Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7192_amend_a9275339-2466-4644-8e75-4801a79e5f2b%22;rec=0) introduced by Fairfax MP [Ted O’Brien](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fairfax/ted_o'brien) (Liberal) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means the amendment failed. ### Amendment text > *That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *“the House:* > > *(1) expresses its commitment to making changes to national environmental laws that are genuinely beneficial for both the environment and business;* > > *(2) notes that these three bills do not meaningfully improve Australia’s environmental laws, and that they have particular shortcomings in each of the following forms :* > >> *(a) the expansion of the EPA’s proposed remit well beyond the compliance and data functions promised by the ALP in 2022;* >> >> *(b) the excessive size, and lack of proportionality, of the new penalties;* >> >> *(c) the requirement for more regular, earlier reviews of the operation of the EPA than is mandated in this bill;* >> >> *(d) the need for clearer limits on the range of circumstances in which environment protection orders can be applied;* >> >> *(e) the lack of accompanying information about the full regulatory and financial impacts of the bill, including on cost recovery; and* > > *(3) calls on the Government to finally honour their long-flagged promise to introduce a full package of new National Environmental Standards and an overhauled EPBC Act”.*
House of Representatives, 2024-07-03. negative: ayes 55, noes 87.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7192_amend_a9275339-2466-4644-8e75-4801a79e5f2b%22;rec=0) introduced by Fairfax MP [Ted O’Brien](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fairfax/ted_o'brien) (Liberal) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means the amendment failed. ### Amendment text > *That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *“the House:* > > *(1) expresses its commitment to making changes to national environmental laws that are genuinely beneficial for both the environment and business;* > > *(2) notes that these three bills do not meaningfully improve Australia’s environmental laws, and that they have particular shortcomings in each of the following forms :* > >> *(a) the expansion of the EPA’s proposed remit well beyond the compliance and data functions promised by the ALP in 2022;* >> >> *(b) the excessive size, and lack of proportionality, of the new penalties;* >> >> *(c) the requirement for more regular, earlier reviews of the operation of the EPA than is mandated in this bill;* >> >> *(d) the need for clearer limits on the range of circumstances in which environment protection orders can be applied;* >> >> *(e) the lack of accompanying information about the full regulatory and financial impacts of the bill, including on cost recovery; and* > > *(3) calls on the Government to finally honour their long-flagged promise to introduce a full package of new National Environmental Standards and an overhauled EPBC Act”.*
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.