Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Manufacturing (Senator Carr) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to the Tycoon ship wreck at Christmas Island.

As I outlined in my question, the incident started on 8 January and resulted in the Tycoon being wrecked on the cliffs just tens of metres away from Flying Fish Cove. That ship has now been there since 8 January and has subsequently broken into three parts. Diesel, bunker fuel and phosphate continue to leak from that ship. The minister was partly right in his response to my question in that, yes, there was a cleanup of Flying Fish Cove the day after the initial load of oil and phosphate ended up in the cove. Subse­quently, because of bad weather and because that ship is still there beneath the cliff, according to local updates Flying Fish Cove has continued to be contaminated. In fact, I understand that those living in Kampong, which for those who know Christmas Island is just off flying Fish Cove, have subsequently been inundated with very strong oil fumes. Because the authorities keep saying this is temporary, locals are loath to move out because they think it is going to finish.

The point here is that the government appears unwilling to appoint a salvor for the ship or to seek to remove that ship until after the investigation takes place. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, in a preliminary report last Friday, outlined the events in the lead-up to the ship ending up under the cliff and highlighted at least five areas of further investigation. The minister also outlined that the AFP is now undertaking an investigation as well. That is all very well, and of course that is essential, but it is not essential to wait until those investigations are finished to remove that ship. While the ship is there, it is continuing to contaminate the environment. Moving it also presents a threat to the environment, and the government needs to articulate a plan to ensure that any further large impact from the removal of that ship is dealt with.

However, to get back to the point of contamination, that ship is continuing to contaminate Flying Fish Cove. It is completely inaccurate for the minister to say it is having no impact on the marine environment. Some monitoring has been done on the eastern part of the island and—surprise, surprise!—there is no impact. The ship is impacting around the environment of Flying Fish Cove, and this is particularly important because it is the time that the robber crabs, which is a threatened species, and the famous Christmas Island red crabs have been emerging from the marine environment with their eggs.

We have no idea what impact either the smothering of the reefs by the phosphate contained in that ship or the contamination from the oil and diesel is having on the marine environment. The minister simply should not be standing there saying, 'There's no observable environmental impact,' when people have not been in the water. I understand that, due to some of the bad weather, divers have not been able to enter the water. I have seen no evidence of a comprehensive monitoring plan being put in place to deal with this. The government has not appointed a salvor for that ship. In fact, I understand it is still a matter of conjecture as to who is to take responsibility. In the meantime, what suffers is the marine environment and the residents of Christmas Island.

It has been suggested to me that it is unlikely that a salvor will be appointed because the ship has broken up into three parts and that, because of the complex nature of the salvage that would have to occur, there is no profit in it. Therefore, my question following the minister's response today is whether the government is interested in ensuring that this ship is removed because it is afraid that it is going to bear the cost. Perhaps, therefore, it is in the government's interest to ensure that no salvor can be found and that the ship is not salvaged and is left there to continue to contaminate the marine environment.

The minister also said that a coordinated process and plan is being set up. We are a month down the track. It is 8 February today and this occurred on 8 January—a month ago—and yet the plan is just being set up. What happened to the government's very thorough response to the Montara inquiry, saying that from now on we are going to have coordination across government agen­cies to deal with spills of this nature? I have seen very little evidence of this coordinated plan—in fact, it is only being set up a month down the track. This is not good enough. The environment of Christmas Island is being contaminated. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.