|
Mutual Enforcement of Judgments on Rights of Access to Children: Motion.
11th October, 2000 Mr. Cassidy: I move:
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Ms Hanafin): The need for this motion arises because of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution which enabled Ireland to ratify the Amsterdam Treaty and also allowed the State to exercise certain options contained in that Treaty, including the option in the fourth Protocol. Under the terms of the constitutional amendment, such exercise is subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Treaty of Amsterdam, which came into operation on 1 May 1999 added to the EC Treaty a new Title IV which deals with visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons, including judicial co-operation in civil matters. The fourth Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty establishes the positions of Ireland and the United Kingdom in relation to the issues arising under Title IV. Its effect is to exempt both countries from all the provisions of Title IV but to permit either or both to opt in to particular measures under the terms and conditions set out in the Protocol. Under Article 3 of the Protocol, the State has three months from the date a proposal or initiative is presented to the Council of Ministers to notify our wish to take part in the adoption and application of the measure. We may also accept a measure any time after it has been adopted. It is important to point out that the conference which adopted the Amsterdam Treaty took note of a declaration by Ireland that it intended to exercise its right under Article 3 of the Protocol to take part in the adoption of measures pursuant to Title IV to the maximum extent compatible with the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the United Kingdom. It follows from this that our predisposition in relation to measures such as the one we are now discussing is to participate in their adoption. This will be the seventh occasion on which the approval of both Houses will have been sought for the State to exercise the option provided in the fourth Protocol in respect of a proposal for an EU legal instrument. Under Article 65 of the Amsterdam Treaty, judicial co-operation in civil matters includes, among other things, measures aimed at improving and simplifying the recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial cases. Formerly, judicial co-operation in civil matters was dealt with under the Third Pillar of the Maastricht Treaty, which was largely intergovernmental in nature. The Amsterdam Treaty changed that by including this subject in the EC Treaty, that is, the First Pillar. For a transitional period of five years from the coming into force of the Amsterdam Treaty member states share with the Commission the right to table new initiatives. The draft regulation we are now discussing is an example of a proposal made by a member state, in this case France which, as it happens, currently holds the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. The consequence of the presentation of this measure by France to the Council is that if the State wishes to opt in to its adoption, we have until 13 October to inform the President of the Council of our intentions. Failure to opt in at this time does not prevent us from participating in relevant meetings of the Council working parties which will discuss these proposals. However, we would not be able to opt in until the negotiations were concluded and the measure adopted, and our ability to influence the outcome of the discussions would be correspondingly limited. In October 1999, the European Council, at a meeting in Tampere, Finland, on the creation of a European area of freedom, security and justice, highlighted the need to establish a genuine European judicial area. In that regard, the Council endorsed the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgments. Judgments in the area of family litigation, including those relating to access rights, were considered by the European Council as being appropriate for early action to promote this principle. This draft regulation aims to ensure the effective exercise in one member state of rights of access ordered in another member state and the return of the child to the custodial parent once rights of access have been exercised. The scope of the regulation as it stands is confined to marital children. The regulation addresses the right of children to maintain regular contact with both parents, whatever the parents' place of residence. The draft regulation is essentially a modification of the Brussels II Regulation on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for joint children: Article 14 of the draft regulation provides that Brussels II shall apply to the judgments covered save where otherwise provided in this draft. The principal features of the draft regulation are, first, it relates to marital children under the age of 16 when enforcement of a judgment is sought; second, a judgment on rights of access which has been given and is enforceable in a member state, even provisionally, can be enforced in any other member state without the need to obtain a declaration of enforceability in the latter state - this is a derogation from Brussels II which requires a declaration of enforceability; third, enforcement of the access order may only be suspended in limited circumstances, namely, if enforcement of the order would put the child's interests at serious risk or if there is another enforceable judgment which is irreconcilable - however, while enforcement may only be suspended in these circumstances, the custodial parent can bring proceedings for a decision that the order should not be recognised or enforced on the grounds set out in the Brussels II Regulation but, unless and until the court decides in the custodial parent's favour, the order will not be suspended and will continue to be