Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
2013
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SENATE
ENVIRONMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013
REVISED EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Greg Hunt MP)
THIS MEMORANDUM TAKES ACCOUNT OF AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE BILL AS INTRODUCED
ENVIRONMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013
OUTLINE
The Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 (the Bill):
(a) addresses the implications arising from the Federal Courts decision in Tarkine
National Coalition Incorporated v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities [2013] FCA 694 (the Tarkine case); and
(b) amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
(the EPBC Act) to provide additional protection for turtles and dugong which are
listed threatened, migratory or marine species (,,listed turtles and dugong) by
increasing the financial penalties for various offence and civil penalty provisions; and
(c) amends the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cth) (the GBRMP Act) by
providing additional protection for protected species under the GBRMP Act, if those
species are in the Genus Dugong (dugong); or the Family Cheloniidae (marine
turtles); or are the species Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback turtles).
Amendments relating to approved conservation advice
Schedule 1 of the Bill provides that a failure by the Minister to comply with a requirement to
have regard to any relevant approved conservation advice for specified decisions and
instruments under the EPBC Act made prior to 31 December 2013, does not invalidate those
decisions and instruments. The requirement to consider approved conservation advice under
the EPBC Act is not altered by the amendments. The objective of Schedule 1 of the Bill is to
address the implications arising from the Tarkine case.
Schedule 1 of the Bill will apply to decisions and instruments made prior to 31 December
2013 to provide certainty for decisions and instruments made by the Minister under the
EPBC Act. This will not limit the rights of proponents under the EPBC Act.
Amendments relating to turtles and dugong
Schedule 2 of the Bill amends the EPBC Act and the GBRMP Act to provide additional
protection for dugong and turtle populations from the threats of poaching, illegal trade and
illegal transportation. The amendments increase the financial penalties for various offences
and civil penalty provisions relating to listed dugong and turtles. These amendments will
deter persons from committing offences or breaching civil penalty provisions by imposing
increased penalties in respect of the illegal killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving
of turtles and dugong.
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The Bill will have no financial impact.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
The Office of Best Practice Regulation has advised (proposal IDs 16071 and 15329) that
neither the amendments to the EPBC Act relating to approved conservation advice, nor the
2
amendments to the EPBC Act and GBRMP Act relating to turtles and dugong, require a
regulatory impact statement.
STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS - PART 3 HUMAN RIGHTS
(PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY) ACT 2011
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
This Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the
international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act
2011.
Overview of the Bill
The Bill:
(a) through Schedule 1, provides legal certainty for specified decisions made on or
before 31 December 2013 that require the Minister to have regard to any relevant
approved conservation advice;
(b) amends the EPBC Act to provide additional protection for listed turtles and dugong;
and
(c) amends the GBRMP Act by providing additional protection for protected species
under the GBRMP Act, if those species are in the Genus Dugong (dugong); or the
Family Cheloniidae (marine turtles); or Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback turtles).
Human rights implications
The Bill does not limit any absolute rights. In particular, the Bill does not discriminate on the
grounds of race. It does not affect the rights of traditional peoples to harvest dugong and
turtles for the purposes of domestic, non-commercial communal needs preserved by
section 211 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), for instance, through exceptions to the offence
provisions which apply to actions taken in accordance with traditional use of marine
resources agreements made under the GBRMP Act.
The Bill engages the following human right:
Right to the presumption of innocence
Amendments relating to turtles and dugong - generally
Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects the
right of every individual charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved
guilty according to law. The right to the presumption of innocence is also a fundamental
principle of the common law. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated that
the presumption of innocence "imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge
3
and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt".
The Bill does not create new offence provisions under either the EPBC Act or GBRMP Act.
Rather, it increases the maximum financial penalties for specific existing offences where the
prohibited conduct concerns dugong or turtles. The Bill does not increase the maximum
prison terms for any offences under either Act.
Amendments relating to turtles and dugong - strict liability offences
A number of sections in the Bill engage the right to the presumption of innocence because
they increase the penalties for strict liability offences.
