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

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2013-06-19#6

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:21:20

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a Greens Party [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-19.13.1 amendment] that has three parts:
  • * The first part is retrospective so that certain previously approved developments are subject to the water provisions contained in this bill;
  • * The second part is aimed at ensuring that the federal government retains final veto power against state governments;
  • * The final part is aimed at protecting national parks.
  • The amendment was introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Larissa_Waters&mpc=Senate&house=senate Larissa Waters].
  • Background to the Bill
  • The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
  • References
  • The majority voted against a Greens Party [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-19.13.1) that has three parts:
  • - The first part is retrospective so that certain previously approved developments are subject to the water provisions contained in this bill;
  • - The second part is aimed at ensuring that the federal government retains final veto power against state governments;
  • - The final part is aimed at protecting national parks.
  • The amendment was introduced by Greens Senator [Larissa Waters](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Larissa_Waters&mpc=Senate&house=senate).
  • Background to the Bill
  • The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001) for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
  • References
senate vote 2013-06-19#6

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:55

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a Greens Party [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-19.13.1 amendment] that has three parts:
  • * The first part is retrospective so that certain previously approved developments are subject to the water provisions contained in this bill;
  • * The second part is aimed at ensuring that the federal government retains final veto power against state governments;
  • * The final part is aimed at protecting national parks.
  • The amendment was introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Larissa_Waters&mpc=Senate&house=senate Larissa Waters].
  • Background to the Bill
  • The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[1] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
  • The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
  • References
  • * [1] See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.
senate vote 2013-06-19#6

Edited by mackay

on 2014-01-16 14:28:50

Title

  • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 - In Committee - Three part Greens amendment
  • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 - In Committee - Extend protection

Description

  • The majority voted against a Greens Party [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-19.13.1 amendment] that had three parts:
  • The majority voted against a Greens Party [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-19.13.1 amendment] that has three parts:
  • * The first part is retrospective so that certain previously approved developments are subject to the water provisions contained in this bill;
  • * The second part is aimed at ensuring that the federal government retains final veto power against state governments;
  • * The final part is aimed at protecting national parks.
  • The amendment was introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Larissa_Waters&mpc=Senate&house=senate Larissa Waters].
  • Background to the Bill
  • The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[1] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
  • References
  • * [1] See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.
senate vote 2013-06-19#6

Edited by mackay

on 2014-01-16 14:26:17

Title

  • Bills — Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013; in Committee
  • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 - In Committee - Three part Greens amendment

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>
  • <p>Mr Chairman, I sought leave and was granted leave for the questions to be put separately, and I would like that to maintain. Leave was granted at the time.</p>
  • <p>The CHAIRMAN: You sought leave to have the three groups of amendments taken together, which was granted by the chamber. Precedent is that, unless there will be a different division on these amendments, they will be put together. It is at the discretion of the chair, and that is the way I rule. Unless you can indicate to me that there will be a different vote on any of the divisions, that is the way I intend to proceed.</p>
  • The majority voted against a Greens Party [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-19.13.1 amendment] that had three parts:
  • * The first part is retrospective so that certain previously approved developments are subject to the water provisions contained in this bill;
  • * The second part is aimed at ensuring that the federal government retains final veto power against state governments;
  • * The final part is aimed at protecting national parks.
  • The amendment was introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Larissa_Waters&mpc=Senate&house=senate Larissa Waters].
  • Background to the Bill
  • The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.[1] This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.
  • References
  • * [1] See [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/bills_legislation/bills_search_results/result?bid=r5001 here] for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.
  • <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>
  • <p>Perhaps I can point out that there is an internal inconsistency in the amendments. Amendment (1) on sheet 7374, which would remove bilateral agreements from consideration, is inconsistent with the fact that amendment (1) on 7394 actually contains provisions that would allow for bilateral agreements to apply. So there is a level of internal inconsistency between them that may create a problem&#8212;</p>
  • <p>The CHAIRMAN: Senator Birmingham, that is a debating point.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>
  • <p>I think Senator Birmingham has just illustrated why we need a separate vote, and I just suggest that&#8212;</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Honourable Senators</p>
  • <p>Honourable senators interjecting&#8212;</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>
  • <p>Hang on. Excuse me, folks.</p>
  • <p>The CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Waters has the call.</p>
  • <p>Thank you, Chair. I wanted to seek your guidance. When I asked that the amendments be moved together, I did specifically twice say that the vote be put separately, and I understand leave was granted on that basis or I would not have moved them together. So I just ask that we continue on that basis.</p>
  • <p>The CHAIRMAN: I was not in the chair at the time. Leave was sought to have them all taken together, which was granted. You did indicate, which is why I raised the point prior to putting this motion, that you would like the three motions voted upon separately. Normally that would happen if there were an indication there was going to be different outcomes on different votes. At this stage, the government and the opposition have indicated that they will be opposing all three groups of amendments. So, unless the Greens are going to be voting differently on any of the amendments, I do intend to put them together.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p>
  • <p>The point here, as Senator Waters has said, is that they are three separate matters on which we require three separate resolutions. It is the prerogative of people moving amendments to have them voted on separately, and that has been the request. Are you setting a precedent in this chamber that you will collectivise every amendment in this way? This would be an extraordinary precedent to set. I request that we vote for them separately.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p>
  • <p>The government is happy for these matters to be voted on separately, especially given the point that Senator Birmingham just made.</p>
  • <p>The CHAIRMAN: First and foremost, this is totally at the discretion of the chair&#8212;that is the first and foremost point. Secondly, I am following precedent and advice from the Clerk. Thirdly, the only matter for which leave was sought from the chamber was to take the amendments together. Leave cannot be sought as to how we divide and vote on matters concerning the bracket and the way the vote will be taken. So it is my decision that we will take them together. No-one has indicated that we are voting differently on any of the amendments. Senator Waters is on her feet. I will take this as the last point of order on this matter.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>
  • <p>Thank you for your indulgence, Chair. I sought leave for them to be both moved together and voted on separately and leave was given.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Honourable Senators</p>
  • <p>Honourable senators interjecting&#8212;</p>
  • <p>The CHAIRMAN: Order! The point is that you cannot seek leave to do the latter part of what you asked to do.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>
  • <p>Sorry, my apologies, Chair&#8212;</p>
  • <p>Honourable senators interjecting&#8212;</p>
  • <p>The CHAIRMAN: Order! Senators on my left are not assisting this matter! Order on my left! In the time this has taken we could have voted on all three separately.</p>
  • <p>I seek leave that the three tranches of amendments be voted on separately.</p>
  • <p>The CHAIRMAN: It is not a matter of leave. You cannot seek that by leave. It is a matter of discretion of the chair. I now put the questions: that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7576, amendment (1) on sheet 7374 and amendment (1) on sheet 7394, moved by Senator Waters by leave together, be agreed to.</p>
  • <p class="italic"> <i>A division having been called and the bells rung&#8212;</i></p>
  • <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p>
  • <p>Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Australian Greens just made a threat to you as the presiding officer here.</p>
  • <p>The CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald, a point of order must relate to the division, but that can be made a matter at a later time.</p>