enforced; fourth, if the child is not returned to the parent with custody rights at the end of the period of access, the custodial parent may apply in the host state for the prompt return of the child and the court must order the return of the child notwithstanding grounds of local jurisdiction or grounds under the Hague Convention on child abduction, to which Ireland is a party, which may exist for refusal; and, finally, central authorities are to be established by member states to exchange information, to encourage voluntary return of children and to arrange any necessary legal proceedings. This measure will supplement existing international and EU law in the area. Many Senators will be aware that Ireland is, with the other EU states, a party to the Hague and Council of Europe conventions on child abduction, which provide for the return of children to the place from which they have been wrongfully abducted by a parent but also cover the case where a child is wrongfully retained under access arrangements in another state. Those conventions, particularly the Hague Convention, which are administered by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform have operated with considerable success over the years. A difficulty with the Hague Convention is that, although it is intertwined with international abduction cases, it does not adequately address the problem of enforcing access rights. Certain of those difficulties are addressed in the 1996 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children. Ireland has taken a leading role among EU states and elsewhere by bringing forward legislation to enable ratification of that convention. Australia and New Zealand are preparing similar legislation. Our legislation is the Protection of Children (Hague Convention) Bill which is at present before this House, having been passed by the Dáil. The EU proposal we are now discussing is framed in a different way from the 1996 convention and, as I have said, is confined to marital children. Nevertheless, the EU initiative proposed by France is indicative of the importance that attaches to the subject of access orders. Having been presented to the Council of Ministers, work on the draft regulation is now to proceed in a Council working party and the outcome of negotiations in the Council framework will be submitted, in due course, for decision by the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers. It is fair to say that, based on the discussions which have taken place to date, two aspects of the proposal which are giving rise to some concern on the part of at least some member states are the provision that a declaration of enforceability will not be necessary in the requested state and, second, the exact circumstances in which enforcement of an order can be suspended. It is clear that a good deal of revision will be required of the regulation before it is acceptable in full to member states, including Ireland. I will, of course, take account of points that may be made by Senators on any aspect of the proposal. Opting in at this stage, then, does not imply that we will approve of everything in the proposal as it now stands but it does give us the scope to participate to maximum effect in the development of the measure. It is important that Ireland responds positively by exercising its right to opt in now so that we can play a full and constructive part in the negotiations at working party level and, ultimately, in the Justice and Home Affairs Council. Molaim an rún seo don tSeanad. Mr. Connor: I welcome the Minister of State to the House, particularly in view of the fact that she is presenting this draft regulation, which arises from article three of the fourth protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam, in relation to the enforcement of custody orders across the European Union. However, much discussion and refinement of the regulation is needed before it finally becomes part of European law. We are right to opt in at this stage so that we will be able to participate fully in the making of the final draft. The Minister of State rightly made the point that if we opted out at this stage, while we would be part of the working group negotiations, our next opportunity to opt in would be when the draft is finalised. At that stage, we would have had no influence over the shape of the final draft. The major shortcoming of the draft is, as the Minister of State said, that it applies only to marital children. Not only is that a very serious shortcoming, it also amounts to serious discrimination. I hope that, as we are opting in so that we can be part of the negotiations on the final paper, we will argue very strongly that the terms must be broadened to include children born inside and outside marriage. We cannot forget that one third of all births in this country today are outside marriage, which is a social phenomenon of our time. Battles are fought in our courts on a daily basis over the custody of non-marital children. The other major shortcoming is that it applies only to children who are under 16 years of age when the enforcement judgment is applied for. Many people would say that is at least one year too young and would argue it should apply to children under 17 or even 18 years. I ask the Minister of State to take these serious points on board. Legal actions in regard to the custody of children often centre around the right of the mother to be the guardian of children or to have the greater access to them. This kind of culture has grown up in law. The Children Act, 1997, gave fathers of non-marital children the right to seek guardianship of their children. The mother is the natural guardian of children. That legislation addressed a major gap in the law. However, in the legal culture fathers are often discriminated against, in terms of the language used and the attitudes displayed. We should argue along those lines in our contribution