Division
The majority voted in favour of agreeing with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read it for a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). This means that they can now discuss it in more detail. ### What is the bill's main idea? The bill was introduced in order to amend the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999) (EPBC Act) in order to establish: * *a framework for making, varying, revoking and applying National Environmental Standards and* * *an Environment Assurance Commissioner (EAC) to monitor and audit the operation of bilateral agreements with the states and territories as well as to oversee Commonwealth processes under the EPBC Act for making and enforcing approval decisions.* The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd074) sets out the following 'Key Issues' relating to the bill: * *Industry groups broadly support the Bill, including the framework for National Environmental Standards and the proposed EAC. They consider this Bill, together with the Streamlining Bill, would provide certainty and clarity while addressing regulatory duplication in environmental approvals. However, several industry groups suggest that any National Environmental Standards made under the Bill should reflect the existing requirements of the EPBC Act.* * *Other stakeholders, including environmental, legal and scientific organisations, generally do not support the Bill, expressing considerable concern. Many noted the lack of a comprehensive government response to the Final Report of the Samuel Review, and suggested that the Government was ‘cherry picking’ recommendations and making piecemeal reforms, rather than implementing the full range of ‘tranche 1’ reforms identified in the Final Repor
House of Representatives, 2021-06-23. affirmative: ayes 70, noes 65.
Question
The majority voted in favour of agreeing with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read it for a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). This means that they can now discuss it in more detail. ### What is the bill's main idea? The bill was introduced in order to amend the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999) (EPBC Act) in order to establish: * *a framework for making, varying, revoking and applying National Environmental Standards and* * *an Environment Assurance Commissioner (EAC) to monitor and audit the operation of bilateral agreements with the states and territories as well as to oversee Commonwealth processes under the EPBC Act for making and enforcing approval decisions.* The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd074) sets out the following 'Key Issues' relating to the bill: * *Industry groups broadly support the Bill, including the framework for National Environmental Standards and the proposed EAC. They consider this Bill, together with the Streamlining Bill, would provide certainty and clarity while addressing regulatory duplication in environmental approvals. However, several industry groups suggest that any National Environmental Standards made under the Bill should reflect the existing requirements of the EPBC Act.* * *Other stakeholders, including environmental, legal and scientific organisations, generally do not support the Bill, expressing considerable concern. Many noted the lack of a comprehensive government response to the Final Report of the Samuel Review, and suggested that the Government was ‘cherry picking’ recommendations and making piecemeal reforms, rather than implementing the full range of ‘tranche 1’ reforms identified in the Final Repor
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.