|
senate vote 2021-02-15#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-02-19 11:15:32
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted against part (a) of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-15.131.1) introduced by SA Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) (Greens), which means it failed.
Note that while Queensland Senator [Malcolm Roberts](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/malcolm_roberts) (One Nation) appeared vote "yes" on this vote, that was done by mistake and [he subsequently said](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-15.135.6) that he made a mistake and that "*I want it noted that I oppose part (a) of the motion.*"- Note that while Queensland Senator [Malcolm Roberts](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/malcolm_roberts) (One Nation) appeared to vote "yes" on this division, that was done by mistake and [he subsequently said](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-15.135.6) that he made a mistake and that "*I want it noted that I oppose part (a) of the motion.*"
- ### Motion text
- > *That the Senate—*
- >
- > *(a) notes that:*
- >
- >> *(i) native forest logging in Tasmania continues to destroy nature, threatened species, and our climate,*
- >>
- >> *(ii) last year the Bob Brown Foundation (BBF) lodged a challenge against the Commonwealth Government, Tasmanian government, and Sustainable Timber Tasmania in the Federal Court arguing Tasmania's Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) contradicted the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) by not protecting endangered species such as the Swift Parrot, and was therefore invalid,*
- >>
- >> *(iii) on 3 February 2021 the Federal Court ruled against BBF, finding Tasmania's RFA is valid, and*
- >>
>> *(iv) this ruling vindicates the finding by the [independent review of the EPBC Act](https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/) (the Samuel Review) that 'the EPBC Act is ineffective ... does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters that are important for the nation ... [and] is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges'; ...*- >> *(iv) this ruling vindicates the finding by the [independent review of the EPBC Act](https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/) (the Samuel Review) that 'the EPBC Act is ineffective ... does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters that are important for the nation ... [and] is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges'; ...*
|
|
senate vote 2021-02-15#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-02-19 11:15:12
|
Title
Motions — Forestry- Motions - Forestry - Environmental protection
Description
<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I, and also on behalf of Senators Rice, McKim and Whish-Wilson, move:</p><p>That the Senate—</p>- The majority voted against part (a) of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-15.131.1) introduced by SA Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) (Greens), which means it failed.
- Note that while Queensland Senator [Malcolm Roberts](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/malcolm_roberts) (One Nation) appeared vote "yes" on this vote, that was done by mistake and [he subsequently said](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-15.135.6) that he made a mistake and that "*I want it noted that I oppose part (a) of the motion.*"
- ### Motion text
- > *That the Senate—*
- >
- > *(a) notes that:*
- >
- >> *(i) native forest logging in Tasmania continues to destroy nature, threatened species, and our climate,*
- >>
- >> *(ii) last year the Bob Brown Foundation (BBF) lodged a challenge against the Commonwealth Government, Tasmanian government, and Sustainable Timber Tasmania in the Federal Court arguing Tasmania's Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) contradicted the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) by not protecting endangered species such as the Swift Parrot, and was therefore invalid,*
- >>
- >> *(iii) on 3 February 2021 the Federal Court ruled against BBF, finding Tasmania's RFA is valid, and*
- >>
- >> *(iv) this ruling vindicates the finding by the [independent review of the EPBC Act](https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/) (the Samuel Review) that 'the EPBC Act is ineffective ... does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters that are important for the nation ... [and] is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges'; ...*
<p>(a) notes that:</p><p>(i) native forest logging in Tasmania continues to destroy nature, threatened species, and our climate,</p><p>(ii) last year the Bob Brown Foundation (BBF) lodged a challenge against the Commonwealth Government, Tasmanian government, and Sustainable Timber Tasmania in the Federal Court arguing Tasmania's Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) contradicted the <i>Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) by not protecting endangered species such as the Swift Parrot, and was therefore invalid,</i></p><p>(iii) on 3 February 2021 the Federal Court ruled against BBF, finding Tasmania's RFA is valid, and</p><p>(iv) this ruling vindicates the finding by the independent review of the EPBC Act (the Samuel Review) that 'the EPBC Act is ineffective ... does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters that are important for the nation ... [and] is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges'; and</p><p>(b) calls on the Morrison Government to urgently overhaul Australia's national environmental laws to adopt the recommendations from the Samuel Review to reform destructive logging laws, enact stronger laws that protect our environment and wildlife and create an independent watchdog to hold those who trash our environment to account.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>Labor will not be supporting this motion, for a couple of reasons. One of them is that we think motions like this, where there are a range of opinions in this chamber, should be allowed to be brought in as part of the program that allows for substantive debate. The Greens do this week in, week out. They bring forward motions where they seek a yes or no answer on a matter which is worthy of substantive debate. They live in their own little perfect world, but in the real world, where the rest of us operate, there is a legitimate reason for substantive debate on these matters to be allowed. They do this every time. I look forward to the Greens political party bringing forward a motion where they work with other members in this place to hold these environmental vandals to account, instead of trying to move wedge motions on us.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I ask that the motion be split. I intend to vote differently on parts (a) and (b).</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Patrick has indicated he wishes the motion to be split, so we will deal with part (a) first. The question is that part (a) of general business motion No. 983 standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young and others be agreed to.</p>
|