Division Description Changes — Bills — Climate Change Bill 2022, Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022; Second Reading — 4th Aug 2022

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2022-08-04#2 Edited by pizza1016 on 2022-08-05 20:39:04	Title Description The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an [amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25975/&sid=0000) to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because the amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged. Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House. ### Crossing the floor Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "Yes." ### Mistaken vote During the vote, Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) inadvertently voted "Yes" to disagree with the amendment. She later [made a mistake in correcting her voting record](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F25975%2F0055;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80,hansardrIndex;rec=0;resCount=Default) in the chamber, stating that: > During the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne today, I cast my vote for the noes. This was not my intention. I wish to inform the House I intended to vote with the ayes. I thank the House. > During the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne today, I cast my vote for the noes. This was not my intention. I wish to inform the House I intended to vote with the ayes. I thank the House. Taken at face value, this would have reaffirmed that she was indeed voting "Yes" to disagree with the amendment. However, [she clarified her actual stance on Twitter](https://twitter.com/Mon4Kooyong/status/1555015177678245888), which is to support the amendment by voting "No" against disagreeing with the amendment, writing that: > I should note: in the flurry of divisions this morning (among my first on the job!) I made a mistake, & my vote on [@AdamBandt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt) amendment was counted contrary to my intention. > > As I’ve consistently stated: Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects. The voting record below does not reflect this correction, as votes are, in most cases, final. ### Amendment text > That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > > "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"
representatives vote 2022-08-04#2 Edited by pizza1016 on 2022-08-05 18:24:57	Title Description The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an [amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25975/&sid=0000) to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because the amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged. Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House. ### Crossing the floor Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "Yes." ### Mistaken vote During the vote, Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) inadvertently voted "Yes" to disagree with the amendment. She later [made a mistake in correcting her voting record](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F25975%2F0055;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80,hansardrIndex;rec=0;resCount=Default) in the chamber, stating that: > During the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne today, I cast my vote for the noes. This was not my intention. I wish to inform the House I intended to vote with the ayes. I thank the House. Taken at face value, this would have reaffirmed that she was indeed voting "Yes" to disagree with the amendment. However, [she clarified her actual stance on Twitter](https://twitter.com/Mon4Kooyong/status/1555015177678245888), which is to support the amendment by voting "No" against disagreeing with the amendment, writing that: > I should note: in the flurry of divisions this morning (among my first on the job!) I made a mistake, & my vote on [@AdamBandt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt) amendment was counted contrary to my intention. > > As I’ve consistently stated: Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects.* * > As I’ve consistently stated: Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects. The voting record below does not reflect this correction, as votes are, in most cases, final. ### Amendment text > That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > > "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"
representatives vote 2022-08-04#2 Edited by pizza1016 on 2022-08-05 18:24:32	Title Description The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an [amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25975/&sid=0000) to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because the amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged. Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House. ### Crossing the floor Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "Yes." ### Mistaken vote During the vote, Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) inadvertently voted "Yes" to disagree with the amendment. She later [made a mistake in correcting her voting record](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F25975%2F0055;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80,hansardrIndex;rec=0;resCount=Default) in the chamber, stating that: > During the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne today, I cast my vote for the noes. This was not my intention. I wish to inform the House I intended to vote with the ayes. I thank the House. Taken at face value, this would have reaffirmed that she was indeed voting "Yes" to disagree with the amendment. However, [she clarified her actual stance on Twitter](https://twitter.com/Mon4Kooyong/status/1555015177678245888), which is to support the amendment by voting "No" against disagreeing with the amendment, writing that: > I should note: in the flurry of divisions this morning (among my first on the job!) I made a mistake, & my vote on [@AdamBandt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt) amendment was counted contrary to my intention. > > As I’ve consistently stated: Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects.** > As I’ve consistently stated: Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects.* * The voting record below does not reflect this correction, as votes are, in most cases, final. ### Amendment text > That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > > "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"
representatives vote 2022-08-04#2 Edited by pizza1016 on 2022-08-05 18:24:08	Title Description The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an [amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25975/&sid=0000) to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because the amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged. Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House. ### Crossing the floor Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "Yes." ### Mistaken vote During the vote, Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) inadvertently voted "Yes" to disagree with the amendment. She later [made a mistake in correcting her voting record](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F25975%2F0055;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80,hansardrIndex;rec=0;resCount=Default) in the chamber, stating that: > During the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne today, I cast my vote for the noes. This was not my intention. I wish to inform the House I intended to vote with the ayes. I thank the House. Taken at face value, this would have reaffirmed that she was indeed voting "Yes" to disagree with the amendment. However, [she clarified her actual stance on Twitter](https://twitter.com/Mon4Kooyong/status/1555015177678245888), which is to support the amendment by voting "No" against disagreeing with the amendment, writing that: > I should note: in the flurry of divisions this morning (among my first on the job!) I made a mistake, & my vote on [@AdamBandt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt) amendment was counted contrary to my intention. > > As I’ve consistently stated: Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects.** The voting record below does not reflect this correction, as votes are, in most cases, final. ### Amendment text > That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > > "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"
representatives vote 2022-08-04#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2022-08-05 10:26:32	Title Description The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an [amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25975/&sid=0000) to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because the amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged. Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House. ### Crossing the floor Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "No." Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "Yes." ### Amendment text > That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > > "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence" > "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"
representatives vote 2022-08-04#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2022-08-05 10:17:57	Title Bills — Climate Change Bill 2022, Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022; Second Reading Climate Change Bill 2022, Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 - Second Reading - On new fossil fuel projects Description ~~<p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p>~~ <p>The original question was that the bills be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Melbourne has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Is a division required? I will ask the clerks to ring the bell for five minutes so all members will be aware of the division. The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.</p> The *majority voted in favour of disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25975/&sid=0000) to the usual second reading mo*tion, which is "that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because the* amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged. Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House. ### Crossing the floor Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "No." ### Amendment text > That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > *> "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Govern*ment to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence" ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~

