Bills Digest No.
43, 2019–20
PDF version [560KB]
Sophie Power
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Section
14
October 2019
Contents
Purpose of the Bill
Structure of the Bill
Background
Committee consideration
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Key issues and provisions
Other provisions
Date introduced: 18
September 2019
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Infrastructure,
Transport, Cities and Regional Development
Commencement: Part
1 of Schedule 1 commences on the day after Royal Assent or 1 January 2020,
whichever is later. Part 2 of Schedule 1 commences immediately after Part 1
of Schedule 1, or 1 March 2020, whichever is later. Schedules 2 and 3
commence on the day after Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at October 2019.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of
Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019 (the Bill) is to
amend the Protection
of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 (POTS Act)
to implement Australia’s international obligations in relation to sulphur
emissions from ships under the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).[1]
Structure of the Bill
The Bill has three schedules:
- Schedule
1 contains two parts:
- Part
1 implements the MARPOL exemption which allows for the use of high sulphur fuel
on ships that have an approved exhaust gas cleaning system or other technology
to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions
- Part
2 implements the MARPOL ban on carrying high sulphur fuel for combustion
on board a ship (which is in addition to the existing ban on the use of
high sulphur fuel)
- Schedule
2 contains minor technical amendments to clarify the obligations of fuel oil
suppliers in the POTS Act and
- Schedule
3 amends the Act to exempt naval and foreign government vessels from the POTS
Act.
Background
MARPOL is the main convention adopted by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) to reduce pollution by ships. The aim of MARPOL is to
prevent both accidental pollution and pollution from routine vessel operations.[2]
MARPOL includes six technical annexes:
- Annex
I: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil
- Annex
II: Regulations for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances
in bulk
- Annex
III: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by harmful substances
carried by sea in packaged form
- Annex
IV: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships
- Annex
V: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships and
- Annex
VI: Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships.[3]
Australia has adopted all six annexes and implements
MARPOL domestically through the POTS Act and the Navigation Act 2012.[4]
Annex VI of MARPOL, which entered into force in 2005,
deals with air pollution from ships. Among other matters, it sets limits on the
sulphur content of fuel.[5]
The IMO explains the issue with sulphur in fuel:
The main type of “bunker” oil for ships is heavy fuel oil,
derived as a residue from crude oil distillation. Crude oil contains sulphur
which, following combustion in the engine, ends up in ship emissions. Sulphur
oxides (SOx) are known to be harmful to human health, causing
respiratory symptoms and lung disease. In the atmosphere, SOx can
lead to acid rain, which can harm crops, forests and aquatic species, and
contributes to the acidification of the oceans. Limiting SOx emissions
from ships will improve air quality and protects the environment.[6]
In 2008, the IMO adopted amendments to Annex VI, setting
progressively more stringent Regulations to control emissions from ships, including
sulphur oxides (SOx). Under these amendments, from 1 January
2020, the sulphur content in fuel oil used by ships must be less than 0.5 per
cent by weight.[7]
In Australia, the POTS Act was amended in 2010 to
enable sulphur limits to be prescribed in marine orders.[8]
The limit for the sulphur content of fuel is set out in Marine Order 97
(Marine pollution prevention — air pollution) 2013, which already contains
the 0.5 per cent sulphur limit from 1 January 2020.[9]
As noted by the Minister in the second reading speech to the Bill:
Ship operators have several options to comply with the new
IMO sulphur regulations, including using low-sulphur marine fuel oil, diesel or
alternative fuel types with low to zero sulphur, such as liquefied natural gas,
biofuels and hydrogen, as well as using fully electric vessels. Ships can also
continue to use high-sulphur fuel oil provided that they are fitted with an
exhaust gas cleaning system, also known as a scrubber, to reduce sulphur in
their emissions to below the 0.5 per cent limit.[10]
In 2018, an amendment to MARPOL was adopted to prohibit
non-compliant (high sulphur) fuel oil being carried for combustion on board a
ship.[11]
This is referred to as the ‘carriage ban’ and is intended as an additional
measure to support consistent implementation of, and compliance with, the
sulphur fuel limit.[12]
In particular, the carriage ban is designed to discourage ships from switching
to high sulphur fuels on the high seas, beyond a country’s jurisdictional
boundaries.[13]
The carriage ban does not apply to fuel oil being carried as cargo (such as on
an oil tanker).[14]
As noted in the Minister’s second reading speech above,
there is an exception to the carriage ban, and the sulphur limit more
generally, for ships fitted with an appropriate exhaust gas cleaning system
(also known as a ‘scrubber’).[15]
Scrubbers are designed to remove sulphur oxides from the ship’s engine and
boiler exhaust gases. As the IMO states, ‘a ship fitted with a scrubber can use
heavy fuel oil, since the sulphur oxides emissions will be reduced to a level
equivalent to the required fuel oil sulphur limit’.[16]
As outlined further in the ‘Key issues and provisions’
section of this Digest, the Bill proposes to amend the POTS Act to
implement the carriage ban, along with the exception for scrubbers.
