Division Description Changes — Bills — Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013; in Committee — 17th Jun 2013

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2013-06-17#7 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:21:19	Title Description The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.(That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here]. ) The items give precedence to the subdivision of the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,(This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry]. ) even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval. The question was put after Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham] moved an [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22 amendment] to oppose those items. ~~Background to the Bill~~ The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions. ~~References~~ The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.(That division is available [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives). ) The items give precedence to the subdivision of the _Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999_ (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,(This subdivision is available to read on [ComLaw](http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326), the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the _Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999_ (Cth) see the [Wikipedia entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999). ) even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval. The question was put after Senator [Simon Birmingham](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate) moved an [amendment](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22) to oppose those items. Background to the Bill The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001) for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions. References
senate vote 2013-06-17#7 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:55	Title Description The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.(That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here]. ) ~~The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.[1]~~ The items give precedence to the subdivision of the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,[2] even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval. The items give precedence to the subdivision of the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,(This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry]. ) even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval. The question was put after Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham] moved an [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22 amendment] to oppose those items. Background to the Bill The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[3] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions. The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions. References * [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here]. * [2] This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry]. * [3] See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.
senate vote 2013-06-17#7 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-15 16:24:35	Title Description The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.[1] The items give precedence to the subdivision of the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,[2] even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval. The question was put after Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham] moved an [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22 amendment] to oppose those items. Background to the Bill The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[3] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions. References * [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here]. * [2] This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry]. * [3] See the [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 Parliament of Australian website] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest. * [3] See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.
senate vote 2013-06-17#7 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-15 14:32:24	Title Description The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.[1] The items give precedence to the subdivision of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,[2] even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval. The items give precedence to the subdivision of the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,[2] even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval. The question was put after Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham] moved an [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22 amendment] to oppose those items. Background to the Bill The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[3] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions. References * [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here]. * [2] This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry]. * [3] See the [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 Parliament of Australian website] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.
senate vote 2013-06-17#7 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-15 14:28:50	Title Description ~~The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.[1]~~ The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.[1] The items give precedence to the subdivision of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,[2] even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval. The question was put after Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham] moved an [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22 amendment] to oppose those items. Background to the Bill The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[3] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions. References * [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here]. * [2] This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry]. * [3] See the [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 Parliament of Australian website] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.
senate vote 2013-06-17#7 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-15 14:28:11	Title Bills — Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013; in Committee Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 - In Committee - Bilateral agreements Description ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ ~~<p>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 7382 concurrently:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 3A, page 7 (lines 24 and 25).</p>~~ The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.[1] The items give precedence to the subdivision of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,[2] even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval. The question was put after Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham] moved an [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22 amendment] to oppose those items. Background to the Bill The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[3] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions. References * [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here]. * [2] This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry]. * [3] See the [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 Parliament of Australian website] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest. ~~<p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 4A, page 7 (lines 28 and 29).</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 4B, page 7 (lines 30 and 31).</p>~~ <p>At the outset, before I necessarily make longer comments in favour of these amendments, can I direct a question to the minister in this regard. These amendments seek to remove an amendment that was inserted into the legislation in the House of Representatives. That amendment limits the capacity of the government or future governments to use bilateral approvals and agreements in relation to the operation of this part of the EPBC Act. My question to the minister is: why is it necessary and justifiable to oppose or disallow bilateral agreements solely in relation to coal seam gas and large coalmining developments and not in relation to any other developments that may be controlled actions as a result of any other of the triggers in the EPBC Act?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Jan McLucas</p>~~ <p>Thank you, Senator Birmingham, for the question. While there is a sound understanding of the standards to meet in decisions with regard to other matters of national environmental significance, this is a new matter of national environmental significance and it is important that, in the first instance, we develop the standards through mechanisms such as the scientific committee before we seek to delegate such powers. As I said, this is a new matter of national environmental significance; it has emerged over a very short period of time. It is important that we get a regulatory regime in place which we can be confident about before we start using the delegated powers of the EPBC Act.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ <p>) ( ): I have a further question to the minister. Senator Conroy put great store in relying upon the information that would be provided to the states as part of the assessment process for this new trigger. If it is reasonable to rely upon the assessment process that is undertaken at the state level and the information given to governments at the state level as part of this new assessment trigger then why on earth and how on earth is it unreasonable and necessary in a totally prescriptive way to legislate out any possibility that a government could indeed undertake a bilateral approval? Further to that, I note the emphasis the minister gave to the fact that the reason for singling out this one section of the EPBC Act in terms of disallowing the use of bilateral approvals is that this is a new matter, a new area of consideration and that, in the minister's words, 'in the first instance' it is appropriate that such approvals be undertaken at the federal level.</p> <p>There is nothing, of course, that mandates the government of the day to actually use the bilateral approvals. In fact, in the history of their existence since 1999, as I understand it—and I am sure the officials will correct me if I am wrong—they have been used only once by a government in relation to a heritage matter regarding the Sydney Opera House. So they are hardly excessively used. It would be completely within the domain of the government to not use the powers that are there. They have effectively lain dormant since the EPBC Act was first passed. They could well continue to lie dormant. They lay dormant whilst all of the initial matters of national environmental significance, which were once new matters in terms of the passage of this bill, were established in the processes and guidelines.</p> <p>So, Minister, your response, which I am grateful for, is, however, unsatisfactory in that there is no rationale as to why the government needs to legislate out the future capacity of itself or future governments to enter into these types of bilateral agreements. What is the government’s justification for doing this, in a legislative sense—which is of course permanent until this parliament chooses to change it at some future stage? Why would this one new matter of national environmental significance, which applies only to two particular industries, require a legislative change for a bilateral approvals process to be entered into at a state level? For virtually all of the others, with I think the exception of the nuclear option—the nuclear trigger, which sounds just as bad—the government of the day could wake up tomorrow, as indeed the Prime Minister did last year, and decide to negotiate a bilateral approval. Why was it acceptable that, for all those others, a government could make an executive decision to enter into such approvals, whereas for this one in particular you seek to bind all future governments and require legislative change to be able to undertake such activity?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Jan McLucas</p>~~ ~~<p>My earlier answer stands.</p>~~ ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

