Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The great Australian band Midnight Oil got it right about the value of Antarctica in their 1990 song of the same name. In this song, my former ministerial colleague Peter Garrett sings, 'There must be one place left in the world where the water's real and clean.' Antarctica is indeed the last great wilderness, and we need to keep that way. While mankind has a footprint in the ice continent and while climate change looms as a serious threat, decades of international cooperation have protected the ice continent from much of the environmental degradation that we see in other parts of the world. While that is partly to do with isolation and extreme weather conditions, it is nonetheless a wonderful thing.

The legislation before us today is the latest step in that process of international cooperation to protect not just Antarctica but also the northern Arctic region. It amends the existing Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to incorporate Australia's obligations under the new international code for ships operating in polar waters, which is also known as the Polar Code. The Polar Code was developed by the International Maritime Organization, which is the United Nations agency responsible for improving maritime safety and preventing pollution. It came into operation on 1 January this year. The code is not perfect—indeed, moves are already afoot to strengthen it further—but the opposition will support this bill because it is an important step forward. Protection of the environment is a responsibility that we all share. The Polar Code sets out minimum mandatory requirements for the design, construction, operation and manning of vessels that operate in Arctic and Antarctic waters. Its creation amended the safety related provisions in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the environmental protections in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

Under the changes in this bill, all large vessels operating in polar waters will need to hold a Polar Ship Certificate. To be certified, a vessel will need to undergo a survey to check it meets the requirements of the code. Certification will be conducted by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and will cover a vessel's structure, fittings, machinery, electronics, communications and navigation equipment as well as its fire safety and lifesaving capacity. The code also toughens rules on the discharge in polar waters of oil, noxious liquid substances, sewage and garbage. In particular, it provides for fines of up to $360,000 for the discharge of sewage within three nautical miles of an ice shelf or fast ice. In addition to the bill before us, the government also proposes to amend the marine orders of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to ensure the code is properly implemented.

In practical terms, these changes will affect very few Australian vessels. The Aurora Australis, which is the government's Antarctic research and resupply ship, will definitely need to comply, as will the vessel that replaces it in 2020. However, it is expected that growing international trade will increase the number of vessels passing through polar areas. For example, it is expected that by 2020 about 15 per cent of China's trade, worth about $500 billion, will pass through the Arctic. As trade increases around the globe, it is critical that the international community stays ahead of the regulatory game. Just one major accident could have dire consequences for the pristine environment.

As a former transport minister, I have seen firsthand the kind of damage that can be caused by maritime accidents, particularly those involving the release of oil. In 2010, I inspected the site of an accident on the Great Barrier Reef involving the Shen Neng 1, which hit the reef off Rockhampton and cut a swathe through the coral, causing damage and leaving authorities with a significant bill to clean up the resulting oil spill. But that was, of course, in Australian waters. One of the great risks of accidents in polar areas is isolation. Because of that isolation, clean-up operations are much more difficult as well as much more costly. In the event of an accident in these areas, it can take a long time to get clean-up crews in place. That is why we need tougher standards for polar areas. We need to do everything possible to reduce the likelihood of accidents.

While there is broad support for the new code internationally, there is also an acceptance that more needs to be done to protect our polar regions. Indeed, a select committee of the British parliament has called for another wave of reform to toughen even the measures we are putting in place today. The committee's 2015 report points out that black carbon, heavy fuel oils and discharged ballast water all pose threats to the Arctic environment and that these issues need to be addressed as the code evolves. Likewise, John Kaltenstein, marine policy analyst with Friends of the Earth, warns:

The Polar Code doesn’t do nearly enough to tackle substantial risks posed by shipping: use of noxious heavy fuel oil in the Arctic, vessels operating with inadequate ice-strengthening and structural stability, and disturbances of wildlife, to name a few.

Some of the issues that the next wave of reform should examine include further toughening of the minimum structural requirement for ships and the fact that the code applies only to ships with a gross tonnage of more than 500 tonnes, meaning it excludes fishing boats. As well, while the code covers management of ballast water and antifouling paint, complying with these provisions is voluntary. It also allows for food to be thrown overboard as little as 12 nautical miles from the ice, which, for example, is not allowed to happen—not surprisingly—in the Mediterranean Sea.

These are the types of issues that are already on our forward agenda, and I say to the current government that, whilst it is in government—for the next short while—we on this side of the House are prepared to cooperate on any of these matters. The New Zealand government has produced a proposal for phase 2 of the code. This is a great place to start the next wave of reform, and I congratulate the New Zealand government, now led by Bill English, on its initiative and on showing leadership in this area—as New Zealand has on many maritime issues.