Committee consideration
Selection of Bills Committee
The Senate Selection of Bills Committee recommended that
the Bill not be referred to a committee.[17]
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
At the time of writing, the Senate Standing Committee for
the Scrutiny of Bills had not yet commented on the Bill.
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
At the time of writing, non-government parties and
independents do not appear to have publicly commented on the Bill.
Position of major interest groups
At the time of writing, major interest groups do not
appear to have directly commented on the Bill itself, although the shipping
industry has reportedly been preparing for the introduction of the sulphur
limit for many years.[18]
As the Minister noted in his second reading speech, the Australian Maritime
Safety Authority (AMSA) has:
... consulted on the implementation of the sulphur cap with
Australia's maritime industry, fuel oil suppliers and port industries for more
than 18 months. The industry is supportive of Australia's consistent
application of the new sulphur standard to ensure a global level playing field.[19]
Some industry commentators have also suggested that,
although the sulphur limit may result in additional costs across the shipping
supply chain, it may nonetheless enhance Australia’s competitive advantage in
export industries such as iron ore, as those additional costs will be lower for
Australia than some other countries.[20]
However, as also noted in the second reading speech, the carriage ban being
implemented by the Bill does not impose an additional financial impact on
shipping companies or increase freight costs, as ships are already prohibited
from using non‑compliant fuel from 1 January 2020.[21]
As discussed further in the ‘Key issues and provisions’
section of this Digest, the International Council on Clean Transportation
(ICCT) has reportedly expressed concern about the exceptions to the sulphur limits
under MARPOL in relation to exhaust gas cleaning systems and the adequacy of
the standards for these exhaust gas cleaning systems under relevant IMO
Guidelines.[22]
Financial implications
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill will
have no financial impact on the Commonwealth.[23]
Statement of Compatibility with
Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[24]
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
At the time of writing, the Parliamentary Joint Committee
on Human Rights had not yet commented on the Bill.
Key issues and provisions
The Bill proposes to amend the POTS Act to
implement the ban on carrying fuel oil with a sulphur content above the
prescribed limit, along with the exception for ships fitted with an approved
exhaust gas cleaning system (or other approved method).
Sulphur limit—exceptions
Section 26FEG of the POTS Act sets out ordinary and
strict liability offences that are committed if a person engages in conduct
that results in fuel oil with a sulphur content above the prescribed limit
being used on a ship.[25]
As noted earlier, the prescribed 0.5 per cent sulphur limit from 1 January 2020
is set out in Marine
Order 97 (Marine pollution prevention — air pollution) 2013.[26]
Item 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 inserts proposed
section 26FEGA into the POTS Act, which sets out a number of
exceptions to the offences in section 26FEG. As is already the case for the
existing exceptions in the POTS Act, the defendant bears the evidential
burden of proving the matters set out in the exceptions in proposed section
26FEGA.[27]
Exception for approved exhaust gas cleaning systems
The first exception, set out in proposed subsection
26FEGA(1), is where fuel oil is used while an ‘Annex VI approved
equivalent’ is operating on the ship. This exception is new to the offences in
section 26FEG, although it is currently available for the offences in section
26FEH (which relate to sulphur emissions from Australian ships in Emissions
Control Areas, discussed later in this Digest).
