Mr BILLSON (12:41 PM) —The Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] will amend the Ozone Protection Act 1989. As my colleague the member for Wills has previously advised, the bill seeks to ensure that separate authorisation be provided for manufacturing, importing and exporting activities when a controlled substance licence is being issued. The bill will allow conditions to be attached to a licence relating to the import, export or manufacture of hydrochlorofluorocarbons. The bill also provides for the schedules in the act to be updated in accordance with international developments and, in addition, the bill includes provisions to narrow the exemption for refrigerated transport containers which contain controlled substances, so that their import and not their manufacture is permitted in Australia.

Contrary to what the member for Wills was saying, this bill actually continues to maintain Australia's leading position in the international effort against ozone depletion. I will not be as disingenuous as he, but I will compliment the former Labor government on the work that it did, and suggest that this a further enhancement of that work and something that Australia can indeed be very proud of.

The international legal framework within which Australia is operating is provided by the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Vienna convention was signed in 1985 and has been ratified by 165 countries, including our own. The Montreal protocol, finalised in September 1987 and ratified by Australia in May 1989, established a mandatory timetable for the phase-out of ozone depleting substances.

The Montreal protocol dealt with the phase-out of five chlorofluorocarbons and halons. When it was signed, it was expected that a range of CFC substitutes would be available. The dominant substitute, however, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, whilst causing much less damage to the ozone layer than CFCs, is still ozone depleting in its nature. Thus, in 1990 and 1992, the London and Copenhagen amendments to the Montreal protocol introduced a phase-out of HCFCs and methyl bromide by 2005 and 2020 respectively.

By the time all developed countries are required to cease bulk consumption of these substances, we will be pleased to see even further progress against these amendments to the Montreal protocol. In order to meet Australia's obligations under the protocol, the Ozone Protection Amendment Act 1995 was established to control substance licensing systems which prohibit the import, export and manufacture of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and hydrobromochlorofluorocarbons from 1 January 1996, without an essential use or used substance licence.

The 1995 act established a system of controlled substances licences and reporting requirements for the import, export or manufacture of HCFCs and methyl bromide. This bill makes further changes to the licensing legislation to ensure that importing, exporting and manufacturing activities are treated individually in their licence applications. Previously, a licence issued under these provisions did provide scope for the licence recipient to migrate from the area of need that they originally applied for into these other areas of activity.

The good news is that Australia has been successful in meeting and exceeding its obligations under the Montreal protocol to date. We achieved a total phase-out of CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and hydrobromofluorocarbons in 1995 and halons in 1992, a year ahead of the requirements. Australia has frozen consumption of HCFCs at 1989 levels and the consumption of methyl bromide at 1991 levels.

Under the current licensing situation, the ozone protection section of Environment Australia—and a number of the officers are here today—are charged with administering the controlled substance licences. Environment Australia inform me that licences under the act are issued for a two-year period, currently 1 January 1998 to 31 December 1999. Eighteen licences have been issued for this period, 14 for controlled substances, 11 of which are for HCFCs and three for methyl bromide. Three essential use licences have been issued—two for the import of CFCs for the manufacture of metered dose inhalers for asthma treatment and one for the import of small quantities of CFC-13, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform for essential laboratory use. One used substances licence was granted for the import of a limited quantity of halon and CFCs for destruction.

The changes outlined in the bill will give the federal government greater control over the import and export of ozone depleting substances in the lead-up to their phase-out; and, because there are currently no manufacturers of HCFCs or methyl bromide in Australia at present, the government will be able to ensure that no future manufacture takes place without due consideration. The transport container import and export exemption is being retained in recognition of the fact that there are many containers in use around the world that will find their way to Australia and then be exported again. The government is changing the exemption to ensure that no transport containers using ozone depleting substances are manufactured in Australia.

Australia has taken a leading role in meeting and exceeding its obligations under the Montreal protocol. In 1997 the Australian government received a certificate of appreciation from the United Nations Environment Program as formal recognition of its efforts in this area. Of course, we have good reason to support initiatives that will help reduce ozone depletion. Ozone depletion is widely recognised as having a highly detrimental effect on our ecosystems. There is considerable evidence that skin cancers are caused by exposure to ultraviolet radiation, which the ozone layer can protect us from.

Australia has one of the world's highest incidences of skin cancer and the rates are rising. According to the Australian Cancer Society, the lifetime risk for a white Australian to develop a non-melanocytic skin cancer, is one in 1.5, and one in 50 for a melanoma. ABS statistics show that skin cancer is the most common cause of cancer mortality in people aged 25 to 40. Between 1950 and 1994, the mortality rate due to malignant melanoma had slowed in men and fallen in women. This drop has been attributed to earlier detection and treatment during the 1980s. Deaths from non-melanocytic skin cancer, which have been dropping over most of the period from 1950 to 1985, began to show an increase again. The Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria reports that, over a 10-year period from about 1985, the incidence of non-malignant melanocytic skin cancer increased more than 25 per cent. Skin cancer has long dominated cancer incidence in Australia, where it outnumbers all other forms of cancer by at least two to one.

