John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following the receipt of satisfactory responses, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw three notices of disallowance, the full terms of which have been circulated in the Chamber and I now hand to the Clerk.

The list read as follows—

Three sitting days after today

Business of the Senate─Notices of Motion Nos.

1.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 131 and made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

2.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 132 and made under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975.

Eight sitting days after today

Business of the Senate─Notice of Motion No.

1.

Amendment of List of Specimens taken to be suitable for live import [EPBC/s.303EC/SSLI/Amend/012] made under paragraph 303EC(1)(c) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Committee's correspondence concerning these instruments.

Leave granted.

The correspondence read as follows—

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1), Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 131

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1), Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 132

10 August 2006

Senator the Hon Ian Campbell

Minister for the Environment and Heritage

Suite MG.61

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1), Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 131. These Regulations specify revised provisions concerning the regulation of persons, vessels and aircraft within the Australian Whale Sanctuary. The Committee raises the following matters after considering these Regulations.

First, new subregulation 8.04(3) creates a strict liability offence if the person operating a vessel fails to move away from a cetacean at “a constant slow speed”. The same phrase is used in paragraph 8.05(2)(a), which is also a strict liability offence. This imposes an imprecise obligation on a person operating a vessel. The Committee therefore seeks your advice on whether the subregulation should be amended to specify a particular speed, or range of speeds, to provide certainty in the application of these strict liability offences.

Secondly, the Committee would also appreciate your advice as to why regulation 8.09A, which specifies certain offences concerning swimming with cetaceans, does not include a defence, similar to that found in subregulations 8.05(6) and 8.06(4), stating that it is a defence if the cetacean has approached the person.

Similar comments apply to subregulation 117D(3), paragraph 117E(2)(a), and regulation 117J of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1), Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 132.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matters as soon as possible, but before 1 September 2006, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these Regulations. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

11 September 2006

Senator John Watson

Chairman

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Watson

I refer to your letter of 10 August 2006 concerning the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1), Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 131 and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1), Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 132 (your reference 113/2006).

I am pleased to offer my advice on the two matters referred to in your letter:

The wording in new subregulation 8.04(3) was changed from the previous wording of ‘at a constant slow speed, so that its wake is negligible’ to that of ‘a constant slow speed’ after consultation with vessel operators and consideration of operating conditions encountered in the marine environment. The speed at which a vessel generates a wake is dependant on its construction and configuration, its loading, sea conditions and other environmental factors. Some vessels generate a ‘no wake’ condition at high speed (when planing)—others can generate ‘wake’ at very low speeds in certain conditions. The important factor to consider is ensuring the operation of the vessel is such as to minimise any negative effects on cetaceans, whilst at the same time not being so restrictive that it compromises the safety of those on board the vessel. The decision was taken no to impose a speed limit (such as at 4 knots or below 6 knots) for safety reasons as vessels may be required to maintain a higher speed to counter the conditions. In addition some vessels may not have equipment on board to indicate their speed of travel. Animals are more likely to be affected by sudden increases or decreases in speed or direction, that in the actual speed or consistent operational behaviour of a vessel. The proposed wording of ‘a constant slow speed’ was seen in the light of these considerations to be appropriate, and it is my preference that they be retained.

Regulation 8.09A differs from 8.05(6) and 8.06(4) in not providing a defence if a cetacean approaches a person as regulation 8.09A already states that the person must not enter the water within 100 metres of a whale or 50 metres of a dolphin, or if already in the water, must not approach a cetacean within 30 metres. Regulation 8.09A(4) that states that if a cetacean comes within 30 metres the person should undertake certain actions, so this in effect negates the need for a defence against breaching that distance, providing the person behaves in a certain way. Regulations 8.05 and 8.06 set limits of 100 metres on the approach distance of the vessel to a cetacean, but then provides for a defence if the cetacean approaches the vessel.

The same comments apply to subregulation 117D(3), paragraph 117E(2)(a), and regulation 117J of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1).

I trust this explains the reasoning and thinking behind the wording in the revised Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1),

Yours sincerely

Ian Campbell

Minister for Environment and Heritage

14 September 2006

Senator the Hon Ian Campbell

Minister for the Environment and Heritage

Suite MG.61

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

Thank you for your letter of 11 September 2006 responding to the Committee’s concern with the strict liability offences relating to the movement of vessels around cetaceans in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1).

