Bills Digest No.
22, 2022–23
PDF version [393KB]
Dr Emily Gibson
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Section
20
October 2022
|
Key points
- Australia is a party to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships (MARPOL) and International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships. These Conventions aim respectively to prevent pollution of the marine environment by ships and to prohibit the use of harmful compounds in anti-fouling paints used on ships.
- Both Conventions are administered by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialised agency of the United Nations. The Conventions may be amended by resolutions of the Marine Environment Pollution Committee.
- The Conventions are implemented in Australia, in part, by the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 (POTS Act) and Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Act 2006 (HAFS Act).
- The Bill seeks to amend the POTS Act and HAFS Act to implement recent amendments to the Conventions relating to:
- controls for discharges of residues of noxious liquid substances known as persistent floaters in certain waters, which came into effect on 1 January 2021
- ban the use of heavy fuel oil by ships in Arctic waters from 1 July 2024
- extend controls on harmful anti-fouling systems to include the biocide cybutryne from 1 January 2023.
- While the effect of the Bill on Australian shipping is limited, the Bill ensures Australia’s regulatory framework is consistent with current international requirements.
|
Contents
Abbreviations
Purpose and 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
Date introduced: 28
September 2022
House: The Senate
Portfolio: Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts
Commencement: Schedules
1 and 4 commence the day after Royal Assent. Schedule 2 commences on the
day after Royal Assent or 1 November 2022, whichever is later. Schedule 3
commences on the day after Royal Assent or 1 January 2023, whichever is
later.
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 2022.
Abbreviations
Purpose and
structure of the Bill
The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 (the Bill) amends
the Protection
of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 (POTS Act)
and the Protection
of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Act 2006 (HAFS Act) to
implement amendments by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to
international Conventions concerning pollution from ships and the use of certain
anti-fouling systems.
The Bill contains four Schedules:
- Schedule
1 amends the POTS Act to implement requirements in relation to the
discharge of persistent floaters
- Schedule
2 amends the POTS Act to implement a prohibition on the use of heavy
fuel oil (HFO) in Arctic waters
- Schedule
3 amends the HAFS Act to implement a prohibition on the use of cybutryne
in anti-fouling systems on ships
- Schedule
4 makes minor amendments to the POTS Act and HAFS Act to provide
a consistent definition of ‘Marine Orders’ across relevant legislation.
Background
Australia is a party to numerous international conventions
relating to the environmental impacts and safety of shipping. These conventions
are administered by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), a specialised agency of the United Nations with
responsibility for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of
marine pollution by ships.[1]
The International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution by Ships (MARPOL)[2]
is the main convention covering the prevention of pollution of the marine
environment by ships.[3]
MARPOL aims to prevent both accidental pollution and pollution from routine
vessel operations. 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.[4]
Decisions on the amendment of MARPOL are made by the
Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO.[5]
Australia has adopted all six annexes and implements
MARPOL domestically through the POTS Act and the Navigation Act 2012.[6]
The IMO also administers the International Convention
on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships (HAFS Convention)[7],
which aims to prohibit the use of harmful compounds in anti-fouling paints used
on ships. The Convention entered into force in September 2008; Australia
implements the HAFS Convention through the HAFS Act.
New
requirements to limit the discharge of persistent floaters
At its 74th Session in May 2019, the MEPC adopted
amendments to MARPOL Annex II to introduce new requirements for the control of
discharges of persistent floaters.[8]
The amendments came into force on 1 January 2021. The amendments insert
requirements in relation to high-viscosity products, known as ‘persistent
floating products’, which will require new cargo tank cleaning, prewash, and
discharge procedures. The requirements apply in certain waters, including North
West Europe waters, the Baltic Sea area, Western European waters and the
Norwegian Sea.
