|
senate vote 2025-02-05#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2025-02-28 14:38:02
|
Title
Business — Withdrawal- Business - Withdrawal - Delete paragraph (c)
Description
<p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>I want to clarify that the substantive motion that is left is effectively just paragraphs (b) and (c).</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>That is correct.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>That motion that was just put up also included the words 'that the Senate', and that was also deleted. Senator Pocock, I think this means that the remaining motion no longer makes any sense.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>I believe we can fix up a small technicality like that. Thank you for sharing it with the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>No worries. I think it's very important to clarify such things. I will hand over to Senator Pocock.</p><p>An honourable senator interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Can you get that in writing? It is in writing, because it's in the <i>Hansard</i>.</p> <p class="speaker">David Pocock</p><p>I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion as circulated in the chamber. I hope this helps Senator McGrath, as it re-inserts 'that the Senate'.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>That's quite clever!</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>Senator Pocock, the previous motion, Senator Duniam's amendment, removed the whole of paragraph (a), so that's a problem for your (v). I am advised, Senator Pocock, that you can still proceed with your amendments to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the motion, but it does make it a little hard to retrofit it to the amendment which we just dealt with. I'm in your hands, so you need to advise me and the Senate of what you intend to do.</p> <p class="speaker">David Pocock</p><p>I will die on this hill. I'm happy to proceed.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>You're happy to proceed with (b) and (c)? I just advise the chamber that we're not in the committee stage. I'm trying to move the Senate along. We're in our normal Senate business, so I need some indication from you, Senator Pocock.</p> <p class="speaker">David Pocock</p><p>Thank you, President. My amendment would be to have paragraph (b) stand, as the Senate has voted, and then to remove (c).</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Okay. As I understand it, we are now proceeding with the part of Senator David Pocock's amendment relating to paragraph (c) of the motion.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>I think, President, if I can assist the chamber—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Just wait and I'll give you the call, because we are not in committee stage here, Senator McGrath.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>I think that Senator Pocock has two remaining amendments. One is to paragraph (b), where he adds the word 'Labor'. Then he wishes to have paragraph (c) deleted. First of all, if that's correct, the coalition would like to split that, if that's possible, to vote on (b) and (c) separately.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Sure. Senator Pocock, let's just make sure you've moved the amendment as revised.</p> <p class="speaker">David Pocock</p><p>Thank you, President. I move the amendment:</p><p class="italic">Paragraph (b), omit "calls on the Liberals and Nationals to rule out", substitute "calls on Labor, the Liberals and Nationals to rule out".</p><p class="italic">Omit paragraph (c).</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question at this stage is that the first part of the revised amendment moved by Senator Pocock, relating to paragraph (b)—because the coalition have indicated they want to vote on it separately—be agreed to.</p><p class="italic"> <i>A division having been called and the bells being rung.</i></p> <p class="speaker">The</p><p>The government have indicated they are happy for the division to be called off, so, therefore, the amendment to paragraph (b) will stand.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that paragraph (c) of Senator Pocock's amendment be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
- The majority voted against deleting paragraph (c) from the [original motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2025-02-05.134.2) introduced by ACT Senator [Katy Gallagher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/katy_gallagher) (Labor) at the request of Queensland Senator [Anthony Chisholm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/anthony_chisholm) (Labor). This change had been proposed in the name of ACT Senator [David Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/david_pocock) (Independent).
- ### Original motion text
- > *That the Senate—*
- >
- > *(a) notes that:*
- >
- >> *(i) the Liberals and Nationals have teamed up with the Greens and One Nation to block:*
- >>
- >>> *(A) faster environmental approvals for businesses,*
- >>>
- >>> *(B) easier access to the latest environmental data for businesses, and*
- >>>
- >>> *(C) fast-tracking work with the states for critical minerals, housing and other energy projects,*
- >>
- >> *(ii) under the last Liberal Government, the Liberals cut 40% from the federal Environment department,*
- >>
- >> *(iii) under the last Liberal Government, the average decision for a new project was 116 days behind schedule, and*
- >>
- >> *(iv) under the last Liberal Government, 80% of decisions contained errors or were non-compliant;*
- >
- > *(b) calls on the Liberals and Nationals to rule out any future cuts to the Environment department; and*
- >
- > *(c) That the government business order of the day relating to the [Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr7192%22) and related bills be discharged from the Notice Paper.*
-
-
|