‘Annex VI approved equivalent’ is defined in proposed
section 26FEKA[28]
as an exhaust gas cleaning system (EGCS) or another technological method for
reducing sulphur oxide emissions approved for use on board the ship. As
explained earlier in this Digest, exhaust gas cleaning systems remove sulphur
oxide (and some other emissions) from ship exhaust gases, and are also known as
‘scrubbers’.
For Australian ships, approval relating to the relevant
cleaning system may be given by a prescribed officer under Regulations made
under proposed subsection 26FEKA(2). In the case of foreign registered
ships, the Annex VI equivalents are approved by the government of the country
in which the ship is registered in accordance with guidelines under Regulation
4 of Annex VI, MARPOL.[29]
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
Annex VI approved equivalents are required to be at least as
effective in terms of sulphur emissions reductions as the prescribed level, and
the resultant waste is required to be disposed according to regulations. These
regulations are provided through guidelines produced by the IMO, which are
given effect through Marine Order 97.[30]
The relevant IMO
Guidelines on Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems[31]
are currently under
review.[32]
Notably, there has been some discussion about the adequacy of the washwater
discharge standards under the Guidelines, particularly for ‘open-loop’ exhaust
gas cleaning systems.[33]
The ICCT, for example, has reportedly expressed concern that open-loop
scrubbers allow ships to discharge large volumes of polluted water.[34]
However, the IMO considers there are already ‘strict criteria for discharge of
washwater from exhaust gas cleaning systems’.[35]
Nonetheless, some countries have reportedly banned the use of open-loop
scrubbers or the discharge of scrubber wastewater in some regions.[36]
Other exceptions
Proposed subsection 26FEGA(3) provides that the
strict liability offence in subsection 26FEG(2) does not apply in an emergency
relating to safety at sea. Proposed subsection 26FEGA(4) provides that
the strict liability offence in subsection 26FEG(2) does not apply where the
situation has occurred as a result of unintentional damage to the ship or its
equipment.[37]
These exceptions reflect the exceptions set out in Regulation 3 of Annex VI of
MARPOL.[38]
Subsections 26FEG(5) and (6) currently set out an
exception to the offences in section 26FEG, which applies where the relevant
person:
- took
all reasonable steps to obtain fuel oil with a sulphur content of not more than
the prescribed limit and
- has
(in accordance with the Regulations) notified a prescribed officer (or in the
case where the ship’s next port of call is in a foreign country, the government
of that foreign country) that the person has been unable to obtain fuel oil
with a sulphur content of ‘not more than that limit’.
Item 6 repeals subsections 26FEG(5) and (6), and
the same exception will instead be included in proposed subsection 26FEGA(7).
