|
representatives vote 2012-09-13#4
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:21:04
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-09-13.108.4 motion] to agree to the bill, as amended.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
) This means that the majority agreed with the bill and they can now decide on whether to pass it in the House of Representatives.''Background to the bill''The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4883 bill] was introduced "to establish an independent expert panel to conduct an assessment into the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of a declared commercial fishing activity and to prohibit the declared commercial fishing activity while the assessment is undertaken".(Read more about the bill, including the text of the bill and its explanatory memoranda, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4883 here].
) It was introduced following the controversial arrival of the super trawler [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV_Margiris FV Margiris] into Australian waters. Opponents to the trawler argue that its presence "will cause localised overfishing and could drive away bluefin tuna".(Read more about the arguments against the super trawler [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/super-trawler-debate/4200114 here].
) Supporters disagree, saying the trawler's quota is sustainable.(As above.
) Environment Minister [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mr_Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] position was there "there was significant uncertainty regarding the impact of such a large fishing vessel on the marine environment",(Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd018 bills digest].) hence the need for an assessment into the potential impacts.- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-09-13.108.4) to agree to the bill, as amended.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [here](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). ) This means that the majority agreed with the bill and they can now decide on whether to pass it in the House of Representatives.
- _Background to the bill_
- The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4883) was introduced "to establish an independent expert panel to conduct an assessment into the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of a declared commercial fishing activity and to prohibit the declared commercial fishing activity while the assessment is undertaken".(Read more about the bill, including the text of the bill and its explanatory memoranda, [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4883). )
- It was introduced following the controversial arrival of the super trawler [FV Margiris](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV_Margiris) into Australian waters. Opponents to the trawler argue that its presence "will cause localised overfishing and could drive away bluefin tuna".(Read more about the arguments against the super trawler [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/super-trawler-debate/4200114). ) Supporters disagree, saying the trawler's quota is sustainable.(As above. ) Environment Minister [Tony Burke](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mr_Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives) position was there "there was significant uncertainty regarding the impact of such a large fishing vessel on the marine environment",(Read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd018).) hence the need for an assessment into the potential impacts.
|
|
representatives vote 2012-09-13#4
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:53
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-09-13.108.4 motion] to agree to the bill, as amended.[1] This means that the majority agreed with the bill and they can now decide on whether to pass it in the House of Representatives.- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-09-13.108.4 motion] to agree to the bill, as amended.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
) This means that the majority agreed with the bill and they can now decide on whether to pass it in the House of Representatives.
- ''Background to the bill''
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4883 bill] was introduced "to establish an independent expert panel to conduct an assessment into the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of a declared commercial fishing activity and to prohibit the declared commercial fishing activity while the assessment is undertaken".[2] - The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4883 bill] was introduced "to establish an independent expert panel to conduct an assessment into the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of a declared commercial fishing activity and to prohibit the declared commercial fishing activity while the assessment is undertaken".(Read more about the bill, including the text of the bill and its explanatory memoranda, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4883 here].
)
It was introduced following the controversial arrival of the super trawler [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV_Margiris FV Margiris] into Australian waters. Opponents to the trawler argue that its presence "will cause localised overfishing and could drive away bluefin tuna".[3] Supporters disagree, saying the trawler's quota is sustainable.[4] Environment Minister [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mr_Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] position was there "there was significant uncertainty regarding the impact of such a large fishing vessel on the marine environment",[5] hence the need for an assessment into the potential impacts.- It was introduced following the controversial arrival of the super trawler [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV_Margiris FV Margiris] into Australian waters. Opponents to the trawler argue that its presence "will cause localised overfishing and could drive away bluefin tuna".(Read more about the arguments against the super trawler [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/super-trawler-debate/4200114 here].
) Supporters disagree, saying the trawler's quota is sustainable.(As above.
) Environment Minister [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mr_Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] position was there "there was significant uncertainty regarding the impact of such a large fishing vessel on the marine environment",(Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd018 bills digest].) hence the need for an assessment into the potential impacts.
''References''* [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].* [2] Read more about the bill, including the text of the bill and its explanatory memoranda, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4883 here].* [3] Read more about the arguments against the super trawler [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/super-trawler-debate/4200114 here].* [4] As above.* [5] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd018 bills digest].
|
|
representatives vote 2012-09-13#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-06 12:33:34
|
Title
Bills — Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail- Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - Agree to the bill
Description
<p class="speaker">Adam Bandt</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), before Chapter 5B insert:</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-09-13.108.4 motion] to agree to the bill, as amended.[1] This means that the majority agreed with the bill and they can now decide on whether to pass it in the House of Representatives.