A strict liability offence can be considered to engage Article 14(2) of the ICCPR because it
removes the requirement for the prosecution to prove fault. The Bill applies strict liability to
the physical elements of circumstance, for example in respect of the EPBC Act, that the
animal to which the offence relates is a member of a listed threatened species, a listed
migratory species, or a listed marine species. This creates a risk that a person may be found
guilty of an offence in circumstances where the person did not know or was reckless as to
the fact that the animal was a member of the relevant species.
However, the imposition of strict liability still allows a defendant to raise a defence of honest
and reasonable mistake. This ensures that a person cannot be held liable if he or she had an
honest and reasonable belief that they were complying with relevant obligations. For
example, a person may not be liable if the person was under an honest and reasonable
belief that, for example, they did not injure a dugong or turtle.
The increase in penalties for strict liability offences in the Bill are considered necessary and
appropriate to ensure there is an effective deterrence to contraventions of the obligations
under the EPBC Act and GBRMP Act.
The application of strict liability is a proportionate limitation of the right to the presumption of
innocence because of the high public interest in protecting and conserving marine turtle and
dugong populations. A strong deterrence, in the form of an effective enforcement regime, is
required because of the conservation status of these species. The effectiveness of the
enforcement regime would be undermined if it were necessary for the prosecution to prove
that a person intended not to comply with those provisions.
The application of the penalty provisions have been developed with regard to the Guide to
Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers.
Conclusion
The Bill is compatible with human rights because it does not detrimentally impact the
protection of human rights and to the extent that it may limit human rights, those limitations
are reasonable, necessary and proportionate.
Minister for the Environment, the Hon Greg Hunt MP
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Schedule 1 Amendments relating to approved conservation advice 6
Schedule 2 Amendments relating to turtle and dugong 8
5
Explanatory Memorandum - Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
SCHEDULE 1 AMENDMENTS RELATING TO APPROVED CONSERVATION ADVICE
Purpose of amendments relating to approved conservation advice
1.1 Approved conservation advices contain information on key threats to listed
threatened species or ecological communities and actions needed to aid the recovery
of the species or ecological community, as well as a statement of priority for
additional recovery action, such as the development of a recovery plan. The Minister
must ensure that there is an approved conservation advice for all listed threatened
species and ecological communities at all times while the species or community
remains listed under the EPBC Act.
1.2 Schedule 1 provides that decisions and instruments made under the EPBC Act prior
to 31 December 2013 would not be invalid merely on the basis that the requirement
to have regard to a relevant approved conservation advice was not met, whilst
maintaining the requirement for the Minister to have regard to any relevant approved
conservation advice. Provisions in the EPBC Act relating to approved conservation
advice will not be effected.
1.3 The purpose of Schedule 1 is to address the risk to past decisions made under the
EPBC Act arising from the Federal Courts decision in the Tarkine case. In that
decision the Federal Court (Marshall J) declared invalid the approval given to Shree
Minerals Limited under Part 9 of the EPBC Act due to a failure to "have regard to" a
relevant approved conservation advice, as required under section 139(2).
Item 1 - Non-compliance with requirement to have regard to relevant approved
conservation advice
1.4 Item 1 provides that if the Minister fails to have regard to conservation advices under
the EPBC Act this will not invalidate any thing, in respect of any thing done by the
Minister prior to 31 December 2013.
1.5 The requirement that the Minister must consider any relevant approved conservation
advice in relation to specified matters under the EPBC Act commenced on
19 February 2007. For example, decisions under the EPBC Act that require the
consideration of approved conservation advice, include:
(a) making a declaration under section 33 relating to a listed threatened species or
ecological community;
(b) accrediting a management arrangement or authorisation process under section
33 for the purposes of a declaration relating to a listed threatened species or
ecological community;
(c) making a decision under Part 9 that relates to a listed threatened species or
community; and
(d) entering into a conservation agreement that would or could affect a listed
threatened species or ecological community.
6
There are a number of other provisions which require the Minister, or his or her
delegate, to have regard to relevant approved conservation advice.
1.6 Item 1 ensures that the validity of the relevant decision or other instrument made
prior to 31 December 2013 that requires consideration of any relevant approved
conservation advice is not affected by a failure to have regard to the relevant
approved conservation advice.