Carriage ban
Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill implements the ‘carriage
ban’ under MARPOL. As outlined in the background section of this Digest, the
carriage ban prohibits the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil for use on board
a ship, unless the ship has an exhaust gas cleaning system (or ‘scrubber’)
fitted.[39]
As noted above, section 26FEG of the POTS Act sets
out ordinary and strict liability[40]
offences that are committed if a person engages in conduct that results in fuel
oil with a sulphur content above the prescribed limit being used on a
ship.[41]
Items 16 and 19 of Part 2 of Schedule 1
amend section 26FEG to extend the offences to carriage of high sulphur fuel, in
addition to the existing offence of use of high sulphur fuel (the carriage
offences). More precisely, the offences will be extended to conduct that
results in fuel oil with a sulphur content above the prescribed limit being
‘carried on board the ship for use on board the ship as fuel’.[42]
The offences are not intended to cover high sulphur fuel being carried as
cargo.[43]
The offences in section 26FEG only apply to ships in
particular areas.[44]
There is currently a presumption under subsection 26FEG(4) that the fuel oil is
used in those areas. In other words, the defendant bears a legal burden to
prove that the fuel was not used in those areas.[45]
This presumption is retained by the Bill,[46]
although item 20 of Schedule 1 extends the presumption as a result of
the carriage ban. New subsection 26FEG(4) provides that fuel oil carried
on board a ship is presumed to be carried for use as fuel unless the contrary
is proved. As the Note to the proposed subsection explains, the defendant bears
a legal burden in relation to proving the contrary. The Explanatory Memorandum
suggests that this is appropriate because ‘a defendant would be able to
uniquely demonstrate that the fuel is used for combustion or operation on board
the ship’.[47]
Item 22 of Schedule 1 amends proposed
subsection 26FEGA[48]
to include the exception from the carriage ban for ships that have an ‘Annex VI
approved equivalent’ (that is, an approved exhaust gas cleaning system)
installed on the ship. This exception was discussed earlier in this Digest.
Items 23–25 extend the exceptions relating to
emergencies, unintentional damage to the ship or its equipment, and
unavailability of low-sulphur fuel oil, to the new carriage offences.
Emission Control Areas
Annex VI of MARPOL provides that special rules apply in
designated sulphur oxide (SOx) emission control areas. The sulphur
content of fuel oil used by ships operating in these areas must not exceed 0.1
per cent. Alternatively, ships must fit an exhaust gas cleaning system or other
approved technological method to limit SOx emissions. To date, four
areas have been designated as SOx Emission Control Areas: the Baltic
Sea, North Sea, the North American area (both east and west coasts of the
United States and Canada) and the United States Caribbean Sea area.[49]
Section 26FEH of the POTS Act currently implements
this aspect of Annex VI of MARPOL by setting out ordinary and strict liability
offences for Australian ships breaching SOx emission control rules
in Emission Control Areas.
Subsections 26FEH(4) and (5) provide the exception for
ships with approved exhaust gas cleaning systems, while subsections 26FEH(6)–(8)
set out exceptions to the strict liability offence for emergencies and unintentional
damage to the ship or its equipment. Subsection 26FEH(9) contains an exception
to both offences relating to the unavailability of fuel oil with a sulphur
content of not more than the prescribed limit.
Items 8–11 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Bill
rearrange the exceptions to these offences without making any substantive
changes. In particular, item 10 repeals subsections 26FEH(4)–(9), but the
same exceptions will still be available in a revised subsection 26FEH(4) and proposed
section 26FEHA.[50]
Items 26–31 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill amend section 26FEH and proposed
section 26FEHA to extend these exceptions to the new carriage offences.
Other provisions
Exemption for naval and government ships
Schedule 3 of the Bill inserts a proposed section 6A
into the POTS Act, which will provide that the Act does not apply to
warships or naval auxiliary ships, or a ship owned or operated by a foreign
government while on non-commercial service. This effectively exempts naval and
foreign government vessels from the POTS Act. This is consistent with
Article 3(3) of MARPOL, which provides that the Convention ‘shall not apply to
any warship, naval auxiliary or other ship owned or operated by a State and
used, for the time being, only on government non-commercial service’. At the
same time, this Article of MARPOL provides:
... each Party shall ensure by the adoption of appropriate
measures not impairing the operations or operational capabilities of such ships
owned or operated by it, that such ships act in a manner consistent, so far as
is reasonable and practicable, with the present Convention.[51]
The Explanatory Memorandum states that ‘the Australian
Defence Force proactively complies with MARPOL requirements, which are
regulated through the Office of the Defence Seaworthiness Regulator’.[52]
[1]. Protocol
of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), done in London 17 February 1978, [1988]
ATS 29 (entered into force for Australia 14 January 1988).
