Senator MARGETTS(11.36 a.m.) —by leave—We oppose Schedule 1, item 62 and item 63 in the following terms:

(7)   Schedule 1, item 62, page 32 (line 32) to page 33 (line l), TO BE OPPOSED.

(8)   Schedule l, item 63, page 33 (lines 2 to 6), TO BE OPPOSED.

We will be seeking to oppose the changes to section 132. That section establishes that it is an offence to violate Commonwealth environmental regulations. It is not the same as non-compliance with environmental strategy nor it is the same as creating environmental damage. Regulations are effectively laws which override state and territory environmental laws, and regulation and penalties for violation of regulations are appropriate.

The government seeks to tie penalties for violations of regulation to actual environmental damage, setting the maximum penalty as equivalent to the maximum penalty for such damage. This is equivalent to saying that running a red light should only attract a fine if an accident results. I always remember reading an old law from the United Kingdom about ferry operators overloading; one of the penalties was transportation to Australia—heaven forbid!—and it said `if anybody drowned'. Perhaps this is one of those `if anybody drowns' penalties.

This equivalent saying that running a red light should only attract a fine if an accident results and that the seriousness of the accident should determine the fine is nonsense. Violation of environmental regulations which would replace and override state and territory environmental laws is a serious thing even if no damage occurs. I note that the penalty prescribed—250 units—is, once again, a maximum penalty. Penalties may be prescribed under regulations themselves, and this should be respected. It is improper to tie such penalties to the impact of the violation. Therefore, we oppose clauses 62 and 63 of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN —The question before the chair is that items 62 and 63 stand as printed.

Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.