1.7 The Bill will not effect the provisions relating to conservation advice under the EPBC
Act.
Item 2 - Validation of certain acts done under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
1.8 Item 2 provides that decisions and other instruments that have been made under the
EPBC Act before the amendments commence are also not invalid because of any
failure to have regard to any approved conservation advice as required by the EPBC
Act in connection with that decision or instrument.
1.9 Item 2 will benefit proponents by providing certainty for existing decisions and the
projects that rely on those decisions.
7
SCHEDULE 2 AMENDMENTS RELATING TO TURTLES AND DUGONG
Purpose of amendments relating to turtles and dugong
2.1 The EPBC Act currently contains various criminal offences relating to the killing,
injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving of turtles and dugong where they are a
listed threatened, migratory or marine species.
2.2 The GBRMP Act currently contains criminal offences and civil penalty provisions
which apply to the taking of, or injury to, turtles and dugong where they are a
protected species under that Act.
2.3 The Bill amends the EPBC Act and the GBRMP Act to provide additional protection
for listed dugong and turtle populations from the threats of poaching, illegal trade and
illegal transportation by increasing the financial penalties for various offences and
civil penalty provisions.
2.4 Schedule 2 makes amendments to the EPBC Act and the GBRMP Act to triple
relevant penalty provisions, that is:
(a) increase the financial penalty provisions in Part 13 of the EPBC Act for the
offences of killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving a listed
threatened, migratory or marine species where that species is a turtle or a
dugong; and
(b) increase the financial penalty provisions in Division 2 of Part VAA of the
GBRMP Act for offences and civil penalty provisions in relation to taking or
injuring protected turtles and dugong within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
2.5 As per section 4D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), section 481 of the EPBC Act and
section 61AIC of the GBRMP Act, the penalties are maximum penalties for the
relevant criminal offence or civil penalty provision.
2.6 These amendments to the EPBC Act and the GBRMP Act only apply to offences or,
for the GBRMP Act, offences and civil penalties, relating to listed and protected
turtles and dugong and will not increase penalties for offences and contraventions
relating to other listed threatened, migratory or marine species under the EPBC Act
or other protected species under the GBRMP Act.
2.7 The amendments to the EPBC Act and the GBRMP Act implement the Governments
pre-election policy statement ,,Coalitions Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan in which
the Government made a commitment to ,,[w]ithin six months .... introduce Federal
legislation tripling the penalties for poaching and illegal transportation of turtle and
dugong meat.
2.8 These amendments will deter persons from committing offences or breaching civil
penalty provisions relating to turtle and dugong by imposing increased penalties.
These amendments aim to reduce the illegal killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping
or moving of turtles and dugong and thereby providing additional protection for these
species.
8
2.9 Pursuant to the Native Title Act 1993, native title holders have a right to exercise
native title rights to harvest marine turtles and dugong for the purpose of personal,
domestic, or non-commercial communal needs. The increased penalties, in
conjunction with other initiatives, will deter the illegal killing or injuring of turtles and
dugong and thereby provide additional protection for these species.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
Items 1, 13, 15, 27, 29 and 41 - Offences for killing or injuring member of listed
threatened species or community, listed migratory species or listed marine species
2.10 Items 1, 15 and 29 change the maximum penalty from 1,000 penalty units to 3,000
penalty units for a contravention of the aggravated offence of killing or injuring a
member of a listed threatened species or community, a listed migratory species or a
listed marine species. The note in each of the relevant subsections has been
repealed to reflect current drafting practice.
2.11 Items 13, 27 and 41 create the aggravated offence of killing or injuring a member of a
listed threatened species or community, a listed migratory species or a listed marine
species where the member of the species is a turtle or dugong.
2.12 Sections 196F(2), 211F(2) and 254F(2) provide that if the prosecution intend to prove
an aggravated offence this must be specified in the charge for such offence.
