Division
Janet Rice After that short delay, we're back! Minister, let's go back to the things that would be covered under this act in my state of Victoria. I want to talk you through a scenario. Say there is logging occurring on public land—logging of our precious native forest, which is destroying our natural heritage, destroying threatened wildlife, destroying our water quality and quantity, destroying our carbon stores, destroying our forests. The logs from this logging operation are then transported to a chipmill or a pulp mill where they are going to be processed into woodchips. Protesters who are concerned about this logging operation feel that it is their right, and their civil responsibility in terms of protecting our native forests, to conduct a protest action at this wood processing facility—at this chipmill or pulp mill. Can you confirm for me, then, that it would be an offence under this legislation for any person or organisation to send out an email or a text message encouraging people to join this protest—that that would be caught under the provisions of this legislation? Bridget McKenzie Well, Senator Rice! Again—the emotive arguments of the Greens! Seventy thousand Australians—proud Australians, most of them in rural and regional Australia—work in the forestry industry. You continue to come in here and behave as if it is not a sustainable industry, with its management based on the best science, where we actually put aside resource for public enjoyment, for our flora and fauna to thrive and for our biodiversity outcomes to be met— Senator McKim interjecting— And, indeed, Senator McKim, we put aside resources to sequester carbon. That whole system exists to manage that resource, and 70,000 Australians and their families rely on mum or dad being a logger, like my dad used to be, being a truck driver, working in the woodchip processing plant or what have you. You come in here and say they're somehow not allowed to do that because someone feels that they need to s
Senate, 2019-09-12. affirmative: ayes 47, noes 8.
Question
Janet Rice After that short delay, we're back! Minister, let's go back to the things that would be covered under this act in my state of Victoria. I want to talk you through a scenario. Say there is logging occurring on public land—logging of our precious native forest, which is destroying our natural heritage, destroying threatened wildlife, destroying our water quality and quantity, destroying our carbon stores, destroying our forests. The logs from this logging operation are then transported to a chipmill or a pulp mill where they are going to be processed into woodchips. Protesters who are concerned about this logging operation feel that it is their right, and their civil responsibility in terms of protecting our native forests, to conduct a protest action at this wood processing facility—at this chipmill or pulp mill. Can you confirm for me, then, that it would be an offence under this legislation for any person or organisation to send out an email or a text message encouraging people to join this protest—that that would be caught under the provisions of this legislation? Bridget McKenzie Well, Senator Rice! Again—the emotive arguments of the Greens! Seventy thousand Australians—proud Australians, most of them in rural and regional Australia—work in the forestry industry. You continue to come in here and behave as if it is not a sustainable industry, with its management based on the best science, where we actually put aside resource for public enjoyment, for our flora and fauna to thrive and for our biodiversity outcomes to be met— Senator McKim interjecting— And, indeed, Senator McKim, we put aside resources to sequester carbon. That whole system exists to manage that resource, and 70,000 Australians and their families rely on mum or dad being a logger, like my dad used to be, being a truck driver, working in the woodchip processing plant or what have you. You come in here and say they're somehow not allowed to do that because someone feels that they need to s
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.