to the final draft. I welcome the proposal that legal action for the enforceability of access need only take place in one country, which I know there is debate about, and that there would be no need for further legal action in the other state involved. For example, legal action taken in France in regard to the abduction of a child would be legally binding in Ireland. However, there is rightly a derogation from that in special circumstances. The Minister of State mentioned two areas which could give rise to a lot of concern among many member states. They are the provision that a declaration of enforceability will not be necessary in the requested state and, second, the exact circumstances in which enforcement of an order can be suspended. These are two major issues. However, while not wishing to take from those two major concerns raised by the Minister of State, an even more important point is that this regulation only provides for the children of married couples. I was quite surprised to hear on a radio discussion this morning that there is very little reporting of family law cases in the Irish courts because of the in camera rule, which is for the right reasons. I am not talking here about press reporting but the normal reporting of judgments, in which a lot of wisdom is contained and from which much good law proceeds. This is in contrast with the position in the United Kingdom, where there is very comprehensive reportage which protects the identities of the people involved. The UK judgments are published and are a great source of information for legal professionals and the public. We need to look at that. There is a huge number of family law cases in our courts. I was surprised to hear there are two Circuit Court sittings in Dublin, with a third to be added, five days a week dealing with family law cases. They cover divorce, judicial separation, custody - which we are dealing with today - guardianship and so on. That does not take account of that the fact that there is at least one High Court judge in Dublin alone dealing with family law cases, nor does it take account of the amount of time the District Court in Dublin and throughout the country spends on family law cases, all of which are held in camera. A huge amount of jurisprudence arises from all that legal action but it is not reported. This is a matter that needs to be seriously looked at. We always try to protect the names of the victims in the same way as in criminal cases involving rape and sexual abuse which are heard in open court and are reported in the media without revealing the names to protect victims. The Court Services Board is having a look at this issue but the Minister's Department should be active in relation to it. I am in favour of retention of the in camera rule but the problem is that much of what should be reported in the official legal journal is not reported. I ask the Minister to look at that issue. I welcome the fact that this motion is being debated today. It has to be finished by 13 October. I sincerely hope before the final draft is signed the Minister will report to the House and give us an opportunity to comment on it before it becomes part of European law. |
| Dr. Fitzpatrick:
I welcome the motion. I welcome also the Minister of State to the
House. This is my first opportunity to welcome her here. It is my wish
that she will return to this House over many years with further
motions and Bills.
As Senator Connor said, this motion has to be passed by Friday. It allows us to sit down at the table with the other EU member states, except Denmark and England, to discuss ways and means in which access orders, granted in one member state, can be enforced in other member states. I welcome that. The Minister of State has said central authorities are to be established by member states to exchange information to encourage voluntary return. That is and should be the underlying tenet behind all these discussions. We all know that when family disputes enter the law courts the children suffer most. We are here to give the Minister permission to negotiate on behalf of Irish children or children born in Ireland who may be domiciled in other states of the EU. I have sympathy with Senator Connor's view that all children of a union should be included rather than merely marital children. It is possible when the discussions begin and they get down to teasing out the nitty gritty that we and all the other member states may be of the view that all children should be included. I welcome the motion and wish it well. Dr. Henry: It is nice to see the Minister of State getting so much support, given that this is an issue into which she and her officials have put a great deal of time. This motion is important and I am pleased she has taken the initiative and will be involved in the discussions on the resolution. Those discussions cannot but be helped by her input. It is interesting that the words that struck Senator Fitzpatrick were exactly the words that struck me as being the most important. They are that central authorities are to be established by member states to exchange information to encourage voluntary return of children and to arrange any necessary legal proceedings. Perhaps because of our professional backgrounds, Senator Fitzpatrick and I have seen too much of what happens to families when the law has to be invoked. The European President's representative for transnationally abducted children is an Irish MEP, Mary Banotti. When she commenced work in this area she thought she would have to deal with cases only once or twice a year. There is an amazing number of cases within the European Union each year, not to mention those in Ireland. There are over 100 cases in Ireland every year, most of which are settled amicably. Children are taken from various parts of England or Northern Ireland to Ireland by grandparents because parents have had a falling out. Some 50% come in