[2]. Australian
Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), ‘MARPOL
and its implementation in Australia’, AMSA website, last updated
23 November 2018.
[3]. AMSA,
‘Current
MARPOL texts’, AMSA website, last updated 13 June 2019.
[4]. AMSA,
‘MARPOL
and its implementation in Australia’, op. cit.
[5]. For
further information on Annex VI of MARPOL, see IMO, ‘Prevention
of Air Pollution from Ships’, IMO website; and IMO, ‘Index
of MEPC Resolutions and Guidelines related to MARPOL Annex VI’, IMO
website.
[6]. International
Maritime Organization (IMO), ‘Sulphur
2020 – cutting sulphur oxide emissions’, IMO website, n.d.
[7]. IMO
Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), Amendments to the Annex of
the Protocol of 1997 to amend the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating
thereto (Revised MARPOL Annex VI), Resolution
MEPC.176(58), adopted 28 October 2016, Regulation 14; see also IMO, ‘Sulphur
2020 – cutting sulphur oxide emissions’, op. cit.; IMO, The
2020 global sulphur limit frequently asked questions, n.d. For a more
detailed discussion of the IMO sulphur limits, see, for example, A Halff, L
Younes and T Boersma, ‘The
likely implications of the new IMO standards on the shipping industry’, Energy
Policy, 126, 2019, pp. 277–286.
[8]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships)
Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019, p. 2; see also Protection of the
Sea Legislation Amendment Act 2010. Marine orders are a type of Regulation
made under Commonwealth legislation, including the Navigation Act 2012
and the POTS Act. See further: AMSA, ‘How
marine orders are created’, AMSA website, last updated 30 October 2018.
[9]. Marine Order 97
(Marine pollution prevention — air pollution) 2013, clause 30.
[10]. M
McCormack, ‘Second
reading speech: Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships)
Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019’, House of Representatives, Debates,
18 September 2019, p. 3348.
[11]. IMO
MEPC, Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (Prohibition on the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil for
combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship), Resolution
MEPC.305(73), adopted 26 October 2018.
[12]. IMO,
‘Sulphur
2020 – cutting sulphur oxide emissions’, op. cit.
[13]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 2.
[14]. Ibid.
In short, Regulation 2.9 of MARPOL Annex VI provides the definition for
'fuel oil' as meaning ‘any fuel delivered to and intended for combustion
purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship, including gas, distillate
and residual fuels’. As a result of this definition, the provision does not
apply to fuel oil being carried as cargo: IMO, ‘Sulphur
2020 – cutting sulphur oxide emissions’, op. cit.
[15]. See
Regulation 4 of Revised MARPOL Annex VI. For further information on scrubbers,
see, for example, DNV GL, Ship Emissions Study, Emissions
from ships operating in the greater metropolitan area, report prepared
for the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA), 6 June 2015, pp.
20–22; AMSA, ‘Regulations
for air emissions from ships–marine notice 5/2017’, AMSA website, last
updated 26 August 2019.
[16]. IMO,
‘Sulphur
2020 – cutting sulphur oxide emissions’, op. cit.
[17]. Senate
Standing Committee for Selection of Bills, Report,
6, The Senate, 19 September 2019, [p. 3].
[18]. See,
for example, S Powell, ‘Cleaner
trend at dockside’, The Australian, 21 June 2019, p. 4.
[19]. McCormack,
‘Second
reading speech: Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships)
Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019’, op. cit., p. 3349; see also AMSA, ‘Australian
consultation on low sulphur fuel’, AMSA website, last updated 4 July 2019.
[20]. R
Bhatti, ‘Greater
freight partnerships sets course for sustainable shipping’, Prospects,
BHP Billiton website, 18 June 2019; M Stevens, ‘Fuel
rule boost for Australian iron ore’, Australian Financial Review, 20
June 2019, p. 30.
[21]. McCormack,
‘Second
reading speech: Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships)
Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019’, op. cit., p. 3349.