In your response you advise that the decision not to impose a speed limit on the movement of vessels around cetaceans was made for safety reasons as vessels may be required to maintain a higher speed to counter the conditions. The Committee accepts that there may be practical reasons for not specifying a speed limit and that in this instance your preference is to retain a requirement to move at ‘a constant slow speed’.

There is, however, still a question about the definition of ‘slow’ when determining whether a boat is moving at a ‘constant slow speed’. The Committee is concerned that this is a strict liability offence as it is difficult to see how a boat operator will be able to determine if they are complying.

The Committee therefore suggests that either a tangible measure be adopted to enable a boat operator to determine if they are complying with the manner in which they are obliged to move away from a cetacean or the strict liability be removed from this offence.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 13 October 2006, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these Regulations. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

11 October 2006

Senator John Watson

Senator for Tasmania

Chairman

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Watson

I refer to your letter of 14 September 2006 concerning the strict liability offences relating to the movement of vessels around cetaceans in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1), and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) (the Amending Regulations).

I note the Committee’s continued concern with the use of the term ‘constant slow speed’ in the Amending Regulations. The wording of these offences has been further considered and it is proposed that, in order to resolve the Committee’s concerns, the term ‘constant slow speed’ be replaced with the term ‘constant speed less than 6 knots’. This will provide the tangible measure of speed that the Committee has requested thereby removing any potential uncertainty to the operator of a vessel as to the speed that they are required to travel to meet their legal obligations under these provisions. It is proposed that the offences remain strict liability offences and in this regard the Criminal Law Branch of the Attorney-General’s Department has advised that the revised wording is suitable, from a criminal law policy perspective, for the offences to apply as strict liability offences.

I therefore would like to give an undertaking to the Committee that the provisions of the Amending Regulations in which the term ‘constant slow speed’ is used, will be amended so that the speed that a vessel is required to travel when near cetaceans will be ‘less than 6 knots’.

I believe that if the changes that I have suggested are made they will ensure that it will be clearer to the operators of vessels how they can comply with the regulations, whilst still enabling the regulations to be enforceable. I trust this will satisfy the concerns of the Committee. Should you wish to discuss these matters further please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Ian Campbell

Minister for Environment and Heritage

Amendment of List of Specimens taken to be suitable for live import [EPBC/s.303EC/SSLI/ Amend/012]

17 August 2006

Senator the Hon Ian Campbell

Minister for the Environment and Heritage

Suite MG.61

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the Amendment of List of Specimens Taken to be Suitable for Live Import—s 303EB [EPBC/s.303EC/SSLI/Amend/012] made under paragraph 303EC(1)(c) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The Committee notes that section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 directs a rule-maker to be satisfied that appropriate consultation, as is reasonably practicable, has been undertaken particularly where a proposed instrument is likely to have an effect on business. Section 18 of the Act provides that in some circumstances consultation may be unnecessary or inappropriate. The definition of ‘explanatory statement’ in section 4 of the Act requires an explanatory statement to describe the nature of any consultation that has been carried out or, if there has been no consultation, to explain why none was undertaken. The Explanatory Statement that accompanies this instrument makes no reference to consultation. The Committee therefore seeks your advice on whether consultation was undertaken and, if so, the nature of that consultation.

The Committee also seeks an assurance that future explanatory statements will provide information on consultation as required by the Legislative Instruments Act.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 8 September 2006, to enable it to finalise its consideration of this instrument. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

11 October 2006

Senator John Watson

Chairman

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Room SG49

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Watson

Thank you for your letter of 17 August 2006 concerning the Amendment of list of specimens taken to be suitable for live import—s.303EB [EPBC/s.303EC/SSLI/Amend/012].

Section 303EC(1)(c) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) states that the Minister can correct an inaccuracy in the list of specimens taken suitable for live import. The purpose of the instrument to which you refer in your letter is to correct an inaccuracy to that list. Section 303EC(3) excludes instruments for correcting inaccuracies from the need for consultation. Consultation was therefore not undertaken in this instance.