here and 50% are taken out. Fortunately it has not become a cause célèbre in the newspapers. I view this as an important issue. It is sad when a marriage breaks down. Not only is it tragic for the children but they are used as weapons within the marriage. A court makes a decision on who should have custody of the children and on the visiting rights. The partner who may decide to go against the court decision uses the children against the other partner. Grandparents also get involved. This is an area for which we must try to set up the structures. What we seek is a voluntary return of the children, not more court cases. However, there will be further court cases. That means the structures will have to be set up here for whatever number there are. Not all cases will be from England or Northern Ireland. Some will be continental cases for which the facilities of interpreters and translators will be required to ensure the judgments of the various courts are accessible to those dealing with the cases here. I hope the necessary resources will be made available to the Minister's Department to ensure the structures are put in place. Like Senators Connor and Fitzpatrick, I am concerned that the scope of the regulation is confined to marital children. I cannot see why that is the case because it is at the end of a divorce settlement that problems occur. Perhaps we can discuss the position of non-marital children under the Protection of Children (Hague Convention) Bill. While the abduction of children transnationally can be by criminals, as in the recent dreadful cases in Italy, for child prostitution or involvement in pornography, as in the Russian cases, it is important to remember that in general these are family cases. They are the children of a marriage or the children of perhaps a long-term relationship. Senators have pointed to the high level of births outside marriage. Senator Connor put the figure at 30%, whereas I would have thought it was 25%. It could have increased during the course of the summer. People in long-term relationships, particularly men, do not fully understand they do not have the same rights regarding their children as if they were married. Young people who have two or three children and whom I try to address regarding the advisability of marriage see no good reason they should be married. We do not want to point out to them the problems they may encounter on breaking up when we are trying to encourage the relationship but the view abroad is that it makes little difference to the parents' position. We have to be aware of questions regarding total equality of rights in this situation. What about a child whose mother was raped? Does that father have the same rights to access to the child? I do not know. If he goes before the courts, what will his rights be? I look forward to the Minister of State teasing out these matters and I hope she will return to the House to discuss the resolution. I congratulate her and her officials on the initiative they have shown. Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Ms Hanafin): I thank Senators Connor, Fitzpatrick and Henry for their contributions. It is important that we exercise our option within the three month period for the reason the Senators have outlined, to ensure we can participate in the debate. I thank the Senators for not expecting me to have all the answers today. These issues can be teased out in the course of the debate on the resolution. It is an instrument which will facilitate access to children by their parents. It will clarify the law in member states in the European Union and it should have long-term and tangible benefits in terms of the time and expense involved in access proceedings in the civil courts. Senator Connor referred to the fact that it applies to children under the age of 16 years and said that a number of people were of the opinion that the age should be 17 or 18 years. The age of 16 years is in line with two international conventions, the Hague convention and the Council of Europe convention. However, the Senator's views can be debated further and taken into consideration during the negotiation of the regulation. The main issue of concern was the exclusion of non-marital children. As is the case here, this issue has caused great concern for many member states not least the French, who have indicated that they would like to extend the scope of existing instruments to address the legal needs of non-marital children. I am sure this will be reviewed and that the scope of the regulations for judgments concerning children will be central to all future discussions on this. It is expected that these new procedures for co-operation will result in the more efficient and effective functioning of judicial proceedings. It is my hope in relation to rights of access, irrespective of where judgments are made, that the interests of the child will be paramount at all times. Go raibh maith agaibh. Question put and agreed to. |
| Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
All the examples to which I can refer relate to matters with which I
have been dealing and the honourable civil servant accompanying the
Minister will know what I talking about. There was also new
legislation on the disposal of fish offal from processing factories
and this is not now allowed into the most modern sewage treatment
plants. Oil contained in herring and other fish prevents the sewage
treatment plants from operating properly. That left us back at square
one, wanting to know what to do. In Dingle the solution involves
laying a pipe from a central point to dispose of the fluid from fish
waste, which is treated first in the fish processing plant. This is
happening in Killybegs also. It only needs to be piped to a tidal part
of a harbour and flushed out to sea with the tide in the normal way.
There is really no great harm in it because, once it is out at sea,
crabs and fish feed on it.