- ''Background to the bill''
- The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4883 bill] was introduced "to establish an independent expert panel to conduct an assessment into the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of a declared commercial fishing activity and to prohibit the declared commercial fishing activity while the assessment is undertaken".[2]
- It was introduced following the controversial arrival of the super trawler [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV_Margiris FV Margiris] into Australian waters. Opponents to the trawler argue that its presence "will cause localised overfishing and could drive away bluefin tuna".[3] Supporters disagree, saying the trawler's quota is sustainable.[4] Environment Minister [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mr_Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] position was there "there was significant uncertainty regarding the impact of such a large fishing vessel on the marine environment",[5] hence the need for an assessment into the potential impacts.
- ''References''
- * [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
- * [2] Read more about the bill, including the text of the bill and its explanatory memoranda, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4883 here].
- * [3] Read more about the arguments against the super trawler [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/super-trawler-debate/4200114 here].
- * [4] As above.
- * [5] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd018 bills digest].
<p class="italic">Chapter 5AA—Oversize Fishing Vessels</p><p class="italic">Part 15AA—Oversize Fishing Vessels</p><p class="italic">Division 1 Prohibition</p><p class="italic">390SAA Civil penalty—fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel</p><p class="italic">  A person must not engage in fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel in a Commonwealth marine area.</p><p class="italic">Civil penalty:</p><p class="italic">  (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units;</p><p class="italic">  (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units.</p><p class="italic">Note:   If a body corporate is found to have contravened this section, an executive officer of the body may be found to have contravened section 494.</p><p class="italic">390SAB Offence—fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel</p><p class="italic">(1) A person commits an offence if:</p><p class="italic">  (a) the person takes an action; and</p><p class="italic">  (b) the action is taken in a Commonwealth marine area; and</p><p class="italic">  (c) the action is a fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel.</p><p class="italic">Penalty:   Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both.</p><p class="italic">Note 1:   If a body corporate is found to have committed an offence against this section, an executive officer of the body may be found to have committed an offence against section 495.</p><p class="italic">Note 2:   Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection.</p><p class="italic">(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b).</p><p class="italic">Note:   For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.</p><p class="italic">390SAC What is a <i>fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel</i> ?</p><p class="italic">(1) A <i>fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel</i> is a fishing activity using a vessel capable of processing and storing more than 2,000 tonnes of biomass.</p><p class="italic">(2) A <i>fishing activity</i> means an activity that constitutes fishing.</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 11 (line 8) before item 11 insert:</p><p class="italic">10A Section 528</p><p class="italic">  Insert:</p><p class="italic"><i>  </i> <i>Fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel</i> has the meaning given by subsection 390SAC(1).</p><p>I spoke to the rationale for these amendments during the substantive debate so I will keep my remarks short.</p><p>If there is a reason for banning this supertrawler, as has now been accepted there is, there is a reason for banning supertrawlers permanently. That is especially so if, as appears to be the case, as a result of further amendments this bill is going to be weakened even further. There is a very strong argument for preventing a situation where we have one supertrawler coming in in a short period of time and then another one after that and then another one after that. We do not want to be coming back here having these kinds of debates every time one of these industrial sized fishing vessels comes in, so the simplest solution is to accept these amendments and ban supertrawlers altogether.</p> <p class="speaker">Robert Oakeshott</p><p>I know there may be several amendments and one statement. All week I have been raising a very simple point: we either believe the science and the processes by which that advice makes its way to government or we do not. All week it has seemed that the response from government was that there was no problem with the processes, the science and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority—that is, until question time today. For me the response from the minister that there were some problems with the processes was significant. The second thing that I report to the House is that today, finally, we have got the terms of reference for a root and branch inquiry into the Fisheries Management Act. In progressing this issue through the House this week three things have occurred. First, we now have in question the issue of quota management and sustainable fisheries. I accept the advice from the government that there are doubts about how quotas are formed and how the science is formed.</p><p>Secondly, there will be a short time line for a review of the Fisheries Management Act. That will have a status that it should have had already. The ministers have been saying that the Fisheries Management Act does not deliver, that they are getting poor advice and that the science is not allowing them to do their job. I accept now that the Fisheries Management Act will be gone through root and branch, that this inquiry will matter and will have a short time frame and that we can expect a new fisheries management act, preferably this year.