Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006 will amend the Navigation Act 1912 and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983, implementing two revised annexes to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or the MARPOL convention: annex I, ‘Prevention of pollution by oil’; and annex II, ‘Prevention of pollution by noxious liquid substances’. The International Maritime Organisation adopted the revised annexes in October 2004 and, like most international agreements, there is a long lead time before they come into force—in this case it is 1 January 2007. Australia is a member state of the IMO and this bill is required as part of Australia’s obligation as a member.

Revised annex I, ‘Prevention of pollution by oil’, incorporates the amendments adopted since the 1983 MARPOL agreement. This includes the regulations on the phasing-in of double-hull requirements for oil tankers. In addition, separate chapters have been created for the construction and equipment provisions out of the operational requirements, and makes clear the distinctions between the requirements for new ships and those for existing ships. The new requirements in the revised annex include: for oil tankers constructed on or after 1 January 2007, pump-room bottom protection on oil tankers of 5,000 tonnes deadweight and above; and for oil tankers delivered on or after 1 January 2010, accidental oil outflow performance. Construction requirements for these tankers are to provide adequate protection against oil pollution in the event of stranding or collision. Both of these changes are a step forward in protecting the environment in the case of accidents.

Revised annex II includes a new four-category system for noxious and liquid substances. These new categories are: category X, noxious liquid substances that, if discharged into the sea from tank cleaning or deballasting operations, are considered to present a major hazard to either marine resources or human health; category Y, noxious liquid substances that, if discharged into the sea from tank cleaning or deballasting operations, are considered to present a hazard or cause harm to amenities or other legitimate uses of the sea; category Z, noxious liquid substances that, if discharged into the sea from tank cleaning or deballasting operations, are considered to present a minor hazard to either marine resources or human health; and other substances which have been evaluated and found to fall outside of the previous three categories because they are considered to present no harm to marine resources, human health, amenities or other legitimate uses of the sea when discharged into the sea by those operations previously mentioned. The discharge of bilge, ballast water, other residues or mixtures containing these substances are not subject to any requirements of MARPOL annex II.

Technological improvements in ship building, such as efficient stripping techniques, have made possible significantly lower discharge levels of certain products; therefore, this has been incorporated into annex II. For ships constructed on or after 1 January 2007, the maximum permitted residue in the tank and its associated piping left after discharge will be set at a maximum of 75 litres for products in categories X, Y and Z. This compares with previous limits that set a maximum of 100 or 300 litres, depending on the product category. This is a significant reduction.

Alongside the revision of annex II, the marine pollution hazards of thousands of chemicals have been evaluated. This has resulted in a hazard profile which indexes the substance according to its bio-accumulation, biodegradation, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, long-term health effects and effects on marine wildlife and on benthic habitats—that is, the habitat of animals and plants that live on the floor of the sea. This is also a significant advance. It is very important that the detrimental effects of substances are known. This assists in cases of accidental spills and knowing the required action that needs to be taken. Vegetable oils, which were previously categorised as being unrestricted, will be carried now in chemical tankers. The revised annex includes provision for the administration to exempt ships certified to carry individually identified vegetable oils, subject to certain provisions relating to the location of the cargo tanks carrying the identified vegetable oil.

In all, this is a welcome piece of legislation which the opposition will support. In relation to ships’ cargoes, we have seen in the news recently the story of a vessel held off the coast of Australia because it is reputed to have a stowaway on board—a macaque monkey. It probably sounds amusing that there is a monkey on board that no-one can catch. Unfortunately, these monkeys are known to carry diseases which are a significant risk to Australia’s quarantine environment. I understand that if the monkey is not caught and euthanased before arrival, the vessel will be required to tie up away from a berth until the monkey is caught and euthanased. I welcome that. That is entirely appropriate. But the contrast that I cannot help but make is this: a whole range of vessels come to our coasts with crews whose identities are only communicated to us by fax a matter of hours before the vessels arrive, whose passports are not able to be seen before their arrival and whose identities cannot be checked other than against a register of known terrorists.

Hundreds and thousands of vessels arrive on our coasts in those circumstances and we do not hold the vessels offshore. We do not restrict in any significant way the entry of vessels other than to require the supply of the names of the crew in a way that, frankly, does not give me confidence that we can really know the identity of every crew member of every vessel that arrives in Australia. So there is one standard in relation to quarantine—and quite an acceptable one—and another standard in relation to the crews of foreign flagged vessels arriving in our ports. I wonder if Australians are comfortable with that. We will support this legislation. It is important maritime environmental legislation and it is this nation’s obligation under conventions we have signed—a welcome trend from the government in that regard.

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator O’Brien for his contribution to the debate on the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006. I will just make a few comments to sum up. Firstly, the legislation is necessary to align Australia’s requirements with our international obligations as a member state of the International Maritime Organisation, the IMO, and a party to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/78 known, as Senator O’Brien said, as MARPOL. The bill covers two elements of MARPOL: annex I, which covers the prevention of pollution by oil, and annex II, which covers the prevention of pollution by noxious liquid substances. The revised text of annex I and annex II was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in October 2004 and will enter into force internationally on 1 January 2007.

The internationally agreed amendments to annex I and annex II, as I said, will come into effect on 1 January 2007. The revised annexes will allow Australia to enforce more stringent technical requirements to protect the marine environment and human health from oil and chemical pollution, thus demonstrating the government’s continuing efforts to enhance Australia’s maritime pollution prevention regime. I might add that industry supports these amendments. The enactment of the proposed act will provide Australia with consistent national standards that could be applied to all Australian ships as well as foreign ships operating in Australian waters. The enactment will also ensure the protection of Australia’s maritime environment and human health through the application of current and enhanced environmental standards. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.