Australia has an excellent record when it comes to protecting the Antarctic. It is something that we should be proud of. We were one of the founding signatories to the Antarctic Treaty in 1959, which placed restrictions on activities in the southern continent other than scientific research. More recently, the Hawke Labor government played a leading role in the development of the 1991 Madrid protocol, which imposed a 50-year ban on mining, prospecting and exploration in Antarctica. That initiative showed extraordinary vision by the Hawke Labor government at a time when this was not front and centre of the national political debate. It is a great example of the responsibility that we, as policymakers, have to look to not just immediate concerns but our responsibility to look after the aspirations of future generations and to ensure that the planet that future generations inherit is in better condition than the one that we inherited. It is possible for that to happen, but it will not happen just by accident. It requires vision and it requires political determination and, when it came to Antarctica, the Hawke Labor government certainly showed that. So we come to this issue with strong credentials and a demonstrated willingness to take a reformist role. That is as it should be. This parliament has a responsibility to future generations to continue to play a central role in the protection of Antarctica, and I commend this bill to the House.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad to be speaking in support of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Polar Code) Bill, which amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act. It brings into our domestic law obligations under the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters, also known as the Polar Code. The code, in turn, amends two relevant treaties—the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, or SOLAS, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL. Those treaties go to the two most significant areas of risk involved when ships and seafarers venture into polar regions, the first being the risk to human life and the second being the risk to the natural environment.

The Polar Code was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in May 2015 and it came into effect on 1 January this year. That is why we are dealing with it here today. On the need to take further steps through the Polar Code and in future to make shipping in the Arctic and the Antarctic safer and cleaner, it is worth considering the recent and likely future growth of polar shipping. As the shadow minister, the member for Grayndler, mentioned, it is anticipated that by 2020 15 per cent of China's seaborne trade will pass through the Arctic—that is trade worth half a trillion dollars. The impacts of climate change—the reduction of ice in the Arctic in particular—are providing opportunities for ever-increasing shipping through that region, and with ever-increasing shipping comes greater risks. The polar maritime environment itself presents some special and heightened risks, and the International Maritime Organisation has pointed out:

Poor weather conditions and the relative lack of good charts, communication systems and other navigational aids pose challenges for mariners. The remoteness of the areas makes rescue or clean-up operations difficult and costly. Cold temperatures may reduce the effectiveness of numerous components of the ship, ranging from deck machinery and emergency equipment to sea suctions. When ice is present, it can impose additional loads on the hull, propulsion system and appendages.

The polar regions and oceans have enormous and distinctive environmental significance, and they are particularly fragile. The Antarctic, which is the relevant polar region from our point of view, is a special place. It is a region of great importance to Australia in many respects—culturally, environmentally and economically. We have a corresponding responsibility, and we have shown the necessary stewardship, which we must continue into the 21st century.

Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent; depending on the season and the size of the offshore iceshelf it ranges between 14 million and 30 million square kilometres. The Australian Antarctic Territory alone, which I think is something like 40 per cent of Antarctica, contains 30 per cent of the world's fresh water, and the Antarctic krill fishery is the largest underexploited fishery in the world. Our connection to and stewardship of Antarctica is very substantial and longstanding. It dates back to the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, led by Sir Douglas Mawson between 1911 and 1914, and it was a later Mawson expedition that resulted in our claim to Antarctic territory. Our claim, as I said, covers something like 40 per cent of Antarctica—it is equivalent to an area the size of Australia minus Queensland. Since 1954 we have maintained critical research facilities, beginning with the Mawson Base and including two other bases, Casey and Davis. We were one of the founding signatories of the Antarctic Treaty, and it was the Hawke Labor government, again as the shadow minister pointed out, that played a leading role in creating the 1991 Madrid protocol, which imposed a 50-year ban on exploration and mining in Antarctica. As the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has observed, science is the currency of influence in the Antarctic treaty system. That is why science has been such a focus of Australia's engagement with Antarctica, in addition to the direct scientific benefits that our work there has.

The changes to the Polar Code that this bill allows us to implement domestically include new mandatory minimum requirements for the design, operation and crewing of ships that operate in polar seas. To be more specific, that includes the structure and stability of vessels, fire protection, the provision of lifeboats, navigation and communication technology, and related matters. It also imposes stronger restrictions on the discharge of oil, other noxious fluids, garbage and sewage. It requires all passenger and cargo ships larger than 500 gross tonnes to have a polar certificate, ensuring such vessels are fit for polar service—though, as has been pointed out by a number of experts, it does not go so far as to require that vessels be ice strengthened. It requires all vessels to develop and carry a polar water operational manual setting out operations and procedures to be followed when sailing in the Arctic or the Antarctic, and it brings the pollution protection in the Arctic to the same level as the Antarctic with respect to heavy fuel oils. That has been the case in the Antarctic for some time; the code now makes that the case in the Arctic as well.

