Division
Karen Andrews I move: That the requested amendments be not made. Kate Ellis I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House calls on the government to recommend an appropriation from the Governor-General consistent with the request from the Senate." Last night, the Senate made perfectly clear that they agree with Labor that it is time to stand up and protect our TAFE system. Today, the government has the opportunity, belatedly, to get on board. This is too important for us to ignore. What we know is that the measures within this bill will rip $7 billion out of our vocational education sector. That is something that the government agrees with, that the government states. But what they have not done is said in any way that they will help to protect quality providers, that they will stand up for the not-for-profits who will be hit hard and, most importantly, how they will ensure that this does not have a further and a devastating impact on our TAFE sector. We know that TAFE is the backbone of our system and that TAFE, along with the innocent students, has suffered the most in recent years from Liberal cuts and mismanagement