2.13 Sections 196F(3), 211F(3) and 254F(3) provide for strict liability to apply in relation to
the circumstance that the relevant member is a listed turtle or dugong. The intent of
these provisions is to make it absolutely clear that the prosecution does not have to
show a person knew or was reckless as to the fact that the relevant member was a
listed turtle or dugong. The use of strict liability in this way is consistent with the other
offence provisions in Part 3 of the EPBC Act (see for example section 18A that
applies strict liability to the fact that a species is a listed threatened species or a
community is a listed threatened community).
2.14 The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and
Enforcement Powers (September 2011 edition) (the Criminal Guide) which was
developed by the Attorney-Generals Department to assist officers to frame criminal
offences, infringement notices, and enforcement provisions was considered in
drafting the penalty provisions and in determining the appropriate penalty which
applies for each provision.
2.15 The penalties, and not the imprisonment terms, have been increased for these
amendments as the current imprisonment terms are appropriate for the offences.
Increasing the maximum fines allows greater flexibility to ensure the penalty will
outweigh any financial benefits from committing the relevant offence and provide an
increased disincentive without the additional financial and social costs associated
with increased incarceration.
2.16 The increased penalties, in conjunction with other initiatives, will deter the illegal
killing or injuring of turtles and dugong and thereby provide additional protection for
these species.
9
Items 3, 17 and 31 - Strict liability offences for killing or injuring member of listed
threatened species or community, listed migratory species or listed marine species
2.17 Items 3, 17 and 31 change the maximum penalty from 500 penalty units to 1,500
penalty units for a contravention of the strict liability aggravated offence provision of
killing or injuring a member of a listed threatened species or community, a listed
migratory species or a listed marine species. The aggravated offence is that the
member of the listed species is a turtle or dugong. The note in each of the relevant
subsections has been repealed to reflect current drafting practice.
2.18 The amendment of this strict liability offence is proposed having considered the
Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee Sixth Report of 2002: Application of Absolute and
Strict Liability Offences in Commonwealth Legislation (the Strict Liability Report),
as well as the Criminal Guide. Having regard to these documents, the amendment to
the strict liability offence by tripling the penalty units is justified to deter the illegal
killing or injuring of turtles and dugong and thereby provide additional protection for
these species.
Items 5, 19 and 33 - offences for taking etc. member of listed threatened species or
community, listed migratory species or listed marine species
2.19 Items 5, 19 and 33 change the maximum penalty from 1,000 penalty units to 3,000
penalty units for a contravention of the aggravated offence of taking, trading, keeping
or moving a member of a listed threatened species or community, a listed migratory
species or a listed marine species. The aggravated offence is that the member of the
listed species is a turtle or dugong. The note in each of the relevant subsections has
been repealed to reflect current drafting practice.
2.20 The Criminal Guide was considered in drafting the penalty provisions and in
determining the appropriate penalty which applies for each provision.
2.21 The penalties, and not the imprisonment terms, have been increased for these
amendments as the current imprisonment terms are appropriate for the offences.
Increasing the maximum fines allows greater flexibility to ensure the penalty will
outweigh any financial benefits from committing the relevant offence and provide an
increased disincentive without the additional financial and social costs associated
with increased incarceration.
2.22 The increased penalties, in conjunction with other initiatives, will deter the illegal
taking, trading, keeping or moving of turtles and dugong and thereby provide
additional protection for these species.
Items 7, 21 and 35 - strict liability offences for taking etc. member of listed threatened
species or community, listed migratory species or listed marine species
2.23 Items 7, 21 and 35 change the maximum penalty from 500 penalty units to 1,500
penalty units for a contravention of the strict liability aggravated offence provision of
taking, trading, keeping or moving a member of a listed threatened species or
community, a listed migratory species or a listed marine species. The aggravated
offence is that the member of the listed species is a turtle or dugong. The note in
10
each of the relevant subsections has been repealed to reflect current drafting
practice.
2.24 The amendment of this strict liability offence is proposed having considered the Strict
Liability Report and the Criminal Guide. Having regard to these documents, the
amendment to the strict liability offence by tripling the penalty units is justified to deter
the illegal taking, trading, keeping or moving of turtles and dugong and thereby
provide additional protection for these species.