However, my Department notes that under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 the Explanatory Statement should describe the nature of any consultation that has been carried out or, if there has been no consultation, to explain why none was undertaken. For instruments correcting future inaccuracies, an explanation of the reason why consultation was not undertaken will be included in the Explanatory Statement.

Yours sincerely

Ian Campbell

Minister for Environment and Heritage

Senators Webber, Chris Evans, Ian Campbell, Mark Bishop, Ellison, Siewert, Murray, Eggleston, Sterle, Adams, Johnston and Lightfoot to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes:

(i)

with great sadness the passing of Mr Wally Foreman,

(ii)

that Mr Foreman will be remembered as a champion for Western Australian athletes in their efforts to gain national representation,

(iii)

that Mr Foreman was the inaugural director of the Western Australian Institute of Sport (WAIS), and an early pioneer in developing a more professional and supportive training environment for Western Australia’s high performance athletes,

(iv)

that the WAIS was the first state-based institute in Australia, and a national leader in its field under Mr Foreman’s guidance, and

(v)

that Mr Foreman will also be remembered for his informative and incisive sports commentary during his 30 year career, covering four Olympic Games, five Commonwealth Games, and international cricket, tennis, hockey and athletics tournaments; and

(b)

extends its deepest sympathies to Mr Foreman’s family, especially his wife Lyn and their sons, Mark and Glen.

Senators Bob Brown, Milne, Nettle and Siewert to move on Tuesday, 28 November 2006:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to initiate action on climate change, and for related purposes. Climate Change Action Bill 2006.

Senator Bob Brown to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate calls on the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation (Senator Abetz) to report, before the Senate rises in 2006, on:

(a)

the relevance in Australia of the Stern report’s conclusion that globally, destruction of forests creates more greenhouse gases than transport;

(b)

the quantity of greenhouse gases currently released by:

(i)

commercial logging of native forests, and

(ii)

other clearance of native vegetation in Australia;

(c)

the reliability of information available on and any measure being implemented to improve knowledge on paragraphs (a) and (b); and

(d)

any measures being undertaken by the Government to halt greenhouse gas emissions from the forests in our region and globally.

Senators Bob Brown and Bartlett to move on Thursday, 9 November 2006:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes that:

(i)

Vietnam today is still a one-party state, where basic human rights are abused, and many political dissidents are gaoled or put under house arrest because of their peaceful demand for freedom and democracy,

(ii)

widespread corruption in all levels of government in Vietnam may see Australian aid to Vietnam abused and wasted,

(iii)

recently, there has been a growing pro-democracy movement in Vietnam, initiated by a group of 118 Vietnamese citizens known as the Bloc 8406, named after the date of 8 April 2006 when they openly declared a Manifesto on Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam demanding a peaceful transition to a pluralistic and democratic Vietnam, and

(iv)

a free and democratic Vietnam, with independent legislative and judicial systems, would make Vietnam a better and more reliable trading partner to Australia, where Australian investment would be more secure;

(b)

supports the aspiration for freedom and democracy of the Vietnamese people expressed through the Manifesto of Bloc 8406, which is consistent with the principles upheld by the Australian Parliament; and

(c)

calls on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to observe human rights, and practise good governance to eradicate corruption and to listen to the aspiration of its people, and make appropriate changes to return freedom and democracy to Vietnam.

Senator Bob Brown to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate agrees that:

(a)

the scientific evidence supporting the link between human activity and climate change is overwhelming;

(b)

urgent action is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia; and

(c)

the costs to the economy and to the environment of inaction are significantly greater than the short-term cost of action.

Senator Watson to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes that:

(i)

the Howard Government has placed a high priority on caring for the Australian environment and has shown this by providing funding based on good science that has helped to protect more than 8 million hectares of wetlands, treat 400 000 hectares of land for salinity and erosion, and helps some 800 000 volunteers get involved in on-ground work, and

(ii)

the recently announced $13.4 million New South Wales Wetland Recovery Plan will include projects designed to improve knowledge of wetland and environmental water management, improve water flows, and address noxious weeds in the Macquarie Marshes and Gwydir Wetlands regions; and

(b)

congratulates the Howard Government on its initiatives in this area.