Change

Division

senate vote 2013-06-17#7

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:21:19

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.(That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here]. )
The items give precedence to the subdivision of the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,(This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry]. ) even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval.
The question was put after Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham] moved an [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22 amendment] to oppose those items.
~~Background to the Bill~~
The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
~~References~~
The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.(That division is available [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives). )
The items give precedence to the subdivision of the _Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999_ (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,(This subdivision is available to read on [ComLaw](http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326), the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the _Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999_ (Cth) see the [Wikipedia entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999). ) even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval.
The question was put after Senator [Simon Birmingham](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate) moved an [amendment](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22) to oppose those items.
Background to the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001) for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
References

senate vote 2013-06-17#7

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:55

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.(That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here]. )
~~The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.[1]~~
The items give precedence to the subdivision of the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,[2] even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval.
The items give precedence to the subdivision of the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,(This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry]. ) even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval.
The question was put after Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham] moved an [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22 amendment] to oppose those items.
Background to the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[3] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
References
* [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here].
* [2] This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry].
* [3] See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.

senate vote 2013-06-17#7

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-15 16:24:35

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.[1]
The items give precedence to the subdivision of the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,[2] even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval.
The question was put after Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham] moved an [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22 amendment] to oppose those items.
Background to the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[3] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
References
* [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here].
* [2] This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry].
* [3] See the [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 Parliament of Australian website] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.
* [3] See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.

senate vote 2013-06-17#7

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-15 14:32:24

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.[1]
The items give precedence to the subdivision of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,[2] even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval.
The items give precedence to the subdivision of the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,[2] even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval.
The question was put after Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham] moved an [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22 amendment] to oppose those items.
Background to the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[3] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
References
* [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here].
* [2] This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry].
* [3] See the [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 Parliament of Australian website] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.

senate vote 2013-06-17#7

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-15 14:28:50

Title

Description

~~The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.[1]~~
The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These three items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.[1]
The items give precedence to the subdivision of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,[2] even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval.
The question was put after Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham] moved an [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22 amendment] to oppose those items.
Background to the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[3] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
References
* [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here].
* [2] This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry].
* [3] See the [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 Parliament of Australian website] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.

senate vote 2013-06-17#7

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-15 14:28:11

Title

Bills — Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013; in Committee
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 - In Committee - Bilateral agreements