Items 9, 23 and 37 - offences for trading etc. member of listed threatened species or
community, listed migratory species or listed marine species in Commonwealth area
2.25 Items 9, 23 and 37 change the maximum penalty from 1,000 penalty units to 3,000
penalty units for a contravention of the aggravated offence of trading, keeping or
moving a member of a listed threatened species or community, a listed migratory
species or a listed marine species in a Commonwealth area. The aggravated offence
is that the member of the listed species is a turtle or dugong. The note in each of the
relevant subsections has been repealed to reflect current drafting practice.
2.26 The Criminal Guide was considered in drafting the penalty provisions and in
determining the appropriate penalty which applies for each provision.
2.27 The penalties, and not the imprisonment terms, have been increased for these
amendments as the current imprisonment terms are appropriate for the offences.
Increasing the maximum fines allows greater flexibility to ensure the penalty will
outweigh any financial benefits from committing the relevant offence and provide an
increased disincentive without the additional financial and social costs associated
with increased incarceration.
2.28 The increased penalties, in conjunction with other initiatives, will deter the illegal
trading, keeping or moving of turtles and dugong in a Commonwealth area and
thereby provide additional protection for these species in such areas.
Items 11, 25 and 39 - strict liability offences for trading etc. member of listed
threatened species or community, listed migratory species or listed marine species in
Commonwealth area
2.29 Items 11, 25 and 39 change the maximum penalty from 500 penalty units to 1,500
penalty units for a contravention of the strict liability aggravated offence provision of
trading, keeping or moving a member of a listed threatened species or community, a
listed migratory species or a listed marine species in a Commonwealth area. The
aggravated offence is that the member of the listed species is a turtle or dugong. The
note in each of the relevant subsections has been repealed to reflect current drafting
practice
2.30 The amendment of this strict liability offence is proposed having considered the Strict
Liability Report and the Criminal Guide. Having regard to these documents, the
amendment to the strict liability offence by tripling the penalty units is justified to deter
the illegal killing or injuring of turtles and dugong in Commonwealth areas and
thereby provide additional protection for these species in such areas.
11
Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38 and 40
2.31 The insertion of the aggravated offence provisions in sections 196F, 211F and 254F
and the tripling of penalties for these aggravated offences require consequential
amendments to be made. The amendments in items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22,
24, 26, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38 and 40 relate to the deletion of a subsection containing the
previous penalties for the offence provisions that have been replaced by new penalty
provisions for the aggravated and existing offences.
Items 14 and 28
2.32 As a result of the additional aggravated offence provisions in sections 196F and 211F
being introduced into the EPBC Act, there are flow-on consequential amendments
required. For example, section 197 provides that certain actions are not
contraventions or offences under sections 196, 196A, 196B, 196C, 196D, 196E and
207B of the EPBC Act, if they satisfy a matter listed under section 197(1). The
amendment made by item 14 ensures that the exemptions in section 197 of the
EPBC Act apply to new aggravated offence provision (section 196F). Similarly, the
amendment made by item 28 ensures that the exemptions in section 212 apply to the
new aggravated offence provision in section 211F.
Item 42
2.33 This item inserts a definition for ,,aggravated offence into the general list of definitions
in section 528 of the EPBC Act. This definition has three parts to clarify that
aggravated offence will have the meaning in: section 196F for the offence provisions
in Division 1 of Part 13, Chapter 5 of the EPBC Act (listed threatened species and
ecological communities); section 211F for the offence provisions in Division 2 of Part
13, Chapter 5 of the EPBC Act (migratory species); and section 254F for the offence
provisions in Division 4 of Part 13, Chapter 5 of the EPBC Act (listed marine species).
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cth)
Items 46 and 47 - Strict liability offence
2.34 Item 46 changes the maximum penalty for an offence against section 38BA(3), being
a strict liability offence, from 60 penalty units to 180 penalty units, where that conduct
involves the taking of or injury to dugong, marine turtles or leatherback turtles that are
protected species under the GBRMP Act.
2.35 Item 47 will ensure that strict liability applies to section 38BA(3A). This will clarify that
proof of knowledge or recklessness by the prosecution does not apply to the
circumstances in sections 38BA(3A)(b),(c) and (d).
