All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
representatives vote 2017-08-15#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-09-03 15:37:47
|
Title
Bills — Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017; Second Reading- Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Failure to protect Reef (second vote)
Description
<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>I now need to put the motion moved by the Leader of the House that the House divide again, and that is on the question that the amendment moved by the member for Watson be agreed to. I'll hear from the Leader of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>- The majority voted against a motion introduced by Labor MP [Tony Burke](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/watson/tony_burke), which means it was unsuccessful. This is the [second time](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2017-08-15/4) that this same vote was taken.
- ### Motion 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 notes that:*
- > *(1) the Government is failing to protect Australia's iconic Great Barrier Reef by:*
- >> *(a) failing to act on climate change;*
- >> *(b) supporting the Liberal National Party in Queensland in blocking reef protections aimed at halting the broad scale clearing of trees and remnant vegetation; and*
- >> *(c) winding back ocean protection, put in place by Labor, around Australia and specifically in the Coral Sea; and*
- > *(2) this Government cannot be trusted to protect the Great Barrier Reef and fight for Australia's unique environment."*
<p>Mr Speaker, I will stand corrected but, as I understand the process, the motion that I moved was that the House divide again. I then moved that the motion be put, that being that the House divide again. I understood that to be a separate motion and then, once we had dealt with it, the House would divide again in case the House wanted to vote against that. If that's carried then the member for Watson's amendment gets put again, as I understand it, to which we would then obviously be voting no.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Certainly the understanding from members on this side is that right then we were voting on the motion moved by the Leader of the House, which, if carried, means that my second reading amendment will be voted on. I had made a commitment that we would vote in favour of it. When the Speaker put it, we all voted in favour of the motion of the Leader of the House. They didn't. So, if you vote yes to this, we're in favour of your motion, as we told you we would be.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>As I've said, I'm not going to detain the House any longer than we need to. The Leader of the House moved that the motion be put. That has been passed. The question now is that the House divide again.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Watson be agreed to.</p>
|