Persistent floaters are ‘slick forming substances such as
selected grades of vegetable oil or paraffin like cargoes’.[9]
If discharged or spilled, persistent floating products can mix with floating
materials (such as plastic debris) and form a floating crust or sink; if slicks
come ashore, they can form concrete-like aggregates of sand that can persist
for years.[10]
Persistent floaters can be harmful to birds (via external coating, affecting
birds’ ability to fly and thermal insultation), mammals (via smothering,
affecting their respiratory system, and impairing eyesight), as well as fish,
crustaceans and molluscs (due to asphyxiation and clogging of the digestive
tract).[11]
Prohibition
on heavy fuel oil in Arctic waters
At its 76th Session in June 2021, the MEPC adopted
amendments to MARPOL Annex I to introduce a prohibition on the use, and
carriage for use as fuel, of heavy fuel oil (HFO) by ships in Arctic waters on
and after 1 July 2024, or for ships meeting certain construction standards with
regard to fuel tank protection on and after 1 July 2029.[12]
The IMO had at the 71st session of the MEPC in 2017 agreed to consider how to
safeguard the Arctic from HFO and a ban was formally proposed at the 72nd session
of the MEPC in 2018.[13]
Heavy fuel oil (HFO) refers to a broad range of different
marine residual fuels and some distillate fuels; HFO is also referred to as
bunker oil, heavy diesel oil, and in the POTS Act as ‘heavy grade oil’
(HGO).[14]
HFO has been described as the most significant threat to
the Arctic marine environment from ships.[15]
According to the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT):
HFO doesn’t readily disperse or breakdown in the marine
environment and has a tendency to stick to surfaces like sea ice or sink and
emulsify in sea water (rather than floating on the surface or evaporating off).[16]
In addition, the combustion of HFO produces high levels of
pollutants. Black carbon, a component of fine particulate matter (PM2.5),
contributes to heart and lung disease and early death; black carbon ‘from all
sources is the second largest cause of human-induced climate change and is
contributing to the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice’.[17]
A similar ban on the use and carriage of HFO in Antarctic
waters has been in place since August 2011.[18]
In contrast to the ban in Antarctic waters, the ban on the use and carriage for
use of HFO in Arctic waters does not extend to the carriage of HFO as cargo. Further,
coastal state Parties bordering Arctic waters are able to issue temporary
waivers, for ships flying their flag, until 2029.
Prohibition
on use of cybutryne in anti-fouling systems
Anti-fouling paints are applied to the hulls of ships ‘to
prevent sealife such as algae and molluscs attaching themselves to the hull’, [19]
‘causing reductions in vessel performance and fuel efficiency, and increasing
vessel emissions’.[20]
Some chemicals used as anti-fouling agents have been found
to have unacceptable impacts on the marine environment. The HAFS Convention
initially banned the use of organotin biocides. However, more recently,
cybutryne:
has been found by several scientific studies to be toxic and
persistent, with a significant half-life in the marine/aquatic environment and
potential to impact unacceptably non-target organisms and the base of food
chains leading to seafood production and other ecosystems services.[21]
At its 71st session in July 2017, the MEPC approved a new
output to amend Annex 1 of the HAFS Convention to include controls on
cybutryne. At its 76th session in June 2021, the MEPC adopted amendments to
Annex 1 and 4 of the HAFS Convention to introduce controls on the use of
cybutryne and amend the form of the International Anti-fouling System
Certificate.[22]
The amendments will enter into force on 1 January 2023, with transitional
arrangements of up to 60 months taking into account the typical five-year service
period of an anti-fouling system.
Australian
shipping
An overview of Australian shipping is provided in Chapters
1 and 2 of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and
Transport’s December 2020 inquiry report Policy,
regulatory, taxation, administrative and funding priorities for Australian
shipping.
Australian registered ships are required to comply with
the POTS Act, HAFS Act and the Navigation Act even when
they are operating outside Australia’s exclusive economic zone.[23]
In his Second Reading Speech, Senator Anthony Chisholm,
the Assistant Minister for Regional Development, noted that Australian-flagged
ships that undertake international voyages are unlikely to operate in North
European and Arctic waters.[24]
Further, the ‘Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority [APVMA]
has never registered cybutryne or approved its use as an anti-fouling agent for
ships in Australia’.[25]
The changes proposed by the Bill are thus unlikely to significantly impact
Australian shipping.
