Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) - That leads me back to the amendment that is proposed, which basically, in summary, takes away searching for or taking fish and puts in something substantive, which is just taking fish—the action itself. This
has been taken out in lines 26, 27 and 29. In liaising with my colleagues it is a point where there is some comfort, and I thank Senator Brandis for his assistance on this. Basically what we are doing here is making
sure that there is no room for an overzealous court to go beyond what is precisely the action. I put forward to the government first of all whether they will clearly spell out what is the requisite act on which the premise of a conviction would be based. Secondly, in going through the explanatory memorandum and trying to define it myself, I notice that they talk about the moving of the definition by the GBRMP Act section 38CA to the interpretation section. Is the interpretation section, as noted in the explanatory memorandum on page 53 of 73, the zoning plan? I think those things need to be cleared up. If the GBRMP Act is the requisite act that will be relied on then I will continue forward with
my amendment. If it is not the requisite part but it is actually the zoning plan, then neither my amendment nor the government’s amendment will have any effect.

Senator JOYCE—by leave—I move the amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 5600:

(1) Schedule 6, item 9, page 114 (line 26), omit “searching for, or taking, fish”, substitute “taking fish”.
(2) Schedule 6, item 9, page 114 (line 27), omit “search for, or take, fish”, substitute “take fish”.
(3) Schedule 6, item 9, page 114 (line 29), omit “locating of, or taking of, fish”, substitute “taking of fish”.