Division Description Changes — Motions — Coal Industry — 1st Dec 2016

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

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2016-12-01#9

Edited by mackay staff

on 2016-12-09 05:55:26

Title

  • Motions — Coal Industry
  • Motions - Coal Industry - For technology neutral policies

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
  • <p>Senator Williams, under No. 154 we got to the stage where a division was called. Is everyone happy if I move back to that point where the division was called? Is everyone clear?</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p>
  • The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2016-12-01.168.1) introduced by National Party Senator [John Williams](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/john_williams), which means it was unsuccessful.
  • ### Motion text
  • > *That the Senate—*
  • > *(a) supports the 53 000 workers directly employed by the coal industry;*
  • > *(b) recognises that the forced closure of coal–fired power stations would increase the living expenses of Australian families through increased electricity prices;*
  • > *(c) acknowledges that the forced closure of coal–fired power stations would jeopardise Australia's energy security and put thousands of jobs at risk in our manufacturing sector which relies on access to cheap and affordable power;*
  • > *(d) acknowledges that coal is an affordable, abundant and increasingly clean domestic energy resource that is vital to providing reliable low-cost electricity, and that it will continue to be integral to Australia; and*
  • > *(e) supports technology neutral policies that deliver emission reduction targets.*
  • <p>I seek leave of the Senate to add my name to Senator Williams's very good motion&#8212;also, perhaps, could I add the name of Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who agrees with this motion?</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
  • <p>You cannot&#8212;that is not in order. But we can certainly add your name. Is the Senate happy for me to put the question on 154, as we tried to do earlier? It is the amendment moved by Senator Waters to Senator Williams's motion. Is everyone clear what we are voting on?</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p>
  • <p>by leave&#8212;Mr President, can I indicate my gratitude to you and the chamber for your forbearance on the previous occasion as I sought to get some instructions. Can I indicate this on behalf of the opposition: I understand that the amendment has not been provided. I appreciate Senator Waters would say it has been circulated in the chamber, but it certainly was not brought to the attention of the relevant shadow ministers. In those circumstances we are not in a position to support it, notwithstanding the fact that Labor has indicated our support for a just transition in the coal industry. Obviously these are matters of some complexity and we would, in ordinary circumstances, ensure that the spokespeople on behalf of the Labor Party had the opportunity to consider this before the Labor Party voted.</p>
  • <p>I did want to put that on the record to indicate why we are not in a position as yet to support the amendment. It may well be that we will get voting instructions accordingly. I would ask that senators consider in those circumstances whether it is entirely necessary for such a motion to be voted on this side of Christmas and whether it could simply be deferred until the next sitting day.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p>
  • <p>Mr President&#8212;</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
  • <p>Is this on the same matter? Normally we allow one senator per party to speak on these matters. Again, if you get leave, you can speak</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p>
  • <p>I seek leave to speak very briefly.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
  • <p>Is leave granted? Leave is granted for one minute.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">John Williams</p>
  • <p>On a point of clarification, Mr President: do we stop discussion of motions at 4.30?</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
  • <p>No, we do not. I will clarify to the chamber that we go through until we complete formal business. Senator Collins, you have one minute in which to make your remarks.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p>
  • <p>Thank you, Mr President, and I thank you for your cooperation in this matter. One additional point I would like to highlight, which I myself experienced and it led to some confusion in relation to a motion to refer a matter to the privileges committee, is that I think we may need to review the chamber circulation procedures. It seems as if, when senators understand their motions have been circulated, that they are not necessarily reaching the appropriate people.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
  • <p>Thank you, Senator Collins. I will take that as a reference probably to the Procedure Committee, and we might look at that at the next Procedure Committee meeting. The new Clerk will look at it as the new secretary of the Procedure Committee&#8212;we are loading up his plate already. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Waters to Senator Williams's notice of motion No. 154 be agreed to.</p>
  • <p>Question negatived.</p>
  • <p>The question is that notice of motion No. 154 moved by Senator Williams be agreed to.</p>