That problem has arisen in Dingle and also in Killybegs in Donegal. I will not mention anybody by name, but the council is putting severe pressure on the processors in Dingle to get the job done. It has nearly got to the stage where the council must almost threaten these people with the law, but in the Dingle case the hold-up in putting down the pipe relates to an archaeological survey which Dúchas cannot undertake for three months. That is my only recommendation, that in the event that there are hold-ups in such works, the council involved would allow a little leeway. In the Dingle case, the council is not doing so and I am talking to the county manager about that. Although the processors have agreed to put down the pipe, the archaeological survey to which I refer forms part of this process. Over the years dumping at sea occurred in many areas, including along the east coast, and we knew nothing about it. In particular I am referring to the wrongful dumping by the British Government of ammunition and old explosives, etc., off our coast. This practice was wrong and I have said so on many occasions. I proposed at the time of the Harbours Bill, 1995, that no ship carrying nuclear waste should be allowed use Irish harbours and that is something I am proud to have achieved in this Chamber. Deputy Gilmore, then Minister of State, accepted the amendment, although he applied the departmental wording to it. Therefore it is written that all our ports are protected in that nuclear waste and other such substances cannot be transported through them. Ireland waters extend for 12 miles. On the east coast, Irish waters extend further than this 12 mile limit to the middle of the channel. I would like to see the Minister of State declare a nuclear-free zone in these Irish waters. He would be covered by the legislation introduced by his predecessor, Deputy Gilmore, in that there are certain radioactive materials, such as those related to X-ray and some other areas, which must be allowed into the country. Those materials do not worry me in any way. What worries me is Sellafield and the problems which it creates for us. I was advised by a person who knew what he was talking about. If the Minister imposed a nuclear-free zone extending to the 12 mile limit and on the east coast to the centre of the channel, we could then take the British Government to the European court for polluting our waters and breaking our laws. Even if my adviser is wrong, I would still like to pursue it because the Minister of State, judging from where he lives, and everybody in the Seanad would welcome such a declaration. The world would applaud such legislation to declare a nuclear-free zone. A few years ago everybody laughed at a former Taoiseach when he declared the west coast a sanctuary for whales and dolphins. I have read about it since and watched programmes about it on the National Geographic Channel. People thought it meant nothing and wondered what was so important about whales and dolphins. However, it is now recognised throughout the world as one of the few whale and dolphin sanctuaries. That has nothing to do with the Bill but my point is that we should extend the nuclear-free zone, which exists already in our harbours and ports, to the 12 mile limit. If we did so, people throughout the world would congratulate us. It would protect the environment and, although the Minister's official may say it cannot be done, I would say that nothing is impossible and it is only that it would be difficult. I welcome this amending legislation. I did not refer to pollution from oil tankers, etc., and other waste matter which has been dumped at sea. We must be more vigilant. Although I have no proof, the level of waste floating around at sea leads me to believe that rubbish is being dumped by quite a number of vessels. That places more pressure on the Naval Service to be vigilant also. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr. Ryan: I thank Senator Norris for sharing his time with me. The Bill is very welcome and I have no argument with the changes. The extension of the range of Ministers who must be consulted to include the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands is correct and any movement in the direction of transparency is to be welcomed greatly. However, since the original legislation was enacted in 1996, a new view of the world has developed and the concept of sustainable development has become part of the philosophy of successive Governments. While, therefore, I sympathise with the practical concerns of Senator Tom Fitzgerald in Dingle, for obvious reasons and because of my well advertised affection for the area, I must say that this legislation does not address a fundamental issue. We have built this planet on the assumption that dilution is a solution, which is a phrase I use when talking to my students about the environment. We spent a long time believing that simply by putting noxious gases far enough into the atmosphere, dilution would solve the problem. We believed we could deal with our sewage by dilution. We are accepting now that neither of those works. This is equally true for the oceans, which are not infinite. Nobody would have believed 25 or 40 years ago it was possible the world could run out of marine fish stocks because we thought there was such a huge expanse of ocean. We now face the situation that we will run out of fish. The same is true of the assimilative capacity of the ocean, which is not infinite. That is the first fundamental issue. The principle of using the sea as a dump for anything cannot be maintained indefinitely and we must find a different way to deal with our waste. The second issue concerning the deliberations about the prohibition of toxic dumping is that the question of what is toxic is far from closed. There are 80,000 chemicals in use in the world today, of which less than 500 have been properly tested for their toxicity. Therefore, there are 79,500 untested chemicals in the world, most of which are synthetic chemicals the planet did not have in its portfolio until recently. The Minister cannot find an expert