Division
Gavin Marshall Senator Lazarus, given that the schedule stands as printed, there is not a requirement for you to move your next amendment. It is redundant. Thank you. Larissa Waters I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7705: (1) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 3 (line 2) to page 4 (line 3), to be opposed. This is similar to the last amendment but drafted slightly differently and more broadly. But it achieves the same outcome of stopping this gutting of our renewable energy target from a very sound 41,000 gigawatt hour target down to a paltry 33,000 gigawatt hour target. As we have just seen from the vote on the last similar amendment, it looks as though we have very few friends. We can clearly see that both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have ganged up to slash the renewable energy target, right at this point in human history when the vast majority of climate scientists are begging us to make the transition to a low-carbon economy. Right at this point in history in 2015, both of the big parties in this chamber have just voted to slash the RET from 41 to 33. Here is another chance. I am moving a similar amendment that would achieve the same outcome and I would love it if you could reconsider your positions. I severely doubt that that will be the case, but I would urge you to listen to the clear community sentiment on this one. Last week, we saw the Lowy poll, which canvasses community sentiment across a whole range of issues which found that 63 per cent of Australians want serious action taken on climate change and want us to be global leaders. If that is not a clear statement and if that is not certainly a clear turnaround from recent years then I do not know what is. It is perfectly clear that people can see the danger that climate change is posing to our very way of life, to our economies and to our environment. We have seen more and more extreme weather events buffet our coast, slam our good quality, food-producing land and damage people's homes. The s
Senate, 2015-06-23. affirmative: ayes 32, noes 11.
Question
Gavin Marshall Senator Lazarus, given that the schedule stands as printed, there is not a requirement for you to move your next amendment. It is redundant. Thank you. Larissa Waters I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7705: (1) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 3 (line 2) to page 4 (line 3), to be opposed. This is similar to the last amendment but drafted slightly differently and more broadly. But it achieves the same outcome of stopping this gutting of our renewable energy target from a very sound 41,000 gigawatt hour target down to a paltry 33,000 gigawatt hour target. As we have just seen from the vote on the last similar amendment, it looks as though we have very few friends. We can clearly see that both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have ganged up to slash the renewable energy target, right at this point in human history when the vast majority of climate scientists are begging us to make the transition to a low-carbon economy. Right at this point in history in 2015, both of the big parties in this chamber have just voted to slash the RET from 41 to 33. Here is another chance. I am moving a similar amendment that would achieve the same outcome and I would love it if you could reconsider your positions. I severely doubt that that will be the case, but I would urge you to listen to the clear community sentiment on this one. Last week, we saw the Lowy poll, which canvasses community sentiment across a whole range of issues which found that 63 per cent of Australians want serious action taken on climate change and want us to be global leaders. If that is not a clear statement and if that is not certainly a clear turnaround from recent years then I do not know what is. It is perfectly clear that people can see the danger that climate change is posing to our very way of life, to our economies and to our environment. We have seen more and more extreme weather events buffet our coast, slam our good quality, food-producing land and damage people's homes. The s
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.