Division
Steven Ciobo I move: That amendments Nos. 3, 4, 7 to 11, 14, 17, 18, 22, 24 to 26, 29, 30, 35, 38 and 39 be agreed to. Bronwyn Bishop The question is twofold: that the House agree to the first proposal of agreement; the second is that the House agree to the proposal of disagreement The question is that the first proposal be agreed to. Anthony Albanese It is extraordinary that the government is moving that Senate amendments (3), (4), (7) to (11), (14), (17), (18), (22), (24) to (26), (29), (30), (35), (38) and (39) be agreed to. It is extraordinary because they are government amendments. There are 18 amendments to its own legislation. Why can't they just get it right when they write the legislation in the first place? We will be supporting the proposition of these amendments, as we will be supporting all the amendments that have been carried in the Senate and, indeed, insisting on them, because we believe this was very much flawed legislation. If you want evidence that it was flawed legislation, it is that essentially the whole parameter of this proposal, which came through the budget, was to take money that was already in the budget, in the Building Australia Fund and the Education Investment Fund, to call it something else—the Asset Recycling Fund, because that is far more polite than calling it 'privatisation encouragement'—and then to pretend that somehow this was something new. The other big difference is that, with the BAF, the Building Australia Fund, and the Education Investment Fund, there were proper provisions to make sure that taxpayers' money was put to good use. What this government wants to do is to have the privatisation of assets being seen automatically as a good thing. The fact is that—as even the Productivity Commission showed this week in its report that was very critical of this proposal by the government—it is aimed at encouraging a fire sale of assets, without regard to the merit. We in the Labor Party do not regard privatisation in itself as
House of Representatives, 2014-07-17. affirmative: ayes 80, noes 45.
Question
Steven Ciobo I move: That amendments Nos. 3, 4, 7 to 11, 14, 17, 18, 22, 24 to 26, 29, 30, 35, 38 and 39 be agreed to. Bronwyn Bishop The question is twofold: that the House agree to the first proposal of agreement; the second is that the House agree to the proposal of disagreement The question is that the first proposal be agreed to. Anthony Albanese It is extraordinary that the government is moving that Senate amendments (3), (4), (7) to (11), (14), (17), (18), (22), (24) to (26), (29), (30), (35), (38) and (39) be agreed to. It is extraordinary because they are government amendments. There are 18 amendments to its own legislation. Why can't they just get it right when they write the legislation in the first place? We will be supporting the proposition of these amendments, as we will be supporting all the amendments that have been carried in the Senate and, indeed, insisting on them, because we believe this was very much flawed legislation. If you want evidence that it was flawed legislation, it is that essentially the whole parameter of this proposal, which came through the budget, was to take money that was already in the budget, in the Building Australia Fund and the Education Investment Fund, to call it something else—the Asset Recycling Fund, because that is far more polite than calling it 'privatisation encouragement'—and then to pretend that somehow this was something new. The other big difference is that, with the BAF, the Building Australia Fund, and the Education Investment Fund, there were proper provisions to make sure that taxpayers' money was put to good use. What this government wants to do is to have the privatisation of assets being seen automatically as a good thing. The fact is that—as even the Productivity Commission showed this week in its report that was very critical of this proposal by the government—it is aimed at encouraging a fire sale of assets, without regard to the merit. We in the Labor Party do not regard privatisation in itself as
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.