Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.42.1) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent), which means they will not be included in the bill. ### What do the amendments do? Ms Daniel [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.42.1): > *My first amendment proposes a new standalone community development principle to guide the implementation of FMIA supports towards the inclusion of women in our future net zero workforce, which is critical to our net zero transition. I'm concerned that the absence of such a principle to drive the participation of women in our net zero economy will leave 50 per cent of our population uninvolved and unempowered and create yet another high-vis male workforce.* > > *My second amendment would empower the Department of the Treasury itself to initiate sector assessments. One need only look to the Productivity Commission—indeed, in the Treasurer's own portfolio—to a model which possesses an element of independence and protection against ministerial interference. The Productivity Commission, while taking direction for assessments by its minister, can determine areas of the economy to conduct research in, as it deems appropriate. I can't see anything in this bill to prevent a future minister from simply not directing the Department of the Treasury to conduct sector assessments at all should it not be in the political interests of the government of the day.* > > *My third amendment would add an additional eligibility criteria to the net zero transformation stream to ensure that FMIA supports are committed only to projects which would substantially contribute to climate change mitigation and net zero. Projects that receive Commonwealth support must be able to substantiate precisely how they would implement this funding towards what should be the primary goal of this legislation—tha
House of Representatives, 2024-09-09. negative: ayes 13, noes 40.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.42.1) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent), which means they will not be included in the bill. ### What do the amendments do? Ms Daniel [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.42.1): > *My first amendment proposes a new standalone community development principle to guide the implementation of FMIA supports towards the inclusion of women in our future net zero workforce, which is critical to our net zero transition. I'm concerned that the absence of such a principle to drive the participation of women in our net zero economy will leave 50 per cent of our population uninvolved and unempowered and create yet another high-vis male workforce.* > > *My second amendment would empower the Department of the Treasury itself to initiate sector assessments. One need only look to the Productivity Commission—indeed, in the Treasurer's own portfolio—to a model which possesses an element of independence and protection against ministerial interference. The Productivity Commission, while taking direction for assessments by its minister, can determine areas of the economy to conduct research in, as it deems appropriate. I can't see anything in this bill to prevent a future minister from simply not directing the Department of the Treasury to conduct sector assessments at all should it not be in the political interests of the government of the day.* > > *My third amendment would add an additional eligibility criteria to the net zero transformation stream to ensure that FMIA supports are committed only to projects which would substantially contribute to climate change mitigation and net zero. Projects that receive Commonwealth support must be able to substantiate precisely how they would implement this funding towards what should be the primary goal of this legislation—tha
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.