Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.190.1) introduced by NSW Senator [David Leyonhjelm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_leyonhjelm) (Liberal Democratic Party), which means they failed. Senator Leyonhjelm [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.190.1): > *Amendment (1) limits the objective of this scheme to the improvement of air quality, rather than the improvement of air quality or contributing to the Australian government meeting its obligations under climate change conventions. Amendment (2) is consequential to this in that it removes the redundant definition of 'Climate change conventions'.* > > *As I outlined in my contribution in the second reading debate, it may on occasion be appropriate to ban a product because of its detriment to air quality, but products should not be banned just to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Until other major emitters, like China, Russia, India and Brazil, which emit more emissions in a day than Australia emits in a year, are prepared to act to reduce their emissions and not just talk about them, it amounts to economic suicide for Australia to go down this path. No matter what you believe about climate change, economic suicide is just plain dumb.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 17 to 22), omit paragraph (b) (including the note), substitute:* > >> *(b) in doing so, to contribute to improving air quality in Australia in order to deliver associated health and environmental benefits.* > > *(2) Clause 7, page 4 (lines 10 to 22), omit the definition of Climate Change Conventions (including the note).*
Senate, 2017-09-11. negative: ayes 7, noes 32.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.190.1) introduced by NSW Senator [David Leyonhjelm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_leyonhjelm) (Liberal Democratic Party), which means they failed. Senator Leyonhjelm [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.190.1): > *Amendment (1) limits the objective of this scheme to the improvement of air quality, rather than the improvement of air quality or contributing to the Australian government meeting its obligations under climate change conventions. Amendment (2) is consequential to this in that it removes the redundant definition of 'Climate change conventions'.* > > *As I outlined in my contribution in the second reading debate, it may on occasion be appropriate to ban a product because of its detriment to air quality, but products should not be banned just to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Until other major emitters, like China, Russia, India and Brazil, which emit more emissions in a day than Australia emits in a year, are prepared to act to reduce their emissions and not just talk about them, it amounts to economic suicide for Australia to go down this path. No matter what you believe about climate change, economic suicide is just plain dumb.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 17 to 22), omit paragraph (b) (including the note), substitute:* > >> *(b) in doing so, to contribute to improving air quality in Australia in order to deliver associated health and environmental benefits.* > > *(2) Clause 7, page 4 (lines 10 to 22), omit the definition of Climate Change Conventions (including the note).*
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.