|
senate vote 2025-02-05#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2025-02-06 17:06:50
|
Title
Business — Withdrawal- Business - Withdrawal - Future Coalition policy
Description
<p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move:</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2025-02-05.135.4) introduced under the name of Tasmanian Senator [Jonathon Duniam](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/jonathon_duniam) (Liberal), which means it failed.
- ### Amendment text
- > *Omit paragraph (b).*
- ### What is paragraph (b)?
- > *(b) calls on the Liberals and Nationals to rule out any future cuts to the Environment department; and*
<p class="italic">That the Senate—</p><p class="italic">(a) notes that:</p><p class="italic">(i) the Liberals and Nationals have teamed up with the Greens and One Nation to block:</p><p class="italic">(A) faster environmental approvals for businesses,</p><p class="italic">(B) easier access to the latest environmental data for businesses, and</p><p class="italic">(C) fast-tracking work with the states for critical minerals, housing and other energy projects,</p><p class="italic">(ii) under the last Liberal Government, the Liberals cut 40% from the federal Environment department,</p><p class="italic">(iii) under the last Liberal Government, the average decision for a new project was 116 days behind schedule, and</p><p class="italic">(iv) under the last Liberal Government, 80% of decisions contained errors or were non-compliant;</p><p class="italic">(b) calls on the Liberals and Nationals to rule out any future cuts to the Environment department; and</p><p class="italic">(c) That the government business order of the day relating to the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and related bills be discharged from the <i>Notice Paper</i>.</p> <p class="speaker">Wendy Askew</p><p>I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion as circulated in the chamber under Senator Duniam's name.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>It has been circulated, I understand. I'll just clarify: Senator Askew has indicated that she is moving an amendment to government business No. 1. It's standing in the name of Senator Duniam. It was circulated. I'm just checking in that senators—okay. So that's all good. Thank you, Senator Askew.</p><p>Leave granted.</p> <p class="speaker">Wendy Askew</p><p>I move the amendment:</p><p class="italic">Omit paragraph (a).</p><p class="italic">Omit paragraph (b).</p><p class="italic">At the end of paragraph (c), add ", and the Senate calls on the Labor Party to guarantee that this legislation never be returned to the Parliament".</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Pocock, I note you've got an amendment as well.</p> <p class="speaker">David Pocock</p><p>Do we deal with that one first, or do I move mine as well?</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Let me just seek the advice of the Clerk, because I'm not sure; sometimes amendments cancel one other out. We'll deal with Senator Askew's first. So the question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Askew, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, to government business notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.</p><p class="italic"> <i>A division having been called and the bells being rung—</i></p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>President, I'm sorry for the late notice. I would like to ask that the question be split, so I'm asking for the division to be cancelled in order to do that.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Okay. Let's cancel that division, and I will call the amendment again. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Askew to government business notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>President, I ask that you put the questions separately in relation to (b), which is the part that says 'calls on the Liberals and Nationals to rule out any future cuts to the environment department'. We wish to vote differently on that compared to the other elements of this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>If it suits the chamber, I will put (b) first and then the remaining motion. Senator McGrath?</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>President, to clarify: the motion before the chair is the deletion of paragraph (b) as per the amendment that was moved by Senator Askew in the name of Senator Duniam?</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Yes. The Greens party have indicated that they want the motion split. They've asked for (b), which starts off with 'calls on the Liberals and Nationals' to be voted on separately, and I'll put the vote on that.</p><p>Senator McKim, don't shout out. I'll come to you. Yes, Senator McKim?</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>My bad—and (c). We would like (b) and (c) put separately to (a).</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator McGrath, this might assist you. The motion I would put is that the amendment to paragraph (b) be agreed to, and if that got up that would delete that paragraph.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>To confirm, we are voting on the deletion of paragraph (b), and paragraph (c) is not involved and paragraph (a) is not involved.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>That's right. I believe we need to call a division. The question is that paragraph (b) of the amendment moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
-
|