Notwithstanding the benefits or the greater protections that this bill and the updated Polar Code deliver, a number of experts and relevant non-government organisations have taken a clear view that the Polar Code could be strengthened further. I think that is a view that Australia should take. It is certainly a view that New Zealand has taken in already beginning a push for what somebody described as phase 2 of the Polar Code.

In terms of shortcomings that the Polar Code has in its current form, it does still allow non-ice strengthened ships. It does not cover fishing vessels. It only covers vessels of 500 gross tonnes and above. Some have noted that the reporting requirements and the oversighted shipping routes through the Arctic and Antarctic are not strong enough. On that point, Sian Prior, the shipping adviser to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, has noted:

We have concerns that lessons are not being learned from recent shipping incidents, and Polar Code's adoption will do little to reduce risks to the Antarctic environment … The Polar Code should demand that ships sailing in Antarctic waters are adequately strengthened and stabilised for dealing with ice collisions, that they report their positions on a regular basis to a centralized system, and that they are routed away from important wildlife sites, such as bird nesting colonies, unless strict wildlife watching protocols are enforced.

One of the shortcomings in the Polar Code currently is the lack of strong reference and clear guidance with respect to the dangers of climate change. There is no doubt that climate change presents the greatest risk to the polar regions of the planet. It certainly presents the greatest risk to the Antarctic.

We know that a quarter of all carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean. That causes acidification. That acidification has a very harmful effect on marine life. I was reading something recently that talked about how the kind of marine formate in the Southern Ocean is not dissimilar, in some respects, to the Great Barrier Reef. We have seen over the last couple of years what rising ocean temperatures do to the health of reefs. We have had two consecutive years of severe bleaching events affecting the Great Barrier Reef, which has caused coral death on a pretty large scale, directly related to ocean temperature and ocean temperature rises.

Last week, we had Science meets Parliament. I was very glad to take part in that. I was fortunate to sit on a table that included some brilliant scientists, including some people with a specific interest in the Great Barrier Reef. It was sobering to hear from them the kinds of impacts that are being felt by the Great Barrier Reef. If ocean temperatures continue to rise, if the ocean continues to be required to absorb more and more carbon dioxide and acidifies as a result, we are only going to see increasing damage and impact on species and the loss of species in time to come. So if we are serious about protecting our oceans, including the Southern Ocean and the maritime environment around Antarctica, we have to be serious about climate change.

I note that Dr Jonny Stark, who is a project leader in the Australian Antarctic division, has said on the subject of carbon dioxide:

Carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water. Polar waters are acidifying at twice the rate of tropical or temperate regions, so we expect these ecosystems to be among the first impacted from ocean acidification …

Research shows the pink encrusting algae, known as crustose coralline algae, may decrease in extent in a more acidic future ocean, as it incorporates calcium into its structure, and this becomes harder for organisms to obtain as the acidity of the seawater increases.

Antarctica may be one of the first places we see detrimental effects of ocean acidification on these organisms.

The Polar Code is a step forward. It does introduce some greater protections against pollution in the polar regions—the Arctic and the Antarctic. It provides some welcome strengthening restrictions and mandatory requirements when it comes to vessels and seafarers, and shipping practices. But we should remember that, as we welcome this kind of development, there is more to be done. We should look forward to that work. We should resolve to be a leader in that area. We have been a leader in Antarctica for a long time. That is something we should be proud of. It is something for which we should double our efforts to carry into the future, rather than watching others do it for us. Some of that will be specific to shipping. Some of it will be specific to the Antarctic. But a lot of it will have to do with more general areas like climate change.

On this issue, I am happy as a member of the opposition to support the passage of this bill.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation and to follow the member for Fremantle who has just spoken. This is an important matter. Whilst I do not intend, in my remarks, to go to too much of the detail of the legislation, I want to go to the principle of what this legislation is all about. It is an important matter because pollution of our oceans is a serious matter wherever it occurs. Our oceans are interconnected. Regardless of where the pollution occurs, it then flows on through the waters into other parts of the world—sometimes on the other side of the world.

Every day our oceans are being polluted by discarded plastic products, residential water run-off, discharge from polluted rivers and discharge from farming land—water that ultimately ends up in the oceans—all washing into the waters chemicals and waste products that are doing the waters harm. Indeed, when I was mayor of the City of Salisbury we carried out a study into the coastline of our city with respect to the damage caused by polluted stormwater run-off. For some 10 kilometres of coastline and for some four kilometres into the water, the seagrass had died as a result of that kind of pollution. When we put into place a different practice for the stormwater so that it was no longer going into the ocean polluted, the seagrass began to regenerate. That just proves the point that it does make a difference. Pollution can damage the ocean and whatever lives within it.

