Bill
Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 3) Bill 2019
passed, as at 2020-06-22. Treasury portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Treasury
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2019-12-05
- second reading — 2019-12-05
- second reading — 2020-02-10
- second reading — 2020-02-11
- second reading — 2020-02-11
- committee — 2020-02-11
- third reading — 2020-02-11
- introduced — 2020-02-12
- second reading — 2020-02-12
- second reading — 2020-06-12
- second reading — 2020-06-12
- committee — 2020-06-12
- third reading — 2020-06-12
- other — 2020-06-15
- other — 2020-06-15
- other — 2020-06-16
- other — 2020-06-16
- other — 2020-06-17
- passed — 2020-06-17
- royal assent — 2020-06-22
Divisions
- The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading motion, which is that the bill be read for a [second time](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) (paliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). ### Amendment text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House criticises the Government and the responsible Ministers for their mishandling of and delays to the reforms to professional standards for financial advisers, resulting in significant uncertainty for both members of the industry and consumers".* — 2020-02-11, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 66, noes 78
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2020-02-11.92.1) introduced by Whitlam MP [Stephen Jones](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/whitlam/stephen_jones) (Labor), which means they failed. The amendments related to conflicted remuneration, which is defined as: > *… any benefit, whether monetary or non-monetary, given to a financial services licensee, or a representative of a financial services licensee, who provides financial product advice to persons as retail clients that, because of the nature of the benefit or the circumstances in which it is given:* > > *(a) could reasonably be expected to influence the choice of financial product …* — 2020-02-11, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 68, noes 75
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with the Senate amendments to this [bill](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6466). The bill will now return to the Senate to ask whether the Senate will insist on their amendments. If they do, the bill will not become law. If they do not, then it will pass without the Senate amendments. Read more about the amendments in the [House debate](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2020-06-15.29.2). — 2020-06-15, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 56, noes 53
- The majority voted in favour of an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-06-15.182.1) to a motion regarding when to consider the message from the House, which means that the message will be considered immediately. ### Original motion text > *That consideration of message No. 218 in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.* ### Amendment text > *That all words after 'That' be omitted and replaced with 'the message be considered in Committee of the Whole immediately'.* — 2020-06-15, Senate: affirmative, ayes 30, noes 26
- The same number of senators voted for and against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-06-15.194.1) "*That the question be now put*", which means that the motion failed. Motions like these end debate and require that the question be voted on straight away. — 2020-06-15, Senate: negative, ayes 31, noes 31
- The majority voted in favour of "*insist[ing] on disagreeing to the amendments insisted on by the Senate.*" This means that the bill will now return once more to the Senate. If the Senate agrees to *not* insist on their amendments, the bill can become law. However, if the Senate insists on them, the bill won't succeed. — 2020-06-16, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 57, noes 53
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-06-16.4.2) "*That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House has disagreed.*" In other words, the majority was keen to insist on their amendments. This means that the bill with the Senate amendments will once again return to the House of Representatives for their consideration. — 2020-06-16, Senate: negative, ayes 32, noes 34
Plain-language summary
No machine-written summary in this export.
Sources
em
billhome
frl act