History of
the Bill
An Exposure
Draft of the Bill was published on the Department of Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA) website on
24 August 2022. There are minor drafting differences between the Exposure Draft
and the Bill; specifically, the Bill, as tabled, removes a proposed exemption
in the HAFS Act from the new prohibitions relating to cybutryne for Australian
ships that do not engage in international voyages.
Committee consideration
Joint
Standing Committee on Treaties
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has considered
the amendments to MARPOL relating to the cargo residues and tank washing of
persistent floating products and the prohibition on the use and carriage of HFO
in Arctic waters, and to the HAFS Convention relating to controls on
cybutryne.[26]
The Committee supported the amendments and agreed that binding treaty action could
be taken.[27]
Selection
of Bills Committee
At its meeting on 27 September 2022, the Senate Selection
of Bills Committee deferred consideration of the Bill until its next meeting.[28]
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. However, the Explanatory
Memorandum notes that ‘the shipping industry has actively engaged in the
negotiations at the International Maritime Organization to develop these
amendments to the MARPOL and HAFS Convention’.[29]
The Explanatory Memorandum states that no comments were
received during the public consultation period on the Exposure Draft of the
Bill.
Financial
implications
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill will
have no financial impact on the Commonwealth.[30]
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.[31]
The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that although the Bill
engages the right to the presumption of innocence, the Government considers the
extent to which it does so is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to the
objectives of the Bill.[32]
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
Schedule 1
– Discharge of persistent floaters
Part III of the POTS Act implements Annex II of
MARPOL, which relates to the prevention of pollution by noxious substances.
Schedule 1 amends Part III of the POTS Act to implement the 2019
amendments to Annex II of MARPOL (as outlined in the background section of this
Digest) to ensure that ships do not discharge persistent floaters and comply
with prewash and discharge procedures in certain areas.
Item 1 adds a new definition of regulated
persistent floater to subsection 15(1). The Explanatory Memorandum
indicates that this definition is ‘as identified by 16.2.7 in column ‘o’ of
Chapter 17 of the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of
Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code)’.[33]
Section 21 of the POTS Act sets out ordinary and
strict liability offences that are committed if a person engages in conduct
that causes a discharge of certain substances from a ship to the sea.[34]
Existing subsections 21(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) set out exemptions to
the strict liability offence in existing subsection 21(1B) for the
discharge of different classes of substances. The classes of substances pose
differing levels of hazard to marine resources or human health, or uses of the
sea.[35]
Items 3 and 7 amend subparagraphs 21(4)(a)(ii)
and 21(5)(a)(iv) relating to the discharge of a substance in Category X and
a high-viscosity or solidifying substance in Category Y respectively to specify
that the relevant prewash procedure is as specified in Appendix VI to Annex II
of MARPOL. A Category X noxious liquid substance is one which, if discharged
into the sea from tank cleaning or deballasting operations, is deemed to
present a major hazard to either marine resources, or human health.[36]
A Category Y noxious liquid substance is one which, if discharged into the sea
from tank cleaning or deballasting operations, is deemed to present a hazard to
either marine resources or human health or cause harm to amenities or other
legitimate uses of the sea.[37]
Item 10 inserts proposed subsection 21(5A)
which provides an exemption to the strict liability offence in existing
subsection 21(1B) for the discharge of regulated persistent floaters
in Category Y, provided that the ship’s tank is emptied in accordance with the
Procedures and Arrangements Manual and washed in accordance with the prewash
procedure specified in Appendix VI of Annex II of MARPOL and any resulting
residues are discharged to a port reception facility at the port of unloading.
Items 5, 9, 13, and 17 make amendments to the
exemption provisions to remove conditions relating to discharge of certain
substances into the sea as water containing residues.[38]
However, these are consolidated by Item 19 in proposed subsection
21(9A).