Every day tens of thousands of ocean vessels, large and small, are out there in the waters, doing whatever they are doing, but simultaneously in many cases discharging products into the oceans. In the last 25 years I understand that the number of vessels in our ocean waters has quadrupled, and the numbers continue to rise. As we saw earlier today in other legislation dealing with the ballast water from ships coming into Australia, there is a problem in maintaining and managing our ocean waters. I understand that each year in Australia alone some 200 million tonnes of ships ballast water is discharged into Australian ports by some 13,000 ships. Multiply that many times over by all of the other countries and all of the other ships, and we start to have an understanding of the damage that is being done.

Unfortunately, not all ocean pollution is visible, nor is the damage it causes. The risks are real—whether it is risks to fish stocks, to human health or to the marine environment itself. I will quote just a few of the facts and figures put out by UNESCO. It suggests that land-based sources such as agricultural run-off, discharge of nutrients and pesticides and untreated sewerage, including plastics, account for approximately 80 per cent of marine pollution globally. According to those statistics, there are now close to 500 dead zones covering more than 245,000 square kilometres globally, which is equivalent to the surface of the United Kingdom. Another of those facts which I find interesting is that the United Nations Environmental Programme estimated that in 2006—this is 11 years ago—every square mile of ocean contained 46,000 pieces of floating plastic—and plastic debris causes the deaths of more than a million seabirds every year, as well as more than 100,000 marine mammals. The last point I want to make—and this one surprised even me—is that plastic materials and other litter can become concentrated in certain areas called gyres as a result of marine pollution gathered by oceanic currents. There are now five gyres in our oceans. The North Pacific Gyre, known as the great Pacific garbage patch, occupies a relatively stationary area that is twice the size of Texas.

Those are the invisible sources of pollution within our oceans that most people never get to see and are unaware of because they are not easily detected. But they are there and, sadly, because they are not detected, very little is done about them. We know that, even here in Australia, around 1500 seals and sea lions become entangled in marine debris and die; and that government sponsored studies have reported that between 8712 and 11,937 tonnes of litter gets into Australia's marine environment each year, in addition to 6000 tonnes of waste related to fishing and other types of marine activities.

That brings me to the point of this legislation. Effectively, we are dealing with legislation that goes to the heart of this very matter, because it is about trying to protect our oceans. Over recent years several cases of extensive ocean damage have been caused by large vessels and mining operations. Only three weeks ago, on 4 March, a cruise ship, the Caledonian Sky, caused extensive damage to a pristine coral reef in Radja Ampat in Indonesia. It does not stop there: as we heard a couple of years ago when debating fishing trawlers in this place, the damage and destruction caused by large fishing trawlers around the globe is truly concerning. Again, it is damage that we have not been able to measure properly, because in many parts of the world there is no-one doing that measuring and in many countries there is no authority to take any responsibility or provide oversight for what those fishing trawlers do. The reality is that there are now places in the world where the trawlers do not go simply because the fishing stocks have been wiped out. We do not want to see that happen as a result of their activities or other activities that arise because of poor management of our ocean waters.

We now have the added concern of global warming. Climate change and global warming, as other speakers have alluded to, are having a disastrous effect on the Arctic and Antarctic areas. Again, it is a matter that is not easily managed because we cannot simply say, 'We will do this or that' and overnight things will stop. When you combine all those risks together, you can understand why it is important to do what is within our power to try to minimise the detrimental impact on our ocean environment. One of the concerns I have had for some time is that there are shipping operators around the world who operate under what I would call questionable operational methods. These operators have little regard for the environment—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are being very polite

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am being very polite—and little regard for their crews. They often take on crews who have very little or no understanding of local laws or they crew vessels that are very poorly maintained. It is interesting that many of these operators actually register their foreign-flagged ships in jurisdictions where is no control or oversight of what they are doing. When you add that to the mix here, you can understand why our concerns about an ocean environment and the destruction of it are very real and need to be managed as well as they can be.