in the world who can tell him those 79,500 chemicals are not toxic. All the experts can tell him is that we have not proved they are toxic yet, which is a huge difference. I heard an eminent German scientist say 15 years ago that 25% of the list of dangerous chemicals in Germany were carcinogenic, that is, they caused cancer. He expected that within the next five years another 25% would be proven to be carcinogenic, but he had no idea which of them would be. Therefore, the welcome decision to ban the dumping of toxic material can be interpreted in as many different ways as one wants. Ultimately, it means we will ban the dumping of things we know to be toxic. However, we have no idea what harm will be done by the huge populations of western Europe, North America and the increasingly affluent regions of China and South America operating together, even if they operate with the level of scrupulous care with which successive Irish Governments have operated. By the time we know what harm they will do, it might be too late to do anything about it. Therefore, the ultimate long-term objective must be an international decision to end dumping in the sea. The basic philosophy that everyone articulates nowadays about waste generally is that one owns one's own waste and one deals with it oneself - one cannot make it someone else's problem or hand it over to someone else. Ultimately, everyone will have to accept that the waste they generate is part of the price they pay for whatever they do and they must dispose of it in a way where the only threat is to those who benefit from the development. This is not the current philosophy and it is very difficult to see it happening in the short term. However, in the longer term we will need to have a global convention, enforceable universally, banning dumping at sea because we do not know the effects of it. Currently, we cannot do anything about matters more than 350 miles from our coastline. That leaves a huge expanse of unregulated ocean inviting unregulated dumping. I know many countries are very conscientious and try to prevent this. However, we do not know what is being done, particularly in less developed countries and countries such as China, which do not have an open functioning democracy where one can know what is going on. By the time we know what is being done, it may be too late. Whole areas of the former Soviet Union are environmental wastelands and resemble places in some of the more horrific futuristic novels. We do not know what is happening in places such as the Barents Sea, where they may have dumped hundreds of defunct nuclear reactors. The Bill and the principles contained in it are welcome. However, the long-term solution and objective, in terms of sustainability, in the best sense of that word, must be a decision that no dumping will be permitted in the future in any of our oceans. Mr. Norris: I am divided in my mind about how glad I am that I shared time with my good colleague, Senator Ryan, because he said very effectively many of the things I wanted to say. Mr. Ryan: The Senator should not mind because I could not possibly have thought them up by myself. Mr. Norris: Senator Ryan is quite right about the problem of dumping. This Bill really just tidies up some things and makes others more explicit. It requires clarity, in terms of advertising in the local community, which is a very good idea because it means the people most directly affected by the possibility of commercial dumping will get an opportunity to have their voices heard. That is part of our democratic system and is welcome. The inclusion of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in the list of Ministers is also a good idea. The Lusitania wreck is only one example of the many opportunities for people to dive further, with increased technology, and recover objects. There are substantial wrecks which contain artefacts which may be of world cultural interest and may be looted by the 21st century equivalent of grave robbers. However, the principal issue is pollution. None of us is under the illusion that this will stop pollution. We can rehearse measures about non-dumping solutions, banning incineration at sea and banning the dumping of radioactive waste, yet the worst source of radioactive dumping in Europe is across the Irish Sea in Sellafield. Senator Ryan is right about the Russian situation. The tragic sinking of the submarine was the first one we heard about, but there is a lot more we do not know about. There is a lot of these submarines decaying on the ocean bed and they are time bombs. All of these matters affect fish stocks. Senators Fitzgerald and Ryan were right to sound a warning note in this regard. European countries that have successfully fished out their own stocks by lamentably bad management now have their eyes on Ireland. Unfortunately, for political reasons, we have left the door wide open for them. They are even going to places such as Gambia. When I was abroad recently I listened to a programme in which an appalling scenario was depicted, where people in Gambia, who have lived decently, simply and in a traditional manner from harvesting fish, now have factory fishing trawlers operating there. Large trawlers with no lights are crashing into their path and destroying them. Entire villages are being wiped out. In addition, Shell Oil wanted to sink damaged oil rigs. Greenpeace exaggerated the extent of that, which is a pity because it damaged its credibility. However, there was the potential for very serious damage in that regard. 6 o'clock There is a problem that I am sure Senator Fitzgerald is well aware of, the flushing of tanks by large ships just outside our waters, or even inside the waters, which creates pollution. I am not sure if this is covered. Obviously people do not apply for a licence to flush their tanks or to spill sewage or whatever it is they do. We need some way of monitoring and being able to punish these people because it is unacceptable that large commercial concerns should be allowed to flush their tanks to the disadvantage of people like ourselves. Debate adjourned. |
