|
senate vote 2012-09-19#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:18:12
|
Title
Description
The majority voted against Greens [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-19.3.2 amendments] that were introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate Rachel Siewert]. This means that they were rejected.Senator Siewert explained that "[t]hese amendments relate to the sunset clause I talked about earlier in my second reading contribution,(Senator Siewert's second reading contribution was made in two parts. The first part is available [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.19.1 here] and the second part [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.111.3 here].
) removing the sunset clause and restoring the social and economic impacts and consideration of those to the bill, and also banning a vessel over 2,000 tonnes and reversing the onus of proof, all of which I articulated in my second reading contribution."''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 against Greens [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-19.3.2) that were introduced by Greens Senator [Rachel Siewert](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate). This means that they were rejected.
- Senator Siewert explained that "[t]hese amendments relate to the sunset clause I talked about earlier in my second reading contribution,(Senator Siewert's second reading contribution was made in two parts. The first part is available [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.19.1) and the second part [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.111.3). ) removing the sunset clause and restoring the social and economic impacts and consideration of those to the bill, and also banning a vessel over 2,000 tonnes and reversing the onus of proof, all of which I articulated in my second reading contribution."
- _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.
|
|
senate vote 2012-09-19#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:08
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted against Greens [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-19.3.2 amendments] that were introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate Rachel Siewert]. This means that they were rejected.
Senator Siewert explained that "[t]hese amendments relate to the sunset clause I talked about earlier in my second reading contribution,[1] removing the sunset clause and restoring the social and economic impacts and consideration of those to the bill, and also banning a vessel over 2,000 tonnes and reversing the onus of proof, all of which I articulated in my second reading contribution."- Senator Siewert explained that "[t]hese amendments relate to the sunset clause I talked about earlier in my second reading contribution,(Senator Siewert's second reading contribution was made in two parts. The first part is available [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.19.1 here] and the second part [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.111.3 here].
) removing the sunset clause and restoring the social and economic impacts and consideration of those to the bill, and also banning a vessel over 2,000 tonnes and reversing the onus of proof, all of which I articulated in my second reading contribution."
- ''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.''References''* [1] Senator Siewert's second reading contribution was made in two parts. The first part is available [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.19.1 here] and the second part [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.111.3 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].- 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.
|
|
senate vote 2012-09-19#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-01 16:22:32
|
Title
Bills — Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012; in Committee- Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Greens amendment
Description
<p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I seek leave to move Greens amendments on sheet 7282 and 7280 together.</p><p>Leave granted.</p>- The majority voted against Greens [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-19.3.2 amendments] that were introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate Rachel Siewert]. This means that they were rejected.
- Senator Siewert explained that "[t]hese amendments relate to the sunset clause I talked about earlier in my second reading contribution,[1] removing the sunset clause and restoring the social and economic impacts and consideration of those to the bill, and also banning a vessel over 2,000 tonnes and reversing the onus of proof, all of which I articulated in my second reading contribution."
- ''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] Senator Siewert's second reading contribution was made in two parts. The first part is available [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.19.1 here] and the second part [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.111.3 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>These amendments relate to the sunset clause I talked about earlier in my second reading contribution, removing the sunset clause and restoring the social and economic impacts and consideration of those to the bill, and also banning a vessel over 2,000 tonnes and reversing the onus of proof, all of which I articulated in my second reading contribution.</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>We oppose the amendments.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: Senator Siewert, I just make some clarification. We will need to put amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 7280 and then amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7282 while (3) will have to be taken as a separate item, if you are comfortable with that.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Fine, thank you, Mr Chairman. I move items (1) to (4) on sheet 7280 and items (1) to (2) on sheet 7282:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), before Chapter 5B, insert:</p><p class="italic">Chapter 5AA—Oversize f ishing v essels</p><p class="italic">Part 15AA—Oversize fishing v essels</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 <i>Crimes Act 1914</i> 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 1, page 8 (lines 4 to 11), omit paragraph 390SF(3)(b), substitute:</p><p class="italic">  (b) remains in force until a revocation of the declaration comes into force.</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection 390SF(4).</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 12 (line 10), before item 11, insert:</p><p class="italic">10A Section 528</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic"><i>fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel</i> has the meaning given by subsection 390SAC(1).</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 17), after "environmental", insert ", social or economic".