</p><p>The third part is that the powers that have been given to the minister today will not last. The legislation will include a sunset clause when it is passed today. I have had great concerns about the unintended consequences there would have been, with two ministers having full discretion over social, economic and environmental concerns at the end of the process. We either beef up the process and make it matter and give the minister for fisheries those powers or we do not. I am pleased that we are now going to tidy up the science and make it and the process matter so that in the future we do have happen weeks like the one we have had this week.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>The government has brought forward the bill because we believe there are gaps in the science. We regard this particular amendment—</p><p class="italic">Mr Briggs interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p><p>The member for Mayo is not in his chair. He should learn from his earlier act.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>We regard these particular amendments as abandoning a science based process and we will not be supporting them.</p> <p class="speaker">Greg Hunt</p><p>The government is opposing an amendment against big boats. These guys have no idea what they are doing. It is complete chaos. They have had three positions in three days. We will certainly not be supporting these amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p><p>The question is that the member for Melbourne's amendments be agreed to.</p><p class="italic"> <i>A division having been called and the bells having been rung—</i></p><p>As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the <i>Votes and Proceedings</i>.</p><p>Question negatived, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting aye.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) and (2) of sheet BW261 and amendment (1) of sheet BW265 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 1 and 2), omit ", social or economic".</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (line 2), omit ", social or economic".</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (after line 27), at the end of Part 15B, add:</p><p class="italic">Division 4—Sunsetting of this Part</p><p class="italic">390SM Sunsetting of this Part</p><p class="italic">     New declarations under this part may not be made 12 months after the day the <i>Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Act 2012</i> commences.</p><p>Of the two amendments in front of us, one relates to an outcome which was sought by the opposition during debate, which was that 'social' and 'economic' be removed and that we simply deal with environmental considerations only. Since the Water Act I have constantly been asked: why can't social and economic always be included when environmental is? We thought the opposition would like it; they did not. We are taking it out. The second amendment, referred to by the member for Lyne, is that new declarations under the amendment we are dealing with today will not occur after 12 months time. By that time the root-and-branch review of the fisheries management processes should be in place, but we will have this legislation to be able to fill that gap in the interim.</p> <p class="speaker">Greg Hunt</p><p>Yesterday the minister introduced a new power based on social uncertainty. Today the minister takes away the power based on social uncertainty. This is a government that was born of uncertainty.</p> <p class="speaker">Adam Bandt</p><p>I will just address briefly this question of social and economic considerations. It was very important that this found its way into the bill in the first place. It is a core argument which has been made by the people who have concerns about this supertrawler—and rightly so. The environment is not separate from people. The EPBC Act contains a general requirement for the minister to consider social and economic impacts when making decisions. The social and economic considerations in relation to environmental decisions are not just legitimate but essential. For example, in approvals of coal seam gas wells the impact on local communities as well as the environment are legitimately taken into account. In fact, if the minister did have the power and did more often take into account social impact we would see a lot less disruption of the environment.</p><p>But essentially this first amendment shows that those who support it do not have the same level of concern about the impact of the supertrawler on local fishing communities, the viability of the local fishing industry or the jobs impact. Fishing is an important industry for many small communities. For some communities, it is a major source of employment. The impact of the supertrawler could potentially devastate a small local economy. Ministers should be required to take into account the potential social and economic impact their decisions could have.</p><p>Fishing Party attacks on the Greens at the last election, which came thick and fast, now have a great degree of irony because here it is the Greens who are the only party standing up for recreational fishing by opposing these amendments. The effect of these will be to open the door to the supertrawler in two years time, and what we share with recreational fishers is an understanding of the environment, of the need to maintain fish stocks and of the damage massive commercial fishing operations can do not just in relation to the amount of fish that they take but to the ocean. Massive commercial fishing operations like the supertrawler catch much, much more than the fish that they intend to take for consumption. They also catch other fish of interest to recreational fishers. This activity disturbs the ocean's ecosystems to the detriment of all who enjoy the ocean.</p><p>So the social and economic interests should be taken into account. They were the basis of the concern about the supertrawler and the reason this bill was being introduced. It is hypocritical to now remove them from that very legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p><p>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</p><p class="italic"> <i>A division having been called and the bells having been rung—</i></p><p>As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the <i>Votes and Proceedings</i>.</p><p>Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|