Item 20 inserts proposed subsection 21(13A)
which provides that the exemptions in subsections 21(5) and (6)
do not apply to the discharge of water containing residues from tanks that held
regulated persistent floaters, or mixtures containing regulated
persistent floaters, in the North West European waters, the Baltic Sea
area, the Western European waters or the Norwegian Sea.
Schedule 2
– Carriage of heavy grade oil in Arctic waters
The Bill proposes to amend the POTS Act to
implement the amendments to Annex I of MARPOL to ban the use, and carriage for
use, of HGO by ships in Arctic waters.
Item 1 of Schedule 2 adds definitions of ship
with fuel tank protection and ship without fuel tank protection.
Item 2 inserts proposed section 10AA which
creates offences for conduct—by a person who is the master or owner of
an Australian ship—that results in heavy grade oil (HGO) being used, or
carried for use, as fuel on a ship in Arctic waters. Proposed subsection
10AA(1) creates an ordinary offence, with a maximum penalty of 2,000
penalty units ($444,000), while proposed subsection 10AA(2) creates a
strict liability offence, with a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units ($111,000).[39]
Proposed section 10AA, including the offence
provisions, penalties and exemptions (subsections 10AA(4) and 10AA(5)),
is consistent with existing section 10A which implements the ban on
the use and carriage of HGO in Antarctic waters.
Schedule 3
– Extension of controls on anti-fouling systems
The Bill proposes to amend the HAFS Act to implement
the amendments to Annexes 1 and 4 of the HAFS Convention to introduce
controls on cybutryne.
Item 1 of Schedule 3 extends the existing
definition of HAFC (that is, a harmful anti-fouling compound) in section
3 to include cybutryne.
Item 2 adds a new definition of pre-2023 exempt
platform. An exempt platform is already defined in existing
section 3 as:
any of the following (within the meaning of the [HFAS]
Convention):
(a) a fixed or
floating platform
(b) a floating
storage unit
(c) a floating
production, storage and off-loading unit.
A pre-2023 exempt platform would mean ‘an exempt
platform that was constructed before 1 January 2023 and has not been in
dry dock on or after that date’. Exempt platforms are typically used in
the offshore oil and gas industry. The Explanatory Memorandum does not
elaborate further on the exemption.
Items 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 add a series
of new identical paragraphs to the offence provisions to add a new component of
the offence relating to cybutryne and applying the exemption defined for
pre-2023 exempt platforms, being:
for a ship that has cybutryne applied to a designated
external surface – the ship is not a pre-2023 exempt platform.[40]
Item 3 adds proposed paragraph (c) to section 4
to ‘broaden the definition of compliance with the anti-fouling requirements
to include a transitional period for a ship already bearing a cybutryne
anti-fouling system on 1 January 2023’.[41]
Consistent with the amendments to Annex 1 of the HAFS Convention, the
transitional period is up until the first scheduled renewal of the ship’s
anti-fouling system after 1 January 2023, or the day that is 60 months after
the last application of cybutryne to the ship before 1 January 2023.
Section 9 of the HAFS Act sets out the ordinary and
strict liability offences that have been committed if a person engages in
conduct including:
- taking
(or permitting to be taken) a non-complying Australian ship to a shipping
facility, or allowing a non-complying Australian ship to remain in a shipping
facility (subsections 9(1), (2), (5) and (6))
- taking
(or permitting to be taken) a non-complying foreign ship to an Australian
shipping facility, or allowing a non-complying foreign ship to remain in an
Australian shipping facility (subsections 9(3), (4), (7) and (8)).
Items 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 make a series of
amendments to remove references to the ‘on or after 1 January 2008’ time
restriction as set out in the relevant offence provisions.[42]
The Explanatory Memorandum states that ‘this time restriction was included as a
transitional measure when the Act was first introduced to allow industry time
to comply with the HAFC requirements for organotin compounds’.[43]
This time restriction is no longer required.
Schedule 4
– Marine orders
The Bill proposes, in Schedule 4 (Items 1 to 14),
to make minor amendments to the HAFS Act and the POTS Act to
provide for consistent use of the term ‘Marine Orders’ as the term is used in
the Navigation Act and the Marine Safety
(Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012. This will replace
the use of the existing term ‘orders’.
