|
representatives vote 2012-09-13#2
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:21:04
|
Title
Description
The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-09-12.9.3 amendment] moved by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Greg_Hunt&mpc=Flinders&house=representatives Greg Hunt]. This would have amended the original motion "that the bill be read a second time"(Read more about what it means to read a bill for a second time as well as the other stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
) with the following:''That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:'''''whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities] to explain:''''(1) the reasons for his decision to reverse the policy that he introduced as Fisheries Minister in October 2009 which stated: "There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels";''''(2) why he effectively invited the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV_Margiris Margiris] into Australia by promoting ‘large scale factory freezer vessels’; and''''(3) what actions he will take to compensate the 50 Australian workers who are losing their jobs as a consequence of this legislation.'''Because this amendment was unsuccessful, the original motion remained unchanged.''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 an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-09-12.9.3) moved by Liberal MP [Greg Hunt](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Greg_Hunt&mpc=Flinders&house=representatives). This would have amended the original motion "that the bill be read a second time"(Read more about what it means to read a bill for a second time as well as the other stages that a bill must pass through to become law [here](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). ) with the following:
- _That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:_
- _'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the [Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives) to explain:_
- _(1) the reasons for his decision to reverse the policy that he introduced as Fisheries Minister in October 2009 which stated: "There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels";_
- _(2) why he effectively invited the [Margiris](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV_Margiris) into Australia by promoting ‘large scale factory freezer vessels’; and_
- _(3) what actions he will take to compensate the 50 Australian workers who are losing their jobs as a consequence of this legislation._'
- Because this amendment was unsuccessful, the original motion remained unchanged.
- _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#2
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:52
|
Title
Description
The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-09-12.9.3 amendment] moved by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Greg_Hunt&mpc=Flinders&house=representatives Greg Hunt]. This would have amended the original motion "that the bill be read a second time"[1] with the following:- The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-09-12.9.3 amendment] moved by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Greg_Hunt&mpc=Flinders&house=representatives Greg Hunt]. This would have amended the original motion "that the bill be read a second time"(Read more about what it means to read a bill for a second time as well as the other stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
) with the following:
- ''That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:''
- '''whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities] to explain:''
- ''(1) the reasons for his decision to reverse the policy that he introduced as Fisheries Minister in October 2009 which stated: "There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels";''
- ''(2) why he effectively invited the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV_Margiris Margiris] into Australia by promoting ‘large scale factory freezer vessels’; and''
- ''(3) what actions he will take to compensate the 50 Australian workers who are losing their jobs as a consequence of this legislation.'''
- Because this amendment was unsuccessful, the original motion remained unchanged.
- ''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 what it means to read a bill for a second time as well as the other 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#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-06 12:29:33
|
Title
Bills — Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012; Second Reading- Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Explain reason for policy reversal
Description
<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I want to thank all members who have contributed to the debate. During the debate, a number of issues have been raised by the opposition and the crossbench. During that time the government has circulated amendments which I believe address each and every one of these issues.</p><p>Ultimately we will not be in a situation where we are voting on a bill that simply effects the large changes in fisheries activity which are currently being contemplated. No-one in the next vote can hide behind a recreational fishing argument. No-one in the next vote can hide behind this bill having any impact on social or economic considerations. No-one in the next vote can hide behind this being somehow something that would affect current fishing businesses' fishing activity.</p>- The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-09-12.9.3 amendment] moved by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Greg_Hunt&mpc=Flinders&house=representatives Greg Hunt]. This would have amended the original motion "that the bill be read a second time"[1] with the following:
- ''That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:''
- '''whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities] to explain:''
- ''(1) the reasons for his decision to reverse the policy that he introduced as Fisheries Minister in October 2009 which stated: "There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels";''
- ''(2) why he effectively invited the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV_Margiris Margiris] into Australia by promoting ‘large scale factory freezer vessels’; and''
- ''(3) what actions he will take to compensate the 50 Australian workers who are losing their jobs as a consequence of this legislation.'''
- Because this amendment was unsuccessful, the original motion remained unchanged.
- ''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 what it means to read a bill for a second time as well as the other 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>The bill that is before us has had the astonishing aspect in the debate of people being outraged about a marine park that is 400 kilometres away but not caring about the depletion of fish stocks 5½ kilometres offshore. In this vote, the government will remain true to its commitment on our oceans—whether it be protecting the Great Barrier Reef, protecting the oceans or making sure that we have an appropriate precautionary principle that applies to fisheries.</p> <p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p><p>The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Flinders be agreed to.</p><p></p><p>The question now is that this bill be read a second time.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p>
|