Reef safeguard cut back
Philip Dorling The Age 12 Sep 11;
THE federal government has secretly wound back a critical environmental protection for the Great Barrier Reef against shipping accidents in order to avoid a diplomatic stoush with the US and Singapore.
Australian diplomats have privately conceded the political cost of an oil spill would be "immense" and conservationists have called for the government to fix the problem urgently.
Leaked US embassy cables published by WikiLeaks have revealed that the government "weakened" the compulsory pilotage regime for large vessels - including oil tankers, chemical tankers and liquefied gas carriers - sailing through the sensitive maritime environment of the Torres Strait.
Owners and masters of vessels that fail to use a pilot to navigate the narrow and hazardous channel will not face any penalty if they do not subsequently call at an Australian port.
On learning that the Torres Strait pilotage regime was quietly amended 17 months ago, Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Don
Henry said it was essential all shipping through the strait had pilotage. "This was a wrong move,'' Mr Henry said. ''The government ought to fix this."
Leaked US diplomatic cables reveal the US and Singapore reacted strongly against the then Howard government's October 2006 announcement of a compulsory pilotage regime in the Torres Strait. The scheme was designed to reduce the risk of oil and chemical spills at the northern end of the Great Barrier Reef.
In November 2006, Singaporean ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh told the US ambassador in Singapore that Singapore was "deeply concerned'' that Australia's actions would set a precedent ''seen to allow other coastal states … to encroach on the right of free passage as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea".
Singapore's then foreign minister, George Yeo, wrote to Australia "to complain about the [Australian government's] decision and its negative impact on larger strategic interests".
The leaked cables show the US strongly shared Singapore's concerns. Aside from complaining to Australia, US envoys urged other nations to protest.
The Howard government was unmoved by the complaints. In early 2008 the new Labor government's initial response to Singapore's protests was also uncompromising. But the start of a policy shift soon followed once the US reaffirmed its opposition.
In July 2008, the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's international law branch, assistant secretary Adam McCarthy, conceded to the US embassy in Canberra that "Australia recognises that it has not handled the Torres Strait pilotage issue particularly well" and indicated Canberra was prepared "to explore ways to address US concerns".
Mr McCarthy stressed "the Rudd government understands US and Singaporean concerns … but that it believes it politically impossible to change the mandatory nature of the regime''.
"If there were to be an oil spill after the Rudd Labor government 'weakened' the environmental protections imposed by the Howard government," he said, "the political cost would be immense.''
He said that ''everything is on the table … except the mandatory nature of the regime''. The US said "this is the exact point which we find unacceptable". Mr McCarthy then conceded Australia recognised "the US … will never agree to the current mandatory regime".
After consultations in Washington in August 2008, DFAT sought US agreement to a compromise. This would involve leaving the "compulsory" legal pilotage framework in place while in practice reverting to a voluntary scheme for many vessels by not enforcing penalties against ships that transited the Torres Strait without a pilot but did not call at an Australian port.
Mr McCarthy had previously acknowledged that most large vessels sailing through the strait were on voyages involving an Australian port, but "the problem for Australia is that many of the remaining vessels (132 in 2007) are tankers. These are exactly the vessels that Australia is most worried could be involved in an accident causing environmental damage.''
These concerns were abandoned in the interest of securing US acceptance and heading off a threatened international legal challenge by Singapore.
The US approved of the compromise and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority formalised the change in policy on April 17, 2009. To avoid publicity, the authority's announcement was a single paragraph "marine notice" published at the bottom of a longer notice on a different subject. No statement was made by Transport Minister Anthony Albanese.
Privately, the director of DFAT's sea law section, Damien White, acknowledged to US envoys that the compulsory pilotage regime had been changed "out of a desire to remove a bilateral irritant'' with the US.
Mr McCarthy "stressed that the deal with the United States was an end in and of itself given the nature of the relationship with the United States".
About 900 to 1000 vessels longer than 70 metres sail through the strait each year. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority says it does not keep records of how many visit Australian ports.
The Australian Conservation Foundation's Mr Henry said he hoped the US and Australia would ''think more carefully about putting the Great Barrier Reef at risk.
''It will only take one unpiloted ship to cause great destruction,'' he said.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/conservation/reef-safeguard-cut-back-20110911-1k4b3.html#ixzz1Xguhsiu0
