Ms O'BYRNE (12:18 PM) —I rise today, as have previous speakers, to address the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill 2002. I just want to briefly comment on the remarks made by the member for Paterson. Unfortunately, he has left.

Mr Laurie Ferguson —He's gone off to get another earner.

Ms O'BYRNE —Perhaps. He spent some time talking about the environment in which he lives, the importance of shipping, the importance of a clean environment and doing everything that we can to make sure that we preserve this wonderful environment that he lives in. That apparently does not go so far as to actually support the ALP in its amendments to ensure that we can actually restrict the type of vessels that are operating in that area. It is not enough just to be able to fine them if they do something wrong; we want to make sure that that something wrong does not actually happen. It concerns me that the member for Paterson cannot make that leap.

Coming from Launceston, on the Tamar River, I am only too aware of the devastating impact on marine life and surrounds from ship pollution. Members present will remember the Iron Baron, which released 325 tonnes of oil into the Tamar River when it ran aground on Hebe Reef in 1995. It is a reef that has claimed a few ships, unfortunately. This, however, almost pales into insignificance when you set it against the perils that our marine environment continues to face.

The bill before us today seeks to clarify an important application of ship pollution provisions, to amend the unintended effects of the International Maritime Convention Legislation Amendment Act 2001 which, with its introduction, amended the Prevention of Pollution from Ships Act. The unintended consequence of drafting errors created a situation whereby offences under the act were geographically restricted. Some of the offences relating to oil, noxious liquid substances and garbage could not be applied to the area that takes up the edge of the 12 nautical mile territorial sea to the limit of the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. In effect, a ship discharging a pollutant in this area could not be prosecuted under Australian law.

The amendments today extend the geographic coverage of the various pollution offences to apply to either Australian or foreign ships in the exclusive economic zone. In itself, the bill is straightforward and, of course, is supported by the opposition, as its intent is entirely appropriate. The current situation has led us to difficult circumstances regarding waste oil that washed up on Phillip Island in Victoria last December. Whilst investigations are still continuing as to who may be responsible for that, if it turns out that the offence took place within this confined geographical region that is excluded, then the ship would not be deemed to have committed an offence under the act.

This lack of ability to prosecute potential environmental disasters is not one that can be tolerated. The Commonwealth has an important role in implementing safeguards and in leading discussions with states on complementary legislation for protection of our coast and marine environments. This is an important bill. What is equally important is the maritime industry environment into which this bill is introduced—an environment fostered by a government so obsessed with its ideological obsession to destroy elements of the shipping industry that it is prepared to jeopardise Australian jobs, Australian ships, Australian defence and the Australian coastal environment. In light of the situation into which the government is obsessed with leading us, the honourable member for Batman moved the following amendment:

This is an amendment worthy of the support of all members of the House. The Prime Minister often looks longingly at the US government when he seeks to plot his course and, thereby, the course of our nation. What a pity he is so selective in his attentions! During the last United States election campaigns, Mr Bush issued a statement declaring his support for the American merchant navy. The Bush-Cheney ticket stated that:

The statement went on:

What a vast and enlightened gulf away from this government's transport policy in the maritime industry! Transport Minister John Anderson believes that we are nation which uses ships but which does not really have a role to play in shipping. Well, we do have a role and we have a role for a number of very important reasons, not least in the area already recognised so well by the US government, the role of defence.

The government has made much of our commitment to defence, but not in the merchant navy area. It does not take a genius to recognise the importance of our transport capacity in times of war as a component of our overall defence plan. In fact, as recently as the events in East Timor, the merchant fleet provided valuable assistance and were applauded for doing so by General Cosgrove. But it is not just the US government which understands this better than our transport minister does but also the UK government and the UK shipping industry. When the British government announced significant support for its struggling shipping industry, the chairman of P&O, Lord Sterling, welcomed the decision and made much of the fact that they were conscious of the UK's fleet as the `fourth arm of defence'.

The way that this government is prepared to allow foreign ships with foreign crews to ply our waters with few restrictions or controls means that these ships may well instead provide the first arm of attack against us in a time of conflict. It is not just our defence in wartime that the government must pay attention to, but the defence of our maritime coastline.

Protection of our marine environment, of our marine life and of our pristine coasts are primary obligations of any government, and they are ones that many countries take seriously. Take as a strong example the Greek shipping industry, which funds the Hellenic Marine Environment Protection Society. The industry does so, because it recognises that, as is quoted in the International Commission on Shipping Inquiry into Ship Safety, ships `are potential polluters if not properly built, professionally manned and managed, thoroughly maintained and carefully managed'.

Many members who will speak on this bill are familiar with some of the names I am about to read out: the Kirke, the Erika and the Bunga Teratai Satu—how will we ever forget the image of that ship sitting up on the Barrier Reef? In the case of the Erika, the resulting pollution from the break-up of the ship 45 nautical miles off the French coast necessitated a clean-up of 400 kilometres of coastline, closed beaches, halted salt production and resulted in fishing bans. The Erika had been renamed 10 times, had been classed with four different classification societies, had had a variety of owners and managers during her working life and had changed flag four times. The Bunga Teratai Satu ran aground on the Great Barrier Reef, and we were faced with the very real risk of an oil spill in a world heritage listed area. Sections of the reef had to be blasted away to free the vessel, and the ship's antifouling paint—which contained tributyl-tin—has, due to the grounding, damaged coral that it is estimated might take some five years to return.

