Division
Bronwyn Bishop I move opposition amendment (2): (2) Schedule 1, items 1 to 3, page 3 (lines 4 to 21), omit the items. The amendment removes those sections from the bill which would enable the yes-no case to be sent to households— Honourable Members Honourable members interjecting— Anna Burke Order! The member for Mackellar has the call. Bronwyn Bishop It would mean that the yes-no case could be sent to households, as distinct from electors. As I said in my second reading speech, we believe that it is imperative that the concept of an elector is fundamental to the proper carrying out of an election and, indeed, of a referendum. So we believe that it is vitally important that this provision be removed so that we may return to the situation of the 1984 act, whereby every elector would receive the yes-no case. It would also prevent the Electoral Commissioner from making decisions about which address he may deem the fit one to send material to. As I pointed out in my second reading speech, with regard to emails, there is no available email register. There is no proper knowledge of which people have email addresses and which do not. At this stage, for 2013—it may be different in the future—we should maintain the position of posting, not sending, the yes-no case to every elector as an individual. Anna Burke The question is that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that this bill be agreed to.
House of Representatives, 2013-05-14. negative: ayes 68, noes 70.
Question
Bronwyn Bishop I move opposition amendment (2): (2) Schedule 1, items 1 to 3, page 3 (lines 4 to 21), omit the items. The amendment removes those sections from the bill which would enable the yes-no case to be sent to households— Honourable Members Honourable members interjecting— Anna Burke Order! The member for Mackellar has the call. Bronwyn Bishop It would mean that the yes-no case could be sent to households, as distinct from electors. As I said in my second reading speech, we believe that it is imperative that the concept of an elector is fundamental to the proper carrying out of an election and, indeed, of a referendum. So we believe that it is vitally important that this provision be removed so that we may return to the situation of the 1984 act, whereby every elector would receive the yes-no case. It would also prevent the Electoral Commissioner from making decisions about which address he may deem the fit one to send material to. As I pointed out in my second reading speech, with regard to emails, there is no available email register. There is no proper knowledge of which people have email addresses and which do not. At this stage, for 2013—it may be different in the future—we should maintain the position of posting, not sending, the yes-no case to every elector as an individual. Anna Burke The question is that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that this bill be agreed to.
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.