Bill
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020
passed, as at 2020-11-10. Finance portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Finance
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2020-06-11
- second reading — 2020-06-11
- second reading — 2020-09-02
- second reading — 2020-09-02
- committee — 2020-09-02
- committee — 2020-09-03
- third reading — 2020-09-03
- introduced — 2020-10-06
- second reading — 2020-10-29
- second reading — 2020-10-29
- second reading — 2020-10-29
- committee — 2020-10-29
- third reading — 2020-10-29
- passed — 2020-10-29
- royal assent — 2020-11-10
Divisions
- Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 - Second Reading - Amend donation laws — 2020-09-02, Senate: negative, ayes 24, noes 24
- The majority voted in favour of agreeing with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to [read the bill for a second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). The bill will now be considered in greater detail. ### What is the bill's main idea? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd011), the purpose of the bill was to implement a number of unrelated technical amendments, including to: * *clarify the operation of the public funding provisions where candidates for more than one party are in the same group on a Senate ballot paper (Senate groups)* * *replace the provisions relating to the interaction of state and federal political finance laws held to be invalid by the High Court of Australia in [Spence v Queensland](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2019/15.html?context=1;query=2019%20hca%2015%20;mask_path=)* * *increase the flexibility of voting options to be offered to Australian voters in Antarctica and* * *introduce a number of technical amendments, some of which were previously proposed in the [Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6240) but removed prior to passage.* — 2020-09-02, Senate: affirmative, ayes 42, noes 4
- Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Lower disclosure threshold — 2020-09-02, Senate: negative, ayes 6, noes 27
- The majority voted in favour of keeping sub-items (4) and (6) in item 34 of schedule 1 unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for them to *stand as printed*. This vote was put after Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens) introduced [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.263.1) to oppose those sub-items. After introducing her amendments, Senator Waters [said that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.263.1): > *Senator [Cormann](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/mathias_cormann) will be pleased to know that these amendments are the ones about indexation, so he can give us the spiel about how that's so very bad, which we all can't wait to hear. These amendments would remove indexation of the federal disclosure threshold. It started off at $13,200 and it's just progressively increased over the years. It's now up to $14,300. It makes a mockery of having a disclosure threshold. These amendments would say that you can't index the disclosure threshold. I commend them to the chamber.* — 2020-09-02, Senate: affirmative, ayes 23, noes 7
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.265.1) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means they failed. Senator Waters [explained her amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.265.1): > *These amendments put beyond doubt that voter ID should not be a slippery slope towards voter ID at the polls. In dissenting reports to the 2016 JSCEM election review, both my party and the Labor Party noted that the government's claims of double voting and voter irregularity were actually not substantiated and were unsupported by the evidence. In Australia and internationally, the evidence supports the view that voter ID in fact suppresses and hinders citizen participation. Requiring voters to show formal identification documents risks disenfranchising First Nations people, family violence victims, young people without a driver's licence or homeless and itinerant people. The Electoral Commission has said that up to 1.5 per cent of new enrolments could be people without formal ID.* > > *I note that my home state of Queensland introduced voter ID laws before the 2015 election and, after a low voter turnout, the laws were repealed.* However, South Australian Senator [Don Farrell](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/don_farrell) (Labor) disagreed with the amendments, [arguing that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.267.1): > *Labor shares the concerns regarding the implementation of so-called voter ID laws and any amendments which would discourage voting and undermine our system of compulsory voting. We are assured, however—and we will be seeking further assurance from the Electoral Commissioner—that the amendments contained in the bill will not result in a polling official demanding identification. We therefore do not believe the change proposed by the Greens is necessary and — 2020-09-02, Senate: negative, ayes 5, noes 25
- Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Reform donation arrangements — 2020-09-02, Senate: negative, ayes 7, noes 21
- Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Restrict political donations — 2020-09-03, Senate: negative, ayes 7, noes 30
- The majority voted in favour of passing the bill in the Senate. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to [read the bill for a third time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). The bill will now be sent to the House of Representatives for their consideration. ### What does the bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd011), the purpose of the bill was to implement a number of unrelated technical amendments, including to: * *clarify the operation of the public funding provisions where candidates for more than one party are in the same group on a Senate ballot paper (Senate groups)* * *replace the provisions relating to the interaction of state and federal political finance laws held to be invalid by the High Court of Australia in [Spence v Queensland](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2019/15.html?context=1;query=2019%20hca%2015%20;mask_path=)* * *increase the flexibility of voting options to be offered to Australian voters in Antarctica and* * *introduce a number of technical amendments, some of which were previously proposed in the [Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6240) but removed prior to passage.* — 2020-09-03, Senate: affirmative, ayes 30, noes 4
Plain-language summary
No machine-written summary in this export.
Sources
em
em supp
em revised
digest
billhome
frl act