Individual the following links (though cumbersome) may be helpful and thanks for your links Opinionated2 which I will peruse on returning home.

Australian states boast that they have broad and extensive laws implementing and exceeding IMO conventions on the laws of the sea but I believe that is only within three nautical miles of coastlines. Regulations beyond three nautical miles it appears is the responsibility of the Commonwealth government.

However, there are several international bodies, ratified by many countries, which regulate marine pollution outside coastal areas though it is evident that regional regulators such as our ‘esteemed’ government agencies will remain impotent while economics and poor governance continue to prevail over law enforcement. The few polluters that are prosecuted in any mining industry in this nation are permitted to continue operating, despite histories of non-compliance.

Though I am not all that conversant with the details, these links provide a staggering array of Conventions set down to prevent marine pollution, however, the author in the first link writes that there are only a limited number of legal provisions dealing with pollution from offshore installations that can be found in international conventions.

WA’s premier, Colin Barnett continues to override EPA environmental impact assessments so it’s ’drill baby drill’ in the state of WA despite the EPA recently advising the Premier that carbon emissions in WA will rise by 70% within a few years. But then, the Precautionary Principle must not obstruct megalomaniacs who believe they can continue bludging off the environment with impunity.

http://www.customscentre.canberra.edu.au/librarymanager/libs/17/Marine_Pollution_part1.pdf

For ships:

http://www.imo.org/conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=678&topic_id=258#7

Years ago I despaired of the human preference for profit over safety in transporting oil by sea where spills so often occur. That despair was deepened by the actual drilling of oil wells in the sea, and now the BP rig explosion has vindicated my disgust at human irresponsibility.

Nuclear power stations are considered to be an unacceptable risk in Australia because the nuclear profiteers have not yet persuaded us that nuclear residue is safe. We have seen some shameful nuclear disasters and heard of others that had been hushed up. Because the people took action to make their views known in the 1960s, when many suburbs declared themselves nuclear-free zones, Australia still holds out for common sense.

Why have we not done the same with oil? Perhaps because its disadvantages were so deliberately obscured by mass-consumption marketers. Oil, that lubricant of the global economy, is the basis of so many coveted products that we didn't even ask whether anyone had worked out how to make it safe. Now we know they hadn't.

It is all been so comfortable: the price of a barrel of oil broadcast daily with the stock exchange report, every rise of a point of a cent making an unimaginable profit for a few. How convenient it is for them -- and, let's admit it, their mum and dad shareholders -- that most people avert their eyes to the fatal consequences of unsafe oil drilling and transportation - until it's in their own back yard. Oil at sea is as dangerous to peace and health as uranium and plutonium.

Many threads in this forum say the people hold the power to produce a cleaner, greener future and stop this exploitative pollution. Of course they do, but too many of the people are just as selfish and greedy as those who feed off them.

If not, why are they not using their collective power to stop the rot, instead of looking for a political Superman to tell them it's ok to rort the planet?