gross tonnes. These transfers most often occur when an oil tanker is too large to enter a port where there is a refinery, so it becomes necessary to transfer the oil to smaller ships.

Many will perhaps think it is odd that the member for Canberra would rise to speak on this legislation. After all, Canberra is not well known for its great beaches, its bustling working ports or its maritime tradition. As I said, I rise to speak on the bill because I am motivated by our national interest and because I believe that, whilst such transfers are rare in Australia, the potential damage that could result from a spill is enormous. My dad is a very keen snorkeller, skindiver and sailor, and as a result my sisters and I were brought up swimming from an early age, with a strong appreciation and respect for the ocean and a strong appreciation and respect for its dangers, beauty and wealth of life. So, from a very young age, I have been extremely conscious of the need to protect Australia's marine environment.

I was fortunate recently to visit the Australian Antarctic Division in Tasmania with the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. During this trip, I spoke with scientists from the division as well as from the University of Tasmania. In my conversations with them I learned of the pressures being placed on the oceans of the world due to climate change. I learned how the protein value of krill populations could diminish from increased ocean acidity caused by a sudden and dramatic increase in the Earth's temperature due to climate change. The division is, thankfully, undertaking a comprehensive, unique and significant study of krill which has drawn interest from scientists all over the world. When we were there that day, there were scientists from Germany, the United States, from memory, and a range of other countries who were drawn to this very unique research taking place only in the division and only in Tasmania.

Krill are a vitally important part of the marine environment. They are the foundation of the marine food chain and many species, both large and small, directly depend on this vital food source for survival. Beyond this, many more, including us, are indirectly linked to the survival of these tiny creatures. My trip to Tasmania more than settled in my mind the need for this parliament to take immediate action on climate change through a carbon price. It also underscored the need to protect our precious marine environment from all sorts of threats, including potential oil spills in Australia.

The transportation of oil through sea lanes represents an important source of marine pollution. Whilst I have noted that such spills in Australia are rare, when they occur the potential environmental damage is enormous. Not only do they have an immediate and devastating impact in the short term but also research has shown that there is significant long-term damage from spills. Oil in the marine environment can irritate the eyes of the wildlife that encounter it. It also contaminates food sources, damages or disrupts the fins of fish and clogs fur and feathers. We have all seen those dreadful images from around the world of birds covered in oil from the range of disasters that have happened with oil spills. They really underscore this point.

Longer term exposure has other dire consequences for these creatures, such as organ failure. One of the substances contained in crude oil is a compound known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, or PAH. This compound is known to be mutagenic and carcinogenic, and whilst naturally occurring in certain circumstances it is significantly present in crude oil. PAH has been demonstrated to have highly toxic and long-term effects on the reproduction of fish, even at very low levels. But, well apart from the ecological cost of oil spillage, there is also the social and economic cost to those people who live near the site of spills. The recent events in the Gulf of Mexico highlight the effect on communities. Local anglers were prevented from fishing for months, sending many of them to the wall and decimating local economies. Tourism to the area all but ceased as once picturesque beaches were covered with a thick black coating of oil, and of course they will take many years to fully recover, if indeed they ever do.

There have been concerns about the health of the people who live in areas near these disasters, as well as the health of those who clean up the spills. In the Gulf of Mexico, there have been reports of skin and eye irritations. One academic study focused on the effects on the health of workers who were sent to clean up the 2003 spill from the Tasman Spirittanker in Karachi. This study found an increase in respiratory problems in the people who cleaned up the spill. The report also found an increase in coughs, skin and eye irritations, sore throats and headaches as a result of people being close to the spill.

While these spills are perhaps larger than that contemplated by this legislation, even a minor incident can have devastating consequences. One such example occurred in 1976, when an oil tanker which had unloaded its cargo sought to wash its tanks out with seawater. Although only an estimated five tonnes of oil were released, it had the effect of calming the waves and attracting a migrating flock of ducks. Some 60,000 died as a result of this spill. While this is perhaps an isolated incident, it does serve to highlight the effects of oil spills. While they may be rare, the effects can never be truly predicted and are highly damaging. That is why we need strong legislation to prevent such events from ever occurring.

