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

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member to refrain from using props.

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

We can burn the clean stuff. It is eminently available. We should be using that, and not this, and I insist on the cruise-ship industry cleaning up their act and burning the clean stuff like they do in the rest of the world.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Member for Bowman, and out of respect for the attendants here in the chamber I would ask the member to clean up the mess he has left. Is the motion seconded?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to even attempt to follow the theatricality of that, but I certainly would say to the member for Bowman that I am very pleased to second the resolution. This is a resolution that is extremely important from two perspectives. Of course, Labor supports our cruise-liner industry, our tourism industry more generally, and of course as a representative of the seat of beautiful Sydney, which incorporates Sydney Harbour, its islands and its foreshores, I am a great supporter of the environmental constraints that the member is proposing, but also, of course, of keeping our working harbour. To keep our working harbour, we need to ensure that our working harbour, the tourism industry and the industries associated with it take account of the rights of the residents of Sydney Harbour, too. Australian ports and our shipping industry are a very important part of our economy: they are important to our productivity, to jobs, to our long-term prosperity. So too is our tourism industry. The member spoke about the growth of the cruise part of the tourism sector, and how important it has been. I think it something to be celebrated and acknowledged.

But we know that in this area, in ports and shipping more generally, the operators of shipping have increasingly been making a priority of environmental sustainability. They have responded, in part, by changing their operations. We need to do much more and much better in this area; we need to consider how the operations of the cruise liners are affecting the quality of life, the safety and the health of local communities and residents.

Labor supports the protection of the health of harbourside communities. We certainly think that protection should be brought into line with international standards. I have met a number of times with the residents in my own community about the impact of cruise ships docked in White Bay in particular. Residents of the nearby Balmain peninsula live with these harmful sulphur emissions because of our environmental standards in Australia. They also live with an enormous amount of traffic noise and other inconveniences that come with the docking of the cruise ships at White Bay.

When White Bay was approved, the community was told at the time that there would be best practice environmental regulation. That has not occurred. Local residents deserve clean air and they deserve a response to their complaints—more than 300 complaints in a seven-month period. That is why I was pleased to hear the Liberal's announcement this week. But I also remind people that some time ago New South Wales Labor announced that it would support a range of new regulations around the emissions at the White Bay Cruise Terminal. New South Wales Labor proposed to bring the operation of White Bay into line with world's best practice, firstly by designating White Bay as an 'emissions control area' and reducing the maximum allowable sulphur content of the fuels used by cruise ships from the current 3.5 per cent to 0.1 per cent; secondly, by banning overnight berthing at the terminal, thirdly, by implementing independent noise monitoring and greater penalties for breaches; fourthly, by immediately investigating ways to implement ship-to-shore power, as recommended by the recent New South Wales upper house inquiry; and, lastly, by negotiating with the federal government to secure greater access for cruise ships to Garden Island.

Luke Foley, indeed, initiated the recent New South Wales upper house inquiry into the operations of the EPA, and was responsible for ensuring that White Bay was included as one of the terms of reference for that inquiry. The upper house inquiry recommended stronger environmental measures by the EPA at White Bay, saying that it 'failed to anticipate the magnitude of the impacts experienced by residents.'

New South Wales Labor's proposals are not radical. They are quite in line with what the member is proposing. They would simply bring New South Wales into line with regulations already in place in North America and in Europe.

The Australian cruise industry is a great asset and many operators have already made efforts to reduce emissions from ship engines. Many cruise operators are moving towards new technologies that reduce their environmental impact. But my friend, Verity Firth, who will be the next member for Balmain, has been making the case very strongly that this process must be sped up and that the concerns and rights of residents need to be taken into account.

I congratulate Labor in New South Wales for bringing these matters to a head, and I will work with them to ensure that this issue is resolved for residents and for industry in the best, fairest and most practical way.

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have the greatest respect for these cruise liners. They are incredibly efficient businesses. I have had the privilege of travelling with them. My understanding is that there are only two companies worldwide now that dominate the whole market.

When they came and presented here to the parliament last year, I remember talking to the Australasian CEO. He told me, down to practical measures, the cost drivers—what it cost them to feed a person on the ship with everything from lobsters to breakfast: the whole gambit. I do not wish to repeat the dollars here, but it was ridiculously low. The reason for this is because they do things in such a way that they have to be very efficient but at the same time they have big cost drivers.

To the member for Bowman: he understands, and has made the point today, that this is not a huge dollar saving, but it is something that is critically important. Along with the member for Sydney, he pointed out today that this company does have a social conscience. And I think it is worth actually fleshing that out a little, because with the disaster that has beset Vanuatu recently it has in fact been Carnival Australia that has done an enormous amount of work over there. The point I am going to make here is that by helping Vanuatu they have been seen for their social conscience and the social fabric of their business to do things which, perhaps, are not just for the bottom line in the single financial aspect but for the triple-bottom line. They source their bottled water and their coffee, now used throughout the whole P&O Pacific Cruise fleet, via Vanuatu. They replaced a lot of their furniture on board and made sure that it met Australian Custom's needs. They did these things not because they had to but because they wanted to.