Australia, New Zealand and Scotland are leading the world in melanoma cases per 100,000 head of population. North America and Europe also have high melanoma rates which are increasing between three per cent and seven per cent a year. As much as Australia likes to be a leader, this is one statistic where, I am sure, we would prefer not to be ahead of the pack. The fact that Australia has such a high incidence of skin cancer is alarming. That we also know that damaging the ozone layer makes the situation even worse, gives us motivation to act.

In the November 1996 issue of the journal Nature, a study was published which looked at projected skin cancer incidence under three scenarios. Those scenarios were: no restrictions on ozone depleting substances; reduced production of five ozone depleting chemicals by 50 per cent by 1999 under the Montreal protocol; or the elimination of production of 21 ozone depleting chemicals by 1996 under the Copenhagen amendments to the Montreal protocol. The study assumed full global compliance with the restrictions and no change in human behaviour with regard to sun exposure. The researchers estimated that under each of these three scenarios the news was not all that flash. Under the first scenario, without restrictions, skin cancer incidence would quadruple by the year 2100. Under the second scenario provided for by the Montreal protocol, skin cancer would double by the year 2100. Even under the Copenhagen amendments to the Montreal protocol, skin cancer incidence would increase by 10 per cent in the next 60 years. So any way you cut it, we have some real challenges ahead, only if considering the wellbeing of the human species, not to mention the broader impact on our ecosystems.

Certainly there have been changes in Australian behaviour in the past three years. When members are visiting the magnificent foreshore in the Dunkley electorate, they are all encouraged to wear their shirts, hats and sunscreen. The jury is still out on the rate of skin cancer in 60 to 100 years time. Our research does illustrate that a huge difference can be made to the rate of skin cancer by ensuring that we meet all of our obligations under the Montreal protocol and its subsequent amendments.

The irony of the situation is that while most of the ozone depleting substances are released in the Northern Hemisphere, the ozone hole, as it is so-called, appears over the Antarctic and a large part of the Southern Hemisphere. This is truly a global problem. The ozone hole is not actually a hole but a drastic thinning in the ozone layer which is caused by a build-up of ozone depleting gases in the cold Antarctic vortex over the southern winter. The Antarctic vortex is a phenomenon that traps a large mass of air over the South Pole, which becomes starved of ozone and is then released as the air warms up in spring. Unfortunately for us in Australia, the hole then expands north leaving most of our country exposed to higher levels of ultraviolet radiation between September and December before dissipating.

The ozone hole is not the only section of the ozone layer that is thinning. There has been a general five per cent to 10 per cent drop in ozone levels throughout the layer over the past decade. The surface area of the ozone hole over the Antarctic now covers an area approximately three times the size of Australia, or 26 million square kilometres according to the most recent report from the world meteorological organisation. Last September the hole was reported as being the deepest ever recorded for this time of year. This compared with an average of 20 million square kilometres in the last few years and exceeds the previous record for this time of year of 22 million square kilometres in September 1994.

The changes we make now will not immediately solve the problem. Ozone depleting chemicals take two to five years to move into the stratosphere so it is already too late to stop the loss of ozone that will occur in the next five years. The replacement of ozone depleting substances is a considerable area of challenge for us. An important part of the CFC and HCFC phase-out equation is to find replacements for these products. The replacements include HCFCs and, while they break down more quickly and pose less of a threat to the ozone layer, they are still ozone depleting substances.

Another replacement is HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons. While they do not contain chlorine, and are therefore ozone safe, there is a large question mark over them because of issues of flammability and toxicity. Hydrocarbons are also viewed as an alternative. They are cheap and readily reliable, but they can be flammable and poisonous and they increase ground level pollution.

Ammonia is viewed as a simple alternative for CFCs for refrigerators, but needs to be handled very carefully. I am not sure how many of us would like to indulge in too much ammonia bathing. Water or steam is also being advocated as an alternative for some of the cleaning applications of CFCs.

CFCs are all around us. They are in airconditioners, refrigerators, foam insulation, cleaning fluids, industrial solvents, aerosol sprays, dehumidifiers and freezers. HCFCs are also in airconditioners and heat pumps. They are a very real presence in our community. An Australian company based in Melbourne, Esanty Refrigerants, has developed a CFC replacement product called ER12. My colleague the member for Deakin has been a long-time strong supporter of their efforts to see it more widely introduced into the domestic and international market. ER12 is a hydrocarbon which can be used as a drop-in replacement for CFCs, and particularly R12 or freon—the CFCs used in car airconditioners up until about the mid-1990s. The debate about the best solution for CFCs and HCFCs is one for another day.

Ozone depletion is a global environmental concern that can be abated by good policy and decisive action. I acknowledge the good work of a former Labor government in this area and would suggest that the Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] is about good policy and decisive action. Today we need to pass this bill to ensure that Australia's record on ozone protection remains a strong one.

Debate (on motion by Mr Jenkins) adjourned.