Today's legislation seeks to do just that. It requires a ship-to-ship operation plan in all ships. This will ensure that tankers have appropriate equipment and qualified and trained onboard crew to undertake the operation. It will also ensure coastal states are notified of an operation proposed in their areas, which will allow them to move quickly should the worst happen. The bill is an example of world's best practice regulation and will bring Australia into line with international convention. Since 2007, the government has introduced legislation covering civil liability for bunker oil pollution damage. We have introduced the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Regulations and the Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) Amendment Regulations. The Gillard government is deeply committed to protecting Australia's environment, and I commend the bill to the House.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to support the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011. The coalition has a long history of supporting sensible reform to protect our marine environment, and the bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to implement amendments to annex 1 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL, to prevent marine pollution during ship-to-ship oil transfer operations. These requirements entered into force internationally on 1 January 2011, and this bill will bring Australia's legislation into line with that scheme.

The measures of the bill are that oil tankers with 150 gross tonnage and above will be involved in ship-to-ship oil transfers and that they must have an operational plan prescribing how to conduct those transfers. It is also designed to ensure that consideration has been given to the process involved in the ship-to-ship transfer and that hazard prevention safeguards are in place to prevent an oil spill. These plans have been checked by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AMSA, who will ensure that they meet the requirements. As you would expect, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the bill also stipulates that ship-to-ship transfers must be made in accordance with the approved operations plan and that ship-to-ship transfers must be overseen by the master of a ship involved, or by a suitably qualified person. A record of ship-to-ship transfers must be kept and notification must be given to the country in whose waters the transfer is to take place approximately 48 hours prior to the transfer.

Recently I met with representatives of the Australian Marine Conservation Society. They are the voice for Australia's oceans. A constituent of mine in Brisbane, Mr Omar Ameer, was one of the representatives to visit me. He is a volunteer for the society. He is very dedicated and spends many hours in his fight to help conserve Australia's marine environments. I want to congratulate him and the organisation for the very fine work that they do in this particular area. Their head office is located in my electorate of Brisbane, and the work that they do on behalf of all of the community to protect ocean wildlife, make our fisheries sustainable and create places in the sea where our precious ocean animals are safe from harm is to be commended. The Australian Marine Conservation Society are working actively with passionate scientists, educators and advocates who have defended Australia's oceans for more than 40 years. Australians love the sea and, as an island nation, we value our ocean wildlife, our fur seals, our humpback whales and our sea turtles. Measures outlined in this bill have the specific aim of protecting these gifts that we have been given. Moreton Bay, on the eastern coast of Australia 45 kilometres from Brisbane, is one of Queensland's most precious coastal resources. The waters of Moreton Bay are a popular destination for recreational anglers and are used by commercial operators who provide seafood to the market. The protection of this area, along with our waters, is of great importance. Brisbane has a great love for Moreton Bay and its 30 beaches, its wonderful, beautiful islands and its national marine park. This region also plays a very important role in the world's biodiversity, hosting 40,000 migratory birds each year, as recognised by the World Wetlands Day celebrations.

We all remember one of Australia's worst oil disasters on 11 March 2009. We saw the cyclone-buffeted cargo ship Pacific Adventurer leak some 270,000 litres of fuel into Moreton Bay. It blackened the beaches of Moreton Bay and Bribie Island and beaches along the Sunshine Coast. The oil washed onto beaches, rocky reefs and mangroves on the north-eastern side of Moreton Bay and Bribie Island, and onto the beaches and mangrove wetlands between Caloundra and Coolum Beach on the Sunshine Coast. Many of the affected areas were located within the Moreton Bay Marine Park and the Moreton Bay Ramsar site. It will take many years for these areas to fully recover.

The Bligh government's response to the Moreton Bay oil spill disaster was just another bungle from a tired and inept Labor administration. It took far too long for them to recognise that there was a problem occurring, and then they delayed the start of the clean-up effort. Several of the local restaurants and many of the hotels and function centres that received shipments of fish from the waters off the Queensland coast refused to stock any fish due to the spill. The cost of that particular operation also hurt the economy terribly. It cost at least $10 million. In July 2009, the total clean-up bill was estimated to be some $34 million. The President of the Queensland Seafood Industry Association, Neil Green, said at the time that the 30 containers of ammonium nitrate that fell off the Pacific Adventurer on the Wednesday morning were also a major concern to commercial fishermen and the potential impact on fishing stock was absolutely devastating.

I support any safeguards that we can implement to prevent such ecodisasters. The coalition has supported the bills which have updated liability provisions for oil spills in 2008 and implemented improved air pollution standards for ships in 2010. These measures, combined with the current bill, will in the long term reduce the risk, and lessen the impact, of disasters such as those I have outlined. The measures in the bill are very important. It also needs to be noted that to date a ship-to-ship transfer has occurred only once in Australian waters. In March this year Caltex conducted a successful transfer off the coast of Sydney.

Debate adjourned.