The point that I want to highlight here today is that the world is moving very quickly. Expectations are moving quickly, whether it is in innovation, whether it is in digitisation or whether it is in the environment. And whether we are talking about something as iconic as the Great Barrier Reef or something that seems so small in comparison—as to the admissions for a short period of time while in port and the number of particles per million that are coming out of these ships—they are equally as important to the people who live around them.

I would appeal to the board and the management of these two great companies that do so much for the Australian economy—and have done so much for our region in employing people, in creating a wonderful atmosphere—to say you make the almost impossible seem possible when you are a passenger on these ships. You look at the logistics, you look at the entertainment and you think that you are capable of great things, and we should applaud you.

On this occasion, I join with the member for Bowman and the member for Sydney in saying please do not wait for governments—whether it be the New South Wales government or the federal government—to mandate and require something. Lead, get ahead of the game, get ahead of the curve and show that not only are what you providing on board lifelong memories but also what you are doing is good in every aspect of your business. In doing so, your recognition as a wonderful corporate citizen that values your customers, as well as the environment and your bottom line will be recognised by us all.

I commend the member for Bowman for bringing this matter to the House's attention. By bringing it here today, I hope that this is all it takes for these two wonderful companies to take the extra step, go the extra mile and do something a little more—nothing more or less than has already been expected and that they are delivering in overseas ports.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Bowman for presenting this motion. Cruise ships, of course, berth at Station Pier in Port Melbourne, increasingly, brining with them tourist dollars to all of Melbourne. This is of course welcome. These ships also bring with them the unwelcome by-product of dangerous fumes. Something needs to be done, as the member for Sydney has said, and I thank both her and the member for Bowman for brining this to the House, and particularly the member for Sydney for explaining how much parliamentary debate this has caused in the New South Wales parliament and how they have already gone into this matter.

The cruise ship industry is a growing phenomena in Australia, as Australia becomes a more and more popular destination for overseas tourists. The number of ships calling into Melbourne has risen in recent years. In 2012-13, a record 58 cruise ships docked at Port Melbourne. This record was pushed up to 66 stays the following season. The most recent season has projected the number of 77. It is clearly a growing business, which is good for business and tourism in Victoria. But it is not just cruise liners increasingly coming to Melbourne; more Victorians are living in the area.

There is an area near Port Melbourne called Beacon Cove. It used to be an industrial area but there are more and more high-rises in that area. The population is increasing quickly and a number of local industrial sites have been turned into apartments—some of them are very nice apartments. This mix of a large number of tourists and locals would be excellent if not for the unhealthy cocktail of gas and toxic heavy metals, that the member for Bowman has mentioned, that spews out from some of the ships' funnels close to the homes of my constituents.

It has been explained by my parliamentary colleagues that the fuel that these ships use literally comes from scrapping the bottom of a barrel. When crude oil is refined, various qualities of fuel are siphoned off, leaving, when all finished, sludge at the bottom so thick that it has to be heated to flow through pipes. This sludge has concentrated levels of sulphur and heavy metals that the refining process left behind. This sludge, commonly referred to as 'bunker oil' or 'bunker fuel', is the material that cruise ships use when they sail the oceans blue. Burning this sludge is bad enough for the environment but, concerning though that may be, it is the burning of this sludge in ports in Australia, which does not happen in other countries, that is particularly agitating all of us.

As others have pointed out, this fuel contains high levels of sulphur and, when spewed into the air, it forms sulphur dioxide and, when combined with moisture in the lungs, can form sulphuric acid. Of course, it is dangerous and in fact the Australian national standards criteria of air pollutants deems that over a one hour period should not be exposed to more than anything but 0.02 parts per million of sulphur dioxide. Over a one year period this average should be no more than 0.002 per million—put differently, that is 0.000002 per cent of the air we breathe, but bunker fuel contains 3.5 per cent sulphur or 1.7 million times the maximum recommended amount over a one year period.

When sailing on the high seas spreading this poison from tall funnels does not affect the people on the decks below but when berthed in Port Melbourne, in Sydney and other places, this poison is being pumped into a fixed location. And why? As the member for Bowman and the member for Sydney pointed out, the ships keep their engines running so they can provide electricity for the continuation of passenger services that are needed on the ship. You would not consider the pollution which you might breathe as a car zoomed passed to be acceptable if you were standing inside a garage with a car engine running. That is difference between people living down wind of these ships when they berth in Port Melbourne and other ports in Australia.

In EU countries, in North America and the Caribbean they have all recognised this fact. They will not let cruise ships use bunker fuel within 100 miles of their coasts, but Australia does not have such legislation yet, and that means cruise ships continue to use this sludge as they chug into Port Melbourne and other places, even when they are berthed. Because these ships are barred form using this sludge close to American or European coasts, they usually have two tanks aboard—one diesel which burns cleaner and one for bunker fuel. But, as the member for Bowman pointed out, they will not flip the fuel over from one tank to the other because it is cheaper not to do it. Many of the ships that visit Australia also visit Europe. The International Maritime Organisation has mandated that from 2020 the current level of 3.5 per cent of sulphur content be reduced to a maximum of 0.05 percent. That is a good move.

Debate adjourned.