2.36 In relation to paragraph 38BA(3A)(b), the prosecution will not need to prove that a
person knew or was reckless as to whether their conduct would have the result of the
taking of or injury to an animal.
2.37 In relation to section 38BA(3A)(c) and (d), the prosecution will not need to prove that
a person knew or was reckless as to whether the animal taken or injured was a
dugong, marine turtle or leatherback turtle, nor will the prosecution need to prove that
12
the person knew, or knew or was reckless as to whether a dugong, marine turtle or
leatherback turtle was a protected species under the GBRMP Act. It will be sufficient
for the prosecution to simply prove that a dugong, marine turtle or leatherback turtle
was taken or injured as a result of the conduct that constituted an offence under
section 38BA(3).
2.38 The amendment of this strict liability offence is proposed having considered the Strict
Liability Report and the Criminal Guide. Having regard to these documents, the
amendment to the strict liability offence by tripling the penalty units is justified to deter
the illegal taking or injuring of turtles and dugong and thereby provides additional
protection for these species.
Item 52 - aggravated offence provision
2.39 Item 52 changes the maximum penalty for an aggravated offence under section
38GA from 2,000 penalty units to 6,000 penalty units, where the conduct involves the
taking of, or injury to, dugong, marine turtles or leatherback turtles that are listed
marine species under the EPBC Act.
2.40 Pursuant to section 38GA(10), the prosecution will need to specify in the charge
which species of either dugong, marine turtle or leatherback turtle was alleged to
have been taken or injured.
2.41 Pursuant to section 38GA(11), the prosecution will not need to prove that a person
knew or was reckless as to whether the animal taken or injured was a dugong,
marine turtle or leatherback turtle. It will be sufficient for the prosecution to simply
prove that a dugong, marine turtle or leatherback turtle was taken or injured as a
result of the conduct that constituted an offence under section 38BA(1).
2.42 The Criminal Guide was considered in drafting the penalty provisions and in
determining the appropriate penalty which applies for each provision.
2.43 The penalties, and not the imprisonment terms, have been increased for these
amendments as the current imprisonment terms are appropriate for the offences.
Increasing the maximum fines allows greater flexibility to ensure the penalty will
outweigh any financial benefits from committing the relevant offence and provide an
increased disincentive without the additional financial and social costs associated
with increased incarceration.
2.44 The amendment is tripling the financial penalty to deter the illegal killing, injuring,
taking, trading, keeping or moving of turtles or dugong and thereby provides
additional protection for these species.
Item 54 - civil penalty provision
2.45 Item 54 changes the maximum penalty for an aggravated contravention against
section 38BB from 5,000 penalty units to 15,000 penalty units for an individual and
from 50,000 penalty units to 150,000 penalty units for a body corporate, where that
conduct involves the taking of, or injury to, dugong, marine turtles or leatherback
turtles that are also protected species under the GBRMP Act.
13
2.46 Pursuant to section 38GB(7), the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, in an
application to the Federal Court alleging a person has committed an aggravated
contravention, must specify in the application which species of either dugong, marine
turtle or leatherback turtle was alleged to have been taken or injured.
2.47 The amendment is tripling the financial penalty to deter the illegal killing, injuring,
taking, trading, keeping or moving of turtles or dugong and thereby providing
additional protection for these species.
Items 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 53
2.48 As a result of the tripling of penalties for certain strict liability offence, aggravated
offence and aggravated contravention provisions in sections 38BA, 38GA and 38GB,
there are flow-on consequential amendments required.
2.49 There are a number of clarifying notes added to sections 38BA, 38BB, 38GA and
38GB. For example, after the penalty provision in section 38BA(1) there is a note
referring to the new penalty for aggravated offences in circumstances where section
38GA(9) applies. The amendment made by item 43 ensures that the new aggravated
offence penalty for turtles and dugong in section 38GA(9) is referred to in section
38BA(1).
2.50 The addition of clarifying notes has also led to consequential amendments to re-
number existing notes in the GBRMP Act, for instance, see item 44.
14
Index]
[Search]
[Download]
[Bill]
[Help]