Description

~~Simon Birmingham~~
~~by leave—I move opposition amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 7382 concurrently:~~
~~(1) Schedule 1, item 3A, page 7 (lines 24 and 25).~~
The majority voted in favour of items 3A, 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 remaining as they are. These items were inserted by amendment in the House of Representatives.[1]
The items give precedence to the subdivision of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) that protects water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas development and large coal mining development,[2] even where bilateral agreements would otherwise allow a state government to act in respect of this type of development without approval.
The question was put after Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham] moved an [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5001_amend_f4e912e1-f1e2-44e6-bed8-def3257b50df%22 amendment] to oppose those items.
Background to the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[3] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
References
* [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-03-21&number=1&dmp=15&house=representatives here].
* [2] This subdivision is available to read on [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539/Html/Volume_1#_Toc367270326 ComLaw], the Commonwealth website that contains the full text of all recent Australian Government legislation. For more on the ''Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999'' (Cth) see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999 Wikipedia entry].
* [3] See the [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 Parliament of Australian website] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.
~~(2) Schedule 1, item 4A, page 7 (lines 28 and 29).~~
~~(3) Schedule 1, item 4B, page 7 (lines 30 and 31).~~
At the outset, before I necessarily make longer comments in favour of these amendments, can I direct a question to the minister in this regard. These amendments seek to remove an amendment that was inserted into the legislation in the House of Representatives. That amendment limits the capacity of the government or future governments to use bilateral approvals and agreements in relation to the operation of this part of the EPBC Act. My question to the minister is: why is it necessary and justifiable to oppose or disallow bilateral agreements solely in relation to coal seam gas and large coalmining developments and not in relation to any other developments that may be controlled actions as a result of any other of the triggers in the EPBC Act?
~~Jan McLucas~~
Thank you, Senator Birmingham, for the question. While there is a sound understanding of the standards to meet in decisions with regard to other matters of national environmental significance, this is a new matter of national environmental significance and it is important that, in the first instance, we develop the standards through mechanisms such as the scientific committee before we seek to delegate such powers. As I said, this is a new matter of national environmental significance; it has emerged over a very short period of time. It is important that we get a regulatory regime in place which we can be confident about before we start using the delegated powers of the EPBC Act.
~~Simon Birmingham~~
) ( ): I have a further question to the minister. Senator Conroy put great store in relying upon the information that would be provided to the states as part of the assessment process for this new trigger. If it is reasonable to rely upon the assessment process that is undertaken at the state level and the information given to governments at the state level as part of this new assessment trigger then why on earth and how on earth is it unreasonable and necessary in a totally prescriptive way to legislate out any possibility that a government could indeed undertake a bilateral approval? Further to that, I note the emphasis the minister gave to the fact that the reason for singling out this one section of the EPBC Act in terms of disallowing the use of bilateral approvals is that this is a new matter, a new area of consideration and that, in the minister's words, 'in the first instance' it is appropriate that such approvals be undertaken at the federal level.
There is nothing, of course, that mandates the government of the day to actually use the bilateral approvals. In fact, in the history of their existence since 1999, as I understand it—and I am sure the officials will correct me if I am wrong—they have been used only once by a government in relation to a heritage matter regarding the Sydney Opera House. So they are hardly excessively used. It would be completely within the domain of the government to not use the powers that are there. They have effectively lain dormant since the EPBC Act was first passed. They could well continue to lie dormant. They lay dormant whilst all of the initial matters of national environmental significance, which were once new matters in terms of the passage of this bill, were established in the processes and guidelines.
So, Minister, your response, which I am grateful for, is, however, unsatisfactory in that there is no rationale as to why the government needs to legislate out the future capacity of itself or future governments to enter into these types of bilateral agreements. What is the government’s justification for doing this, in a legislative sense—which is of course permanent until this parliament chooses to change it at some future stage? Why would this one new matter of national environmental significance, which applies only to two particular industries, require a legislative change for a bilateral approvals process to be entered into at a state level? For virtually all of the others, with I think the exception of the nuclear option—the nuclear trigger, which sounds just as bad—the government of the day could wake up tomorrow, as indeed the Prime Minister did last year, and decide to negotiate a bilateral approval. Why was it acceptable that, for all those others, a government could make an executive decision to enter into such approvals, whereas for this one in particular you seek to bind all future governments and require legislative change to be able to undertake such activity?
~~Jan McLucas~~
~~My earlier answer stands.~~
~~Long debate text truncated.~~