Change

Division

representatives vote 2022-08-04#2

Edited by pizza1016

on 2022-08-05 20:39:04

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25975/&sid=0000) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)*" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because the amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged.
Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House.
### Crossing the floor
Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "Yes."
### Mistaken vote
During the vote, Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) inadvertently voted "Yes" to *disagree* with the amendment. She later [made a mistake in correcting her voting record](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F25975%2F0055;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80,hansardrIndex;rec=0;resCount=Default) in the chamber, stating that:
> *During the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne today, I cast my vote for the *noes*. This was not my intention. I wish to inform the House I intended to vote with the *ayes*. I thank the House.*
> *During the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne today, I cast my vote for the noes. This was not my intention. I wish to inform the House I intended to vote with the ayes. I thank the House.*
Taken at face value, this would have reaffirmed that she was indeed voting "Yes" to *disagree* with the amendment. However, [she clarified her actual stance on Twitter](https://twitter.com/Mon4Kooyong/status/1555015177678245888), which is to support the amendment by voting "No" against *disagreeing* with the amendment, writing that:
> *I should note: in the flurry of divisions this morning (among my first on the job!) I made a mistake, & my vote on [@AdamBandt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt) amendment was counted contrary to my intention.*
>
> *As I’ve consistently stated: Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects.*
The voting record below does not reflect this correction, as votes are, in most cases, final.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"*

