Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

As my colleague Senator Hodgins-May has foreshadowed, the Greens will move two amendments. The first is to strengthen language to include reference to marine protected areas throughout the bill. The second is to significantly increase penalties on Australian corporations found in contravention to the objects of the bill. I'd just like to speak briefly to those. I won't be interrogating you, Minister Watt. You're well aware of these amendments and the groups that have been seeking these changes. Thank you for being cooperative in assessing these, but I will speak briefly to them.

The Greens believe provisions within the bill should be strengthened to explicitly reference and highlight marine protected areas as a critical type of specially managed area. The legislation previously talked about specially managed areas, which of course is part of the BBNJ, but that definition of marine protected areas included in the treaty should be explicitly adopted in the bill. That has been the Greens view, as it is the view of many of the stakeholders that have worked on this.

Australia should advance marine protected area proposals in the Indian and Southern oceans and in the Tasman Sea, specifically the Lord Howe Rise area spanning the waters between Australia and New Zealand. But right across Australia, we need more comprehensive marine protected areas—we've already talked about that in our second reading debate contributions—and we've got a bit of work to do on that in Australia. However, we feel like it's an important distinction to put it into this bill and to talk about the marine protected areas and the kinds of legislation we have here in Australia.

The Greens support the creation of a framework of offences and penalties where activity in Australian waters or by Australians in international waters would result in a breach of Australia's treaty obligations. Criminal offence penalties are generally commensurate with similar offences relating to impacts and biodiversity on land; however, civil penalties in this bill were significantly lower than those provided under the EPBC Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. We just wanted to bring this bill in line with those.

As outlined by a number of national and international environment and ocean conservation groups, the high seas treaty will face unique challenges relating to compliance and enforcement, and the Greens want to see increased effort by all parties to the treaty to ensure the compliance regime is as robust as possible from the outset with the ability to strengthen these provisions over time. Specifically the Greens believe the bill could be further improved by aligning civil penalty provisions with those contained in the 2025 amendments to the EPBC Act, including to allow for the calculation of penalties by reference to the benefit derived by the entity from the offending conduct.

As I mentioned earlier, Australia has ratified the BBNJ, the high seas treaty. I do believe we're a little bit late to do that, but nevertheless it's been great that it has been done and we are now passing that into law today. There are countries that haven't ratified it. We would obviously like to see pressure or diplomacy over time to bring them on board. The US is one. It's very disappointing they haven't ratified this yet, as I understand, nor have Russia, India and some other key players. China ratified this in 2025. It's really important for those that have ratified this bill to be able to take actions against any, for example, Australian operators who might have been operating in the high seas and breached this legally binding bill once it's been ratified. The Greens commend these amendments to the Senate, and we do believe they improve the bill. I seek leave to move the amendments together.

Leave granted.

I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3709 together:

(1) Clause 4, page 4 (line 9), after "measures", insert ", such as the establishment of a marine protected area,".

(2) Clause 5, page 9 (after line 30), after the definition of marine genetic resource, insert:

marine protected area has the same meaning as in the BBNJ Agreement.

(3) Clause 54, page 49 (line 6), after "area-based management tool", insert ", including a marine protected area,".

(4) Clause 58, page 52 (line 5), after "area-based management tool", insert ", including a marine protected area,".

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (11) on sheet 3713 together:

(1) Clause 62, page 55 (line 20), omit "500", substitute "5,000".

(2) Clause 63, page 56 (line 14), omit "500", substitute "5,000".

(3) Clause 98, page 87 (line 21), omit "1,000", substitute "5,000".

(4) Clause 99, page 89 (line 4), omit "500", substitute "5,000".

(5) Clause 100, page 89 (line 22), omit "500", substitute "5,000".

(6) Clause 101, page 90 (line 15), omit "500", substitute "5,000".

(7) Clause 102, page 91 (line 9), omit "1,000", substitute "5,000".

(8) Clause 103, page 92 (line 20), omit "500", substitute "5,000".

(9) Clause 104, page 93 (line 12), omit "500", substitute "5,000".

(10) Clause 105, page 94 (line 5), omit "500", substitute "5,000".

(11) Clause 116, page 109 (after line 22), at the end of the clause, add:

Maximum penalty certain contraventions by a body corporate

(4) Despite subsection 82(5) of the Regulatory Powers Act, the pecuniary penalty that a relevant court may order a body corporate to pay for a contravention of a civil penalty provision in Part 3 or 4 of this Act must not be more than 10 times the pecuniary penalty specified for the civil penalty provision.

Note: Under subsection 82(5) of the Regulatory Powers Act, for a contravention of any other civil penalty provision of this Act by a body corporate, the pecuniary penalty imposed for the contravention must not be more than 5 times that specified for the provision.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.