Division
The majority voted against [amendments (1) to (4)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-07-04.32.1) moved by Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel (Independent), which means they did not succeed. ### What did these amendments do? The amendments would have established a joint committee on the environment. Ms Daniel [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-07-04.32.1): > *This amendment goes to the oversight and the independence of the EPA. In my view, the government has decided to establish an agency which will operate like any Commonwealth agency rather than an independent authority, and this includes the ability for any future minister to shape its overarching policy direction via a statement of expectations. The project decision-making process, which is currently delegated and processed by the department of the environment, one which the minister can interfere with at any time, will simply be shifted to a new agency—no board, no expert-led appointment process and minimal operational independence. Again, the government has been made aware of this by experts, interest groups, me and others on the crossbench.* > > *To be very clear, I very much respect this minister. I'm not convinced, though, that any future minister will be equally competent. Therefore, the amendment I'm proposing would create a joint parliamentary committee on the environment which, critically, would oversee the ministerially appointed CEO. I believe this is an important step for accountability, but, alas, the government appears wary of the potential consequences of this extra democratic oversight when it comes to environmental protection. I would argue that a committee is a reasonable compromise given that the government will not implement a board to oversee what is not in reality an independent post.*
House of Representatives, 2024-07-04. negative: ayes 12, noes 36.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments (1) to (4)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-07-04.32.1) moved by Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel (Independent), which means they did not succeed. ### What did these amendments do? The amendments would have established a joint committee on the environment. Ms Daniel [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-07-04.32.1): > *This amendment goes to the oversight and the independence of the EPA. In my view, the government has decided to establish an agency which will operate like any Commonwealth agency rather than an independent authority, and this includes the ability for any future minister to shape its overarching policy direction via a statement of expectations. The project decision-making process, which is currently delegated and processed by the department of the environment, one which the minister can interfere with at any time, will simply be shifted to a new agency—no board, no expert-led appointment process and minimal operational independence. Again, the government has been made aware of this by experts, interest groups, me and others on the crossbench.* > > *To be very clear, I very much respect this minister. I'm not convinced, though, that any future minister will be equally competent. Therefore, the amendment I'm proposing would create a joint parliamentary committee on the environment which, critically, would oversee the ministerially appointed CEO. I believe this is an important step for accountability, but, alas, the government appears wary of the potential consequences of this extra democratic oversight when it comes to environmental protection. I would argue that a committee is a reasonable compromise given that the government will not implement a board to oversee what is not in reality an independent post.*
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.