Marine
Orders are legislative instruments made by the Australian Maritime Safety
Authority (AMSA) under the HAFS Act and the POTS Act. For
example, Marine
Order 98 (Marine Pollution – anti-fouling systems) 2013 is made under the HAFS
Act and gives effect to those provisions of the HAFS Convention that
provide for controls on anti-fouling systems and prescribes survey and
certification requirements and forms to be used to report certain matters.
Similarly, Marine
Order 93 (Marine pollution prevention – noxious liquid substances) 2014 is
made jointly under the Navigation Act and the POTS Act and gives
effect to Annex II of MARPOL and prescribes certain matters for Part III of the
POTS Act.
[1]. ‘Introduction to IMO’,
IMO; ‘List
of IMO Conventions’, IMO.
[2]. Protocol
of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships of 2 November 1973, as amended (MARPOL), done in
London, 17 February 1978, [1988] ATS 29 (entered into force for Australia 14
January 1988).
[3]. Ships
are defined as ‘vessels of any type whatsoever operating in the marine
environment and includes hydrofoil boats, air-cushion vehicles, submersibles,
floating craft and fixed or floating platforms’: MARPOL, Article 2(4).
[4]. ‘Current
MARPOL texts’, Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA).
[5]. See:
‘International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)’ and ‘Structure of IMO’,
IMO.
[6]. ‘MARPOL
and its implementation in Australia’, AMSA.
[7]. International
Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001,
done in London, 5 October 2001, [2008] ATS 15 (entered into force for Australia
and generally 17 September 2008). See also, ‘International
Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships’ and ‘Anti-fouling
systems’, IMO. Anti-fouling paints are used to coat the hulls of
ships to prevent sealife such as algae and molluscs attaching themselves to the
hull. Anti-fouling systems are ‘a coating, paint, surface treatment, surface or
device that is used on a ship to control or prevent attachment of unwanted
organisms’: HAFS Convention, Article 2(2).
[8]. Resolution
MEPC.315(74),
Amendments to the Annex of the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating
thereto, adopted 17 May 2019.
[9]. ‘News
and Events: IBC Code and MARPOL Annex II changes, affect vessels carrying
chemicals’, International Register of Shipping.
[10]. Isabel
Cunha, Susana Moreira and Miguel Santos, ‘Review
on Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) Involved in Marine Spill Incidents—An
Online Database’, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 285, (2015), 509–516:
513.
[11]. Cunha
et al., ‘Review
on HNS’; Jani Hakkinen, Vuokko Malk, Kari Lehtonen and Matti Leppanen, Monitoring and
Assessment of Environmental Impacts of Chemical Spills in the Baltic Sea,
Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 23, (Helsinki, Finland: Finish Environment
Institute, 2018), 35.
[12]. ‘Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC76), 10 to 17 June 2021 (Remote Session)’,
IMO. The relevant resolution is MEPC.329(76);
at the time of writing the text of the resolution was ‘awaiting certification’
and not available on the IMO website.
[13]. Bryan
Comer, Liudmila Osipove, Elise Georgeff and Xiaoli Mao, The
International Maritime Organization’s Proposed Arctic Heavy Fuel Oil Ban:
Likely Impacts and Opportunities for Improvement, white paper,
(Washington: ICCT, September 2020), 2.
[14]. Janne
Fritt-Rasmussen, Susse Wegeberg, Kim Gustavson, Kristin Rist Sorheim, Per S.
Daling, Kirsten Jorgensen, Ossi Tonteri and Jens Peter Holst-Andersen, Heavy Fuel Oil
(HFO): A Review of Fate and Behaviour of HFO Spills in Cold Seawater, Including
Biodegradation, Environmental Effects and Oil Spill Response, (Denmark:
Nordic Council of Ministers, 2018), 13; POTS Act 1983, subsection 3(1).
[15]. Arctic
Council (AC), Arctic
Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report, (AC, April 2009), 5.