I spent a little bit of time looking at the AMSA web site and, in particular, at some of the detained ships reports for the last six months. It does not take much imagination to think about the potential damage to our coasts and our marine life when you look at these detention lists. I want to read into Hansard a few of the things that have come out over the last six months in the ships reports:

Along with these problems there are lots of problems regarding ballast tank air vents, there are numerous fire safety breaches and there are countless occasions either of communication faults or an inability to operate communication facilities on a ship. These are the ships that work our coasts. Marine accidents happen, but they happen more regularly with poorly maintained foreign flag vessels. The minister is not only increasing the number of these vessels on our coasts; he is out there, with a big grin and a wave, cheering in vessels that are not safe enough to work on our coasts, vessels that pose not only marine damage risks but also potential disease risks. You would think the minister might understand the risk of importation of disease. The foot-and-mouth epidemic in the UK was hardly kept a secret. Can you imagine the sort of devastation that would occur here? Without effective border controls, this is indeed a very real risk.

The minister is actively engaging in a program of destroying Australian jobs and destroying Australian job opportunities. He is allowing a system of subsidised foreign ships and crews to take on our industries and to take on our jobs. He is cheering on a system where Australian workers are dumped and replaced, in the case of the CSL Yarra, by a Ukrainian crew—a Ukrainian crew who do not contribute to our tax revenue and who may not have the excellent standards of training and expertise that Australian trained crews have, many of whom were trained in my electorate. They do not even have to meet the normal visa requirements of anyone else wanting to work in Australia.

This is where the matter of importing ships becomes crucial as the impact of the Migration Act is considered. If you are from another country and you want to get a job in Australia, you have to go through a strict process. From your country of residence you make an application with an employer sponsor, and it must be established that there is no Australian who can perform that task. But, if you are a foreign seafarer, the government does not really care who you are. I wonder if the minister for immigration actually knows this, because it seems a world away from the position he takes on other migration issues. Crew members of ships entering Australia that are not classified as imported are deemed to have special purpose visas. They have carte blanche; we do not care.

We as a nation are tightening up every other form of access to this country. A nation quite rightly concerned about the growth of terrorism says, `Don't care who you are or how long you want to stay as long as you spend most of the time on a ship.' Between March 1996 and 30 April 1999, 263 deserters from foreign ships were reported by the Australian Customs Service. They were the ones who were reported. Some 148 were located. As the government grants unlimited access to the coastal trade, the management of a large number of foreign seafarers semi-permanently operating on the Australian coast will have to become a nightmare.

This is a situation that the government is fostering. For proper migration treatment, a ship must be deemed to be imported. Historically, the test has been to determine whether the ship is on an international voyage starting and commencing overseas. We now have a situation in the circumstance of a continuous voyage permit being granted. Those ships are not being declared imported. They can then blatantly ply the coastal trade for months, undertaking work which in almost all cases could be undertaken by Australian ships with Australian crews.

These practices are depriving Australians of jobs and Australian families of income and support. Customs seem to be using the fact that a CVP has been granted to come up with the conclusion that the ship's international voyage has not been broken, regardless of how many times it discharges a cargo and takes on a new one, regardless of how long it has been on the coast. A department of transport permit is all you need, and the minister is happy to hand those out. By this means, the minister can allow foreign crews to work our coasts indefinitely, with insufficient crew monitoring and few, if any, visa restrictions, jeopardising not only our border security but also the livelihoods of Australian seafarers and the economic viability of Australian shipping companies.

Australia is an island nation with the fifth largest maritime task in the world, a fact that the minister claims to understand. In a speech entitled `Shipping in the new millennium' that the minister gave in Brisbane in 1999, he mentioned this, so we assume he understands it. He also referred to the fact that 99 per cent of imports and 96 per cent of exports by volume are transported by sea and that about 50 million tonnes of cargo are shipped annually. He said that this is a large industry, it is important to our economic development and it is vital for Australian jobs. The minister went on to say:

Let us look at the record. The number of Australian ships has almost halved, training for Australian seafarers has plummeted, and we are still waiting not only for the 1997 shipping report but also for the 1999 shipping report. I can only hope that the minister does not continue to play such a high profile role, or we will not only be without ships but also be without any seafarers. The minister claims to recognise our world-class maritime training facilities, our ship management expertise and our high quality safety regime. In his speech to the National Bulk Commodities Group annual dinner, he made reference to a perceived lack of incentives for young people to choose a career at sea and that this was depleting the pool of maritime skills in Australia. They are skills which we need to sustain our port operations.

It is not a perceived lack of incentives; it is the removal of carefully planned programs that ensured that Australia had some of the best trained seafarers in the world. It is the demise of a nation's shipping fleet, which has supported training and opportunity. It is the minister failing to engage in the issues facing the shipping industry and providing the industry with an opportunity not only to grow but even to compete in the current market. It is a lack of understanding on the part of the minister that he actually has a job to do.

Our reputation as a nation of quality seafarers and owners of safe ships did not just occur; it did not suddenly appear out of the blue. These things did not come due to this minister and his so-called high profile role. What will come of his betrayal of a high profile role is the loss of that shipping expertise, the diminution of our safety standards and our inability to support the port-related professions so necessary for port management. We need a viable shipping industry, and the minister needs to stop his so-called measured approach before he measures Australian coastal shipping out of existence.