Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-03-30.119.1) introduced by ACT Senator [David Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/david_pocock) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What do the amendments do? The amendments related to the surrender of units, judicial review, a maximum offset percentage and the price of offsets. In his speech, Senator Pocock [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-03-29.337.1): > *Amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1903 revised circulated in my name improve the way that offsets are used under the reform. Offsets are a very necessary part of this but should be reserved for hard-to-abate industries. They should only be used as a last resort, and this amendment will make sure that is the case.* > > *Amendment (3) on sheet 1903 removes the price cap on ACCUs and limits the risk to taxpayers should the cap be breached. If we're going to have a market mechanism, I don't see a reason to put a ceiling on the price. If you're going to use the market to try and fix this, then it really doesn't make sense to cap it and, in doing so, potentially expose the Commonwealth and taxpayers to a liability should the Commonwealth run out of ACCUs.* > > *The amendments on sheet 1915 discount the value of offsets if more than 50 per cent of compliance with baseline is achieved through offsetting. This will drive onsite abatement and bring forward investment in decarbonisation. If we're not going to have a hard cap on ACCUs there is provision in the regulation-making powers for the minister to discount ACCUs, referred to as the four-fifths rule, and I really believe this would be a valuable tool in imposing a carbon mitigation hierarchy which is well-established and acknowledged around the world. It makes sense for Australia to have one of them embedded in this legislation.* > > *The amendments on sheet 1907 extend standing to allow third parties to challenge issues
Senate, 2023-03-30. negative: ayes 13, noes 38.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-03-30.119.1) introduced by ACT Senator [David Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/david_pocock) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What do the amendments do? The amendments related to the surrender of units, judicial review, a maximum offset percentage and the price of offsets. In his speech, Senator Pocock [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-03-29.337.1): > *Amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1903 revised circulated in my name improve the way that offsets are used under the reform. Offsets are a very necessary part of this but should be reserved for hard-to-abate industries. They should only be used as a last resort, and this amendment will make sure that is the case.* > > *Amendment (3) on sheet 1903 removes the price cap on ACCUs and limits the risk to taxpayers should the cap be breached. If we're going to have a market mechanism, I don't see a reason to put a ceiling on the price. If you're going to use the market to try and fix this, then it really doesn't make sense to cap it and, in doing so, potentially expose the Commonwealth and taxpayers to a liability should the Commonwealth run out of ACCUs.* > > *The amendments on sheet 1915 discount the value of offsets if more than 50 per cent of compliance with baseline is achieved through offsetting. This will drive onsite abatement and bring forward investment in decarbonisation. If we're not going to have a hard cap on ACCUs there is provision in the regulation-making powers for the minister to discount ACCUs, referred to as the four-fifths rule, and I really believe this would be a valuable tool in imposing a carbon mitigation hierarchy which is well-established and acknowledged around the world. It makes sense for Australia to have one of them embedded in this legislation.* > > *The amendments on sheet 1907 extend standing to allow third parties to challenge issues
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.