Division
Christian Porter I move: That the amendments be disagreed to. Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that you have received written reasons to the effect of establishing— _Mr Albanese interjecting—_ We can negotiate reasonable things. I will just speak briefly to those reasons. Obviously, these amendments are proposed in the context of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill. That bill delivers, or will deliver, savings to business in the vicinity of $1.43 million, as well as administrative savings. The amendments are in two broad parts. I will first consider the amendments which, at least on their face, are attempting to be constructive but which we reject for a variety of reasons which are specific to those amendments. The second amendments relate to submarine contracts and I will deal with those last. The first amendments are Senate amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4). They are moved by Senator Waters. Essentially, those amendments propose retaining the Product Stewardship Advisory Group, the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council and the Fuel Standards Consultative Committee. They would also seek to disallow alternative public consultation processes that would apply with respect to the grant and variation of approvals. By way of short explanation, a statutory process is simply not required to facilitate the necessary engagement. I would also note that in MYEFO, it was noted that the Department of the Environment would save itself internally $76,000 over six years by disbanding these groups, councils and committees, which are no longer required. That is a saving that can be pushed back into further and better work to protect the environment by the department, and that is the central reason for rejecting those Senate amendments Nos (1), (2), (3) and (4). Senate amendment Nos (5) and (6) would seek to maintain a requirement to publish certain notices under the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 and the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 in the _Commonwealt
House of Representatives, 2015-03-25. affirmative: ayes 78, noes 49.
Question
Christian Porter I move: That the amendments be disagreed to. Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that you have received written reasons to the effect of establishing— _Mr Albanese interjecting—_ We can negotiate reasonable things. I will just speak briefly to those reasons. Obviously, these amendments are proposed in the context of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill. That bill delivers, or will deliver, savings to business in the vicinity of $1.43 million, as well as administrative savings. The amendments are in two broad parts. I will first consider the amendments which, at least on their face, are attempting to be constructive but which we reject for a variety of reasons which are specific to those amendments. The second amendments relate to submarine contracts and I will deal with those last. The first amendments are Senate amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4). They are moved by Senator Waters. Essentially, those amendments propose retaining the Product Stewardship Advisory Group, the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council and the Fuel Standards Consultative Committee. They would also seek to disallow alternative public consultation processes that would apply with respect to the grant and variation of approvals. By way of short explanation, a statutory process is simply not required to facilitate the necessary engagement. I would also note that in MYEFO, it was noted that the Department of the Environment would save itself internally $76,000 over six years by disbanding these groups, councils and committees, which are no longer required. That is a saving that can be pushed back into further and better work to protect the environment by the department, and that is the central reason for rejecting those Senate amendments Nos (1), (2), (3) and (4). Senate amendment Nos (5) and (6) would seek to maintain a requirement to publish certain notices under the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 and the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 in the _Commonwealt
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.