[22]. See,
for example, L Izbicki and J Fox, ‘IMO
issues more guidance on sulfur limit, uncertainty on scrubbers persists’,
S&P Global website, 21 May 2019; W Crisp, ‘Thousands
of ships fitted with “cheat devices” to divert poisonous pollution into sea’,
Independent, 29 September 2019.
[23]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 2.
[24]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at pages 3–4 of the
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[25]. The
imposition of strict liability means that a fault element does not need to be
satisfied, but the offence will not criminalise honest errors and a person
cannot be held liable if he, or she, had an honest and reasonable belief that
they were complying with relevant obligations.
[26]. Marine Order 97
(Marine pollution prevention — air pollution) 2013, clause 30.
[27]. See
the existing notes to subsections 26FEG(5) and (6), and also subsection 13.3(3)
of the Criminal
Code.
[28]. As
inserted by item 13 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Bill.
[29]. Proposed
paragraph 26FEKA(1)(d).
[30]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 6; see also AMSA, ‘Regulations
for air emissions from ships’, op. cit.
[31]. IMO
MEPC, 2015 guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning system, Resolution
MEPC.259(68), adopted 15 May 2015.
[32]. IMO,
‘Sulphur
2020 implementation – IMO issues additional guidance’, IMO website, 20 May
2019.
[33]. The
standards are set out in part 10 of the IMO guidelines. See also Izbicki and
Fox, ‘IMO
issues more guidance on sulfur limit, uncertainty on scrubbers persists’, op.
cit.; Crisp, ‘Thousands
of ships fitted with “cheat devices” to divert poisonous pollution into sea’,
op. cit.
[34]. Crisp,
‘Thousands
of ships fitted with “cheat devices” to divert poisonous pollution into sea’,
op. cit.
[35]. Ibid.
[36]. Ibid.
[37]. Note
that proposed subsection 26FEGA(6) provides that damage does not include
deterioration resulting from failure to maintain the ship or equipment, or
defects that develop during the normal operation of the ship or equipment.
[38]. See
further Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 6–7.
[39]. IMO
MEPC, Resolution
MEPC.305(73), op. cit.
[40]. The
imposition of strict liability means that a fault element does not need to be
satisfied, but the offence will not criminalise honest errors and a person
cannot be held liable if he, or she, had an honest and reasonable belief that
they were complying with relevant obligations.
[41]. As
noted earlier in this Digest, the prescribed limit 0.5 per cent sulphur limit
from 1 January 2020 is set out in Marine Order 97
(Marine pollution prevention — air pollution) 2013, clause 30.
[42]. See
proposed subparagraph 26FEG(1)(b)(ii) inserted by item 16 of
Schedule 1 and proposed subparagraph 26FEG(2)(a)(ii) inserted by item
19 of Schedule 1.
[43]. See
also Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 9.
[44]. That
is: in the sea near a state, the Jervis Bay Territory or an external territory
and there is no law of that state or territory gives effect to the MARPOL
sulphur limit in that area; the outer territorial sea; Australia’s exclusive
economic zone; or an Australian ship beyond Australia’s exclusive economic
zone, but not within a sulphur oxide (SOx) emission control area.
For an explanation of maritime boundaries, see Geoscience Australia (GA), ‘Maritime
Boundary Definitions’, GA website, n.d.
[45]. See
the note to subsection 26FEG(4) and also sections 13.4 and 13.5 of the Criminal Code.
[46]. Proposed
subsections 26FEG(5) and (6) in item 20 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of
the Bill.
[47]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 10.
[48]. As
outlined earlier, proposed subsection 26FEGA is inserted by item 7 in
Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Bill.
[49]. IMO,
‘Emission
Control Areas (ECAs) designated under MARPOL Annex VI’, IMO website, n.d.;
see also AMSA, ‘Regulations
for air emissions from ships’, op. cit., p. 1.
[50]. As
inserted by item 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 1.
[51]. See
also Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 15.
[52]. Ibid.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.