Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-09-08.73.1) introduced by ACT Senator [David Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/david_pocock) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What is the amendment? Senator Pocock [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-09-08.67.6) the amendment relates to ARENA: > *The first amendment requires that the annual climate change statement address Australia's progress in reducing scope 3 emissions, which we know dwarf our domestic emissions. Fossil fuel exports account for more than double our direct emissions. If we are to take climate change seriously and commit to climate action we have to reduce the source of the majority of our emissions, which is exports. I'm not saying we shut it down overnight; I'm simply saying we don't open up new projects.* > > *The second amendment requires that the Climate Change Authority consider the best available scientific knowledge in advice on emission reduction targets. We have ignored scientists for far too long. Science has to guide our policies on climate, and it makes sense to me that any advice given to the minister would be based on the best available scientific evidence that we have, given the wealth of knowledge in the scientific community, including a number of pre-eminent climate scientists across Australia and in the ACT.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Clause 12, page 7 (line 24), at the end of subclause (1), add:* > >> *; and (g) the progress made during the year towards reducing Australia's scope 3 emissions of greenhouse gas.* > > *(2) Clause 15, page 11 (after line 2), after subclause (3A), insert:* > >> *(3B) The advice given under subsection (1) must include an explanation of how the Climate Change Authority has taken into account the best available scientific knowledge for the purposes of giving the advice.*
Senate, 2022-09-08. negative: ayes 15, noes 47.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-09-08.73.1) introduced by ACT Senator [David Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/david_pocock) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What is the amendment? Senator Pocock [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-09-08.67.6) the amendment relates to ARENA: > *The first amendment requires that the annual climate change statement address Australia's progress in reducing scope 3 emissions, which we know dwarf our domestic emissions. Fossil fuel exports account for more than double our direct emissions. If we are to take climate change seriously and commit to climate action we have to reduce the source of the majority of our emissions, which is exports. I'm not saying we shut it down overnight; I'm simply saying we don't open up new projects.* > > *The second amendment requires that the Climate Change Authority consider the best available scientific knowledge in advice on emission reduction targets. We have ignored scientists for far too long. Science has to guide our policies on climate, and it makes sense to me that any advice given to the minister would be based on the best available scientific evidence that we have, given the wealth of knowledge in the scientific community, including a number of pre-eminent climate scientists across Australia and in the ACT.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Clause 12, page 7 (line 24), at the end of subclause (1), add:* > >> *; and (g) the progress made during the year towards reducing Australia's scope 3 emissions of greenhouse gas.* > > *(2) Clause 15, page 11 (after line 2), after subclause (3A), insert:* > >> *(3B) The advice given under subsection (1) must include an explanation of how the Climate Change Authority has taken into account the best available scientific knowledge for the purposes of giving the advice.*
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.