The Arctic and Antarctic areas are indeed some of the most pristine areas still left in this world. They are critical ocean areas for a whole range of matters. My view is that the world and the environment that is within it are interrelated. If you damage one part, there is a flow-on effect to other parts. The Arctic and Antarctic are also now coming under increased pressure and increased risk of damage. The increased risk comes because, as we know, more people want to visit both those areas and are doing so. As other speakers have suggested, there is more shipping traffic flowing through the waters that surround them. There is increased risk because we know that there is more and more interest in the minerals and gas that lie within the oceans at that part of the world as well. There are countries that want to explore and get that gas and oil out of the ground. Again, every time that happens, even if it is not within the immediate Arctic or Antarctic areas but close by, there are risks pertaining to that as we have seen elsewhere as well.

This kind of legislation is a step in the right direction, as far as I am concerned, in trying to ensure that the vessels that go into that area are at least obliged to meet a particular standard. The standard known as the Polar Code, as has been pointed out, is not perfect. In fact, one could say that it could be much better. But it is better than what perhaps currently exists and it is a standard that people will have to meet if they are going to go into those areas. Australia, in particular—having a very direct interest in the Antarctic area, which this legislation also covers—has an obligation to ensure that, at the very minimum, the Polar Code is applied to those ships that are registered here in Australia or operated from Australian bases and want to go into the Antarctic and Arctic areas.

For all of those reasons, I support this legislation. I do believe it is a step in the right direction. Of course, just how well we monitor what happens after is another matter, but at least we can be seen to be taking steps to protect what I believe is an invaluable resource in this world, and that is the Arctic and Antarctic regions of the planet.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank those members who have contributed to the debate. The Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Polar Code) Bill 2017 will ensure that Australia's framework for preventing maritime pollution remains consistent with international requirements.

The bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to implement international obligations adopted at the International Maritime Organization into domestic law. Through the IMO, Australia has played an important role in developing the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters, known as the Polar Code. The Polar Code was developed to supplement existing IMO instruments, to increase maritime safety and to mitigate environmental impacts in remote, vulnerable and harsh polar waters. The amendments are consistent with Australia's longstanding support for maritime environment and safety at sea and further highlights our commitment to the IMO as an institution and its agreements.

The Polar Code, through these amendments, covers a range of themes, including ship design, construction, equipment, training, qualifications, search and rescue capabilities, and environmental discharges in polar regions, including Antarctica. Australia has a strong national interest in Antarctica, including in the safety of shipping and the environmental protection of Antarctic waters. Australia has responsibilities in a very significant portion of the Southern Ocean, including search and rescue coordination, environmental protection, hydrography and nautical charting, and the safety of vessels operating in the area. Australia has been actively engaged in the development of the Polar Code at the IMO in order to influence and improve safety and pollution prevention outcomes in respect of Antarctic waters.

Australia's maritime interests are best advanced through internationally agreed arrangements, including the IMO. These arrangements will enhance existing legislative instruments to mitigate the potential risks and impacts in remote, vulnerable and harsh polar regions. It is an important area because ships are operating in very harsh environments in the Arctic and the Antarctic, and ships can certainly encounter very difficult sailing conditions, indeed.

I would like to draw to the attention of the House at this point some important elements of the bill that may not have been fully canvassed in the debate. I refer the House to section 26BCC, which regards the prohibition of discharge of sewage. The legislation states:

(1) A person commits an offence if:

  (a) the person engages in conduct; and

  (b) the person’s conduct causes a discharge of sewage from a ship in the Antarctic Area; and

  (c) the person is reckless or negligent as to causing the discharge by that conduct; and

  (d) the ship is a ship to which Annex IV to the Convention applies; and

  (e) if the discharge occurs outside the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone adjacent to the coast of the Australian Antarctic Territory—the ship is an Australian ship.

There is a significant penalty for that of some 2,000 penalty units. It also, I might add, states:

(2) A person commits an offence if:

  (a) the person engages in conduct; and

  (b) the person’s conduct causes a discharge of sewage from a ship in Arctic waters; and

  (c) the person is reckless or negligent as to causing the discharge by that conduct; and

  (d) the ship is a ship to which Annex IV to the Convention applies; and

  (e) the ship is an Australian ship.

Again, in this instance, there is a significant penalty of some 2,000 penalty units. The legislation goes on to say that:

(3) The master and the owner of a ship each commit an offence of strict liability if:

(a) sewage is discharged from the ship in the Antarctic Area; and

(b) the ship is a ship to which Annex IV to the Convention applies; and

(c) if the discharge occurs outside the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone adjacent to the coast of the Australian Antarctic Territory—the ship is an Australian ship.

The penalty for that offence is some 500 penalty units.

The detail of that legislation indicates the amount of thought and consideration that has gone into the upgrade of the Polar Code to ensure that we preserve the pristine environments that exist in our polar regions. It takes account of the very difficult conditions that can occur for vessels navigating that area. I commend the bill to the House.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. It is good to see that the minister has such an interest in this particular bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.