representatives vote 2022-08-04#2

Edited by pizza1016

on 2022-08-05 18:24:57

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25975/&sid=0000) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)*" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because the amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged.
Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House.
### Crossing the floor
Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "Yes."
### Mistaken vote
During the vote, Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) inadvertently voted "Yes" to *disagree* with the amendment. She later [made a mistake in correcting her voting record](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F25975%2F0055;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80,hansardrIndex;rec=0;resCount=Default) in the chamber, stating that:
> *During the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne today, I cast my vote for the *noes*. This was not my intention. I wish to inform the House I intended to vote with the *ayes*. I thank the House.*
Taken at face value, this would have reaffirmed that she was indeed voting "Yes" to *disagree* with the amendment. However, [she clarified her actual stance on Twitter](https://twitter.com/Mon4Kooyong/status/1555015177678245888), which is to support the amendment by voting "No" against *disagreeing* with the amendment, writing that:
> *I should note: in the flurry of divisions this morning (among my first on the job!) I made a mistake, & my vote on [@AdamBandt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt) amendment was counted contrary to my intention.*
>
> *As I’ve consistently stated: **Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects.** *
> *As I’ve consistently stated: Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects.*
The voting record below does not reflect this correction, as votes are, in most cases, final.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"*

representatives vote 2022-08-04#2

Edited by pizza1016

on 2022-08-05 18:24:32

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25975/&sid=0000) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)*" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because the amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged.
Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House.
### Crossing the floor
Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "Yes."
### Mistaken vote
During the vote, Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) inadvertently voted "Yes" to *disagree* with the amendment. She later [made a mistake in correcting her voting record](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F25975%2F0055;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80,hansardrIndex;rec=0;resCount=Default) in the chamber, stating that:
> *During the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne today, I cast my vote for the *noes*. This was not my intention. I wish to inform the House I intended to vote with the *ayes*. I thank the House.*
Taken at face value, this would have reaffirmed that she was indeed voting "Yes" to *disagree* with the amendment. However, [she clarified her actual stance on Twitter](https://twitter.com/Mon4Kooyong/status/1555015177678245888), which is to support the amendment by voting "No" against *disagreeing* with the amendment, writing that:
> *I should note: in the flurry of divisions this morning (among my first on the job!) I made a mistake, & my vote on [@AdamBandt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt) amendment was counted contrary to my intention.*
>
> *As I’ve consistently stated: **Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects.***
> *As I’ve consistently stated: **Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects.** *
The voting record below does not reflect this correction, as votes are, in most cases, final.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"*

representatives vote 2022-08-04#2

Edited by pizza1016

on 2022-08-05 18:24:08

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25975/&sid=0000) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)*" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because the amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged.
Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House.
### Crossing the floor
Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "Yes."
### Mistaken vote
During the vote, Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) inadvertently voted "Yes" to *disagree* with the amendment. She later [made a mistake in correcting her voting record](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F25975%2F0055;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80,hansardrIndex;rec=0;resCount=Default) in the chamber, stating that:
> *During the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne today, I cast my vote for the *noes*. This was not my intention. I wish to inform the House I intended to vote with the *ayes*. I thank the House.*
Taken at face value, this would have reaffirmed that she was indeed voting "Yes" to *disagree* with the amendment. However, [she clarified her actual stance on Twitter](https://twitter.com/Mon4Kooyong/status/1555015177678245888), which is to support the amendment by voting "No" against *disagreeing* with the amendment, writing that:
> *I should note: in the flurry of divisions this morning (among my first on the job!) I made a mistake, & my vote on [@AdamBandt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt) amendment was counted contrary to my intention.*
>
> *As I’ve consistently stated: **Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects.***
The voting record below does not reflect this correction, as votes are, in most cases, final.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"*

representatives vote 2022-08-04#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2022-08-05 10:26:32

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25975/&sid=0000) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)*" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because the amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged.
Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House.
### Crossing the floor
Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "No."
Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "Yes."
### Amendment text
> *That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"*
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"*

representatives vote 2022-08-04#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2022-08-05 10:17:57

Title

Bills — Climate Change Bill 2022, Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022; Second Reading
Climate Change Bill 2022, Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 - Second Reading - On new fossil fuel projects

Description

~~Milton Dick~~
The original question was that the bills be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Melbourne has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Is a division required? I will ask the clerks to ring the bell for five minutes so all members will be aware of the division. The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25975/&sid=0000) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)*" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because the amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged.
Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House.
### Crossing the floor
Bonner MP [Ross Vasta](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bonner/ross_vasta) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "No."
### Amendment text
> *That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"*
~~~~
~~~~