Mr KELVIN THOMSON (12:31 PM) —As the Bills Digest points out, the ozone in the stratosphere, known as the ozone layer, appears to have been declining since about 1960. But ozone loss has become much more rapid since about 1978. The reduction is greatest above the polar regions, especially Antarctica. The decline is not constant, being greatest at the beginning of spring, as the sun first appears after the long, dark Antarctic winter. Although the result is called a `hole', it is rather a fall in concentration of stratospheric ozone gas.

Naturally occurring substances and emissions such as sulfates and chlorine given off during volcanic eruptions are responsible in part for ozone destruction. However, it is human made gases, principally chlorofluorocarbons and halons, following eventual escape into the stratosphere, which are particularly destructive of the ozone layer. These CFCs contain chlorine and the halons contain bromine. Chlorine and bromine attack ozone and break it down. A catalytic process is involved leading to one chlorine atom being responsible for the destruction of up to 100,000 ozone molecules.

There has been concern about the depletion of the ozone layer on a proper basis. That is because the ozone layer reduces the amount of harmful ultraviolet radiation that reaches the earth's surface. The ozone layer is also an important part of the global climate system in which all life forms, including humans, have evolved. Any significant change to this layer can have far-reaching consequences for human health.

So ozone destruction is an important issue to all Australians and indeed we are one of the countries most severely affected by the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere. The direct human impacts include increased skin cancer and cataracts, and Australia already has the highest skin cancer rate in the world. There is also some evidence of ecological impacts, including phytoplankton in Antarctica, which in turn impacts on our southern fisheries.

Ozone depletion is also a global issue, and we have global responsibilities. This includes the Montreal protocol, which aims to phase out the consumption of a number of substances which have been implicated in the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. By way of background to the international legal framework concerning depletion of the ozone layer, we have had the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer providing an international legal framework to address concerns regarding the adverse impact of certain substances on the ozone layer.

The convention was agreed to back in March 1985 and was ratified by 165 countries including Australia. The Montreal protocol, finalised in September 1987 and ratified by Australia in 1989, established a mandatory timetable for the phase-out of ozone depleting substances.

To meet Australia's obligations under the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal protocol, the Labor government passed the Ozone Protection Act in 1989, which was significantly amended by the Ozone Protection Amendment Act 1995. That legislation prohibits the import, export or manufacture of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and HBFCs from 1 January 1996 without an essential uses licence or a used substances licence. It established a system of controlled substances licences and reporting requirements for the import-export or manufacture of HCFCs and methyl bromide. It introduced two-yearly administrative fees for licences, with the fees set under the ozone protection regulations, and it established an Ozone Protection Trust Fund to allow revenue from the licensing schemes to be directed towards the cost of its administration and industry awareness programs for the phase-out of HCFCs and methyl bromide.

As a result of these efforts, Australia achieved a total phase-out of CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and HBFCs in 1995. Halons were phased out in 1992, a year ahead of the Montreal protocol requirements. We froze consumption of HCFCs from 1 January 1996 to 1989 levels and the consumption of methyl bromide from 1 January 1995 to 1991 levels. These efforts were formally recognised in 1997 through the award of a certificate of appreciation to the Australian government by the United Nations Environment Program in a ceremony to mark the 10th anniversary of the Montreal protocol. So we can see that the Labor government has a proud record in this area, and that the former Labor government played an active role in developing and implementing a strategy for ozone protection in Australia during the late 1980s and the early 1990s. This was done in active cooperation with state and territory governments, as well as with industry.

A long-term, bipartisan approach is required to address this problem. The Labor Party is supporting the Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] because it makes a number of necessary amendments to ensure that Australia is able to undertake its international obligations under the Montreal protocol. We are supporting this amendment bill but would like to raise a number of issues in relation to the approach this government has taken on the ozone issue, and I will come to those shortly.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Ozone Protection Act by ensuring that separate authorisation needs to be provided for manufacturing, importing and exporting activities when issuing a controlled substances licence, by allowing conditions to be attached to a licence relating to the import, export or manufacture of the HCFCs, by upgrading and updating the schedules of the act in accordance with international developments, and by narrowing the exemption for refrigerated transport containers which contain controlled substances so that only their import and not their manufacture is permitted in Australia.

On HCFCs, we are ahead of our targets. In the area of methyl bromide and halons, we believe that there is some room for improvement. Turning to methyl bromide, although the Montreal protocol requires a phase-out of methyl bromide by the year 2005, the date to which Australia has agreed, European countries have agreed to phase out the use of methyl bromide by the year 2001. Australia was previously viewed by the international community as being a leader in addressing the issue of methyl bromide. We are now regarded as falling behind due to this government's lack of commitment, and I think we need to make efforts here in Australia to match the European target of phase-out by the year 2001.

Environment Australia has been responsible for developing the phase-out strategy for methyl bromide. It is now the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Australia to implement the phase-out, and we would question the government's commitment to implementation and, for example, ask: has the government allocated adequate resources to this department to implement the national methyl bromide response strategy?

Another issue with methyl bromide is that the controls apply only to soil disinfestation uses. There are no controls on quarantine and preshipment uses. Therefore, the method of accounting for this chemical is very important. For example, there has been an increase in the reported quantities used in quarantine and preshipment uses. We need some indication from the government as to what steps are being taken to ensure that the increase in reported use for quarantine and preshipment uses does not increase to the extent that real environmental gains are lost.

I turn now to halons. Australia led the world in the phase-out in the early 1990s. States and territories legislated for the removal of halons and the Commonwealth provided a supportive role. These halons have been collected in a halon bank. Other countries have not been as advanced in their halon phase-out and there is now a large black market in halons internationally.

The Australian Defence Force has led the world in its commendable program to phase out halon use. By contrast, the US Department of Defense is now actively shopping for halon supplies throughout the world, to cover for its lack of action and continuing unnecessary overdependence on halon. Much of the currently banked halon material was provided by industry on the clear understanding that the banked material, above the relatively small amounts required for continuing essential use, would be destroyed.

We share the concerns, raised by industries that have borne the cost of phasing out halon, that the halon they have removed on environmental protection grounds and banked in good faith for destruction will be sold off to less environmentally concerned bidders. We are looking for a commitment from this government that the halon bank will not be sold off. It would be an utter travesty if the superior environmental concern and performance shown by Australian firms and government instrumentalities were to be undone by a pitch for dubious export income.

In conclusion, we support the Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] . We note that it represents the bare minimum in terms of a government response to the ozone issue. From being regarded in the early 1990s as a world leader and honest broker in the management of ozone depleting substances, we have gone now to being regarded internationally as one of the least progressive developed countries. We can ill afford to be dragging the chain on an issue which has such a direct impact on Australians because we are some of the first to suffer as the hole in the ozone layer grows.