</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (line 22), after "environmental", insert ", social or economic".</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>Just to go back to where we were last night, I asked Senator Ludwig a series of questions in relation to the confidence of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Mr Burke, and the investigations that he might have taken to satisfy his uncertainty in relation to the science. I just wonder whether Minister Ludwig has had a chance to get any information on those matters overnight since he did take those on notice last night.</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>Unfortunately, not as yet, but I do have complete confidence in Minister Burke and his decision making.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>That was not my question. My question was who he actually consulted. You do not have the information yet?</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>No.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>I understand that. I was reacting perhaps to your statement that you have confidence in Minister Burke. We might differ on that, as you might understand. I was really interested to know whether we do have any information as to who he actually consulted with—I did name a number of entities last night—in what he did himself to satisfy his uncertainty. As you would be aware, there is some question around that.</p><p>Minister, I acknowledge that we are debating an EPBC Act amending bill but there is an obvious role for you as the minister for fisheries in this particular matter regarding your certainty around the science. Who did you actually consult with during your discussions on this particular matter and do you actually have certainty in the science?</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>Clearly, I would take advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in relation to the target species, plus the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, which is the independent regulatory authority, and of course, in respect of environment considerations, Minister Burke and his office.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>Thank you, Minister, for that. My question is: did you take any advice from any outside agencies: for example, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, which does come under your portfolio responsibility in relation to this; the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, which is a globally respected voice on this particular matter; and also, of course, the CSIRO, who do have a whole-of-ecosystem modelling program that looks at broader interactions in relation to this, specifically their Atlantis program, and who I understand have also peer reviewed a lot of the science on this?</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>On the total of that, I will take it on notice because I do not want to mislead the Senate. There were a number of advices I received, so I will be safe in respect of that rather than trying to list them now.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>Can I ask the minister to respond to the question—acknowledging that it was amongst a number of others I asked—in relation to his confidence in the science around the quota and the setting of the quota for the fishery.</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>That is why I avoided it in that sense, that I think it is a question of fact, not a question of confidence. I am not a scientist, clearly. I take advice. I take advice from DAFF. I take advice from AFMA. And where I do have a role then that would be factually based decision making, evidence based decision making, on the available information that is provided to me. I would always take advice from the department of agriculture and/or AFMA, depending on the relevant circumstance of the matter.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>Minister, does the advice that you have received from the department and from AFMA, which is an agency that comes within your portfolio responsibility, express confidence in the science around the setting of the quota for the fishery?</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>I think we are getting into a difficult area in that sense that I cannot speak for AFMA. I can certainly take it on notice. I have got no doubt AFMA do a very good job and I would imagine they would be confident in the science that they provide to me, and the same with DAFF. My assessment of that is a personal assessment as to the information that is provided to me.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>My question was specific, though. Does that advice to you express confidence in the quota for the fishery?</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>I will take it on notice. There is a range of information that has been provided to me over the time. I will certainly go back and have a look. Nothing stands out particularly.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>Surely, Minister, given that this whole debate is about confidence—Minister Burke has said that he is uncertain, particularly in relation to marine mammal interactions, as part of his decision-making process, which is, after all, why we are here—and part of your decision making under this new act is in fact about confidence and certainty around particularly the science and the quota, and if there is uncertainty then that is the trigger for this process, you have some idea whether you or your department are confident in the science around this fishery?</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>I think you missed the point again—or, perhaps, not again but in this instance at least. The bill has not passed and until and unless the bill passes I do not have a role. When the bill does pass, I do have a role––that is, a decision in unison with Minister Burke. When we are in that position I will assess the available information put to me, should it be put to me, but I do not want to pre-empt that. I will have a look at it and consider it then, basing that decision on information that is put to me at that particular time and on the evidence that is put to me. Again, what you are actually asking is for me to prejudge, and I will not do that.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>Minister, you would be aware that there has been some media speculation around the calculations set in the quota, particularly by a Dr Wadsley, from Western Australia. Can you tell the committee whether you have any advice in response to that criticism?</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>If I recall correctly, there are a range of individuals and scientists who have had views in this area in the last month. I will go back and have a look at those and see whether there is any advice provided to me which is helpful in answering your question.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|