|
senate vote 2015-02-12#5
Edited by
Luke Bacon
on
2015-02-13 16:31:59
|
Title
Description
- The Senate voted not to accept an amendment to the [Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5128), moved by [Senator Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters).
-
- According to the summary on the “[bill’s homepage](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5128)” on the Parliament’s website, this bill:
- > amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to provide additional protection for dugong and turtle populations from the threats of poaching, illegal trade and illegal transportation.
- Senator Waters [explained the aim of their amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-02-12.61.1#g64.1):
- > This government has sought to introduce increased protection just for turtles and dugongs ... if the argument is that the penalties for turtles and dugongs are inadequate then surely that argument would logically extend to all of the penalties for the take of threatened species being indeed inadequate. And so we will move this amendment, the purpose of which is to say, 'Well, clearly, protection for threatened species is inadequate and does need to be increased.' This amendment would increase the penalties for the unlawful take of threatened species across the board, so that we are not just cherry picking and saying that turtles and dugongs deserve additional protection but no other threatened species do.
- Senator [Senator Simon Birmingham](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/simon_birmingham) [explained the Government’s opposition](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-02-12.61.1#g65.1) to this amendment:
- > Very briefly, the government will not be supporting these amendments. This policy about tripling penalties in relation to turtles and dugongs is one we took to the election ... We have made sure that we have worked hard to get broad support for this. To do so to other species would necessitate further public consultation, and that is why we do not believe that the amendments proposed by Senator Waters at this time are appropriate.
More detail is available through the [debate](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-02-12.61.1) and [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5128) links.http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-02-12.61.1#g64.1- More detail is available through the [debate](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-02-12.61.1) and [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5128) links.
|
|
senate vote 2015-02-12#5
Edited by
Luke Bacon
on
2015-02-13 16:31:24
|
Title
Bills — Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013; in Committee- Bills – Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 – in Committee – Amendment: extend protections to all threatened species
Description
<p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>I wish to speak to a series of amendments that the Greens will move, firstly amendment (2) on revised sheet 7442.</p><p>The reason we will move that amendment is that this bill has two parts that passed the House of Representatives. The first part of the bill would seek to allow the environment minister to ignore conservation advice. In other words, this bill was originally drafted to allow the environment minister to ignore scientific advice about the impacts on threatened species of the very project that the environment minister was being asked to approve or refuse. The sheer nonsense of that amendment and the embarrassment that the environment minister should have felt to move that amendment to our laws unfortunately did not stop him from doing so.</p>- The Senate voted not to accept an amendment to the [Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5128), moved by [Senator Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters).
-
- According to the summary on the “[bill’s homepage](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5128)” on the Parliament’s website, this bill:
- > amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to provide additional protection for dugong and turtle populations from the threats of poaching, illegal trade and illegal transportation.
- Senator Waters [explained the aim of their amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-02-12.61.1#g64.1):
- > This government has sought to introduce increased protection just for turtles and dugongs ... if the argument is that the penalties for turtles and dugongs are inadequate then surely that argument would logically extend to all of the penalties for the take of threatened species being indeed inadequate. And so we will move this amendment, the purpose of which is to say, 'Well, clearly, protection for threatened species is inadequate and does need to be increased.' This amendment would increase the penalties for the unlawful take of threatened species across the board, so that we are not just cherry picking and saying that turtles and dugongs deserve additional protection but no other threatened species do.
- Senator [Senator Simon Birmingham](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/simon_birmingham) [explained the Government’s opposition](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-02-12.61.1#g65.1) to this amendment:
- > Very briefly, the government will not be supporting these amendments. This policy about tripling penalties in relation to turtles and dugongs is one we took to the election ... We have made sure that we have worked hard to get broad support for this. To do so to other species would necessitate further public consultation, and that is why we do not believe that the amendments proposed by Senator Waters at this time are appropriate.
- More detail is available through the [debate](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-02-12.61.1) and [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5128) links.
- http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-02-12.61.1#g64.1
<p>In the House, the bill was amended and the ability of the environment minister to ignore science was time-limited. They said, 'Well, we won't let you ignore science forevermore. But from 31 December 2013 and prior it was fine if you ignored science then.' The Greens hold the strong view that you should never ignore science, and the audacity of the environment minister himself, being the person to move this amendment to the act to allow him to ignore science and to allow him to take decisions that fly in the face of advice about threatened species conservation, unfortunately speaks to the true attitude of this government to the environment.</p><p>So that is exactly why the Greens are moving today to delete that whole part of the amending bill. We do not think that the environment minister should be able to ignore science. We have conservation advisers for a reason, and that reason is to ensure that threatened species are indeed protected by our federal environmental laws from impacts that are likely to have a significant impact upon them. I am really pleased that in the course of discussions with the folk in this room that I believe the Greens will have the support of the entire chamber to say that, 'Actually, science is kind of important and threatened species actually do deserve to have our proper consideration when the minister is making a decision about whether to approve development that might damage them.'</p><p>With that said, I move amendment (2) on revised sheet 7442:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 26), to be opposed.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>The government accepts the amendment proposed by the Greens that Senator Waters just spoke to. We do not necessarily accept all the arguments that Senator Waters has made in that regard. We do believe that it would be preferable were those amendments to have been made, but the government is determined—and Mr Hunt in particular is determined—to ensure that the turtle and dugong protection that the government has pursued and was committed to at the election is delivered upon. We understand that arrangements have been struck with the Australian Greens that will enable those protections to be delivered upon, and we do not want to jeopardise our policy commitment and the serious intention the government has to deliver up on that promise in relation to turtles and dugongs by having it complicated by other matters within this bill.</p><p>I thank Senator Waters for her cooperation in working through issues with the government in terms of some of the amendments that were there, and indicate, as I said, the government's acceptance of this amendment from the Greens.</p> <p class="speaker">Alex Gallacher</p><p>The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|