[16]. Bryan
Comer and Naya Olmer, ‘Heavy
fuel oil is considered the most significant threat to the Arctic. So why isn’t
it banned yet?’, International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) (blog),
15 September 2016.
[17]. Bryan
Comer, Naya Olmer, Xiaoli Mao, Bishwajoy Roy and Dan Rutherford, Black Carbon
Emission and Fuel Use in Global Shipping 2015, (Washington DC: ICCT,
2017), 1.
[18]. Resolution
MEPC.189(60),
Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973,
adopted 26 March 2010.
[19]. ‘Anti-fouling
systems’, IMO.
[20]. John
Lewis, Chemical
Contaminant Risks Associated with In-Water Cleaning of Vessels,
(Canberra: Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, 2020), 1.
[21]. Council
of the European Union, ‘I’
Item Note to the Permanent Representatives Committee IMO – Draft Union
submission to be submitted to the 71st session of the Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 71) of the IMP in London from 3 – 7 July
2017 concerning a new work programme item in relation to a proposal to amend Annex
1 of the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling
Systems on Ships, 2001, 8 March 2017, Annex page 1.
[22]. Resolution
MEPC.331(76),
Amendments to the International Convention on the Control of Harmful
Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001, Amendments to Annexes 1 and 4
(Controls on cybutryne and form of the International Anti-fouling System
Certificate); at the time of writing the text of the resolution was ‘awaiting
certification’ and not available on the IMO website. An unofficial
version is available from marine industry classification organisation, ABS.
[23]. Navigation Act 2012,
section 8; Criminal
Code Act 1995, section 15.3; POTS Act 1983,
section 6; HAFS
Act 2006, subsection 6(2).
[24]. Anthony
Chisholm, Second
Reading Speech: Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, Senate, Debates,
28 September 2022, 87.
[25]. Chisholm,
Second
Reading Speech, 87.
[26]. Joint
Standing Committee on Treaties, Minor
Treaty Actions – 2007 to Present, Canberra. The amendments were considered
by the Committee on 28 March 2022.
[27]. Joint
Standing Committee on Treaties, Minor
Treaty Actions – 2007 to Present, 1–2.
[28]. Selection
of Bills Committee, Report,
5, 2022, 28 September 2022: 4.
[29]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, 2.
[30]. Explanatory
Memorandum, 2.
[31]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at pages 3–4 of the
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[32]. Explanatory
Memorandum, 4.
[33]. ‘IBC Code – International Code for the
Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk
Amended by Resolution MEPC.225(64)’, Classification Society Rulefinder
2022, Version 9.36 (this version is current as at October 2012 and the
Parliamentary Library cannot be sure if more recent amendments have been made);
‘International
Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous Chemicals
in Bulk (IBC Code)’, IMO.
[34]. 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. See the Criminal
Code Act 1995, sections 6.1 and 9.2.
[35]. ‘Carriage
of chemicals by ship’, IMO.
[36]. MARPOL,
Annex
II, subregulation 6(1).
[37]. MARPOL,
Annex
II, subregulation 6(1).
[38]. Item
5 repeals paragraphs 21(4)(d), (e) and (f); Item 9 repeals paragraphs
21(5)(d), (e) and (f); Item 13 repeals paragraphs 21(6)(c), (d)
and (e); Item 17 repeals paragraphs 21(8)(d), (e), (f) and (g).
[39]. Crimes Act 1914,
section 4AA and the Notice
of Indexation of the Penalty Unit Amount made under that section set
the current value of a penalty unit at $222.
[40]. The
new paragraphs are 9(1)(e), 9(2)(e), 9(3)(e), 9(4)(e), 9(5)(e), 9(6)(d),
9(7)(e) and 9(8)(d).
[41]. Explanatory
Memorandum, 10.
[42]. Existing
paragraphs 9(1)(a), 9(2)(a), 9(3)(a), 9(4)(a), 9(5)(a), 9(6)(a), 9(7)(a) and
9(8)(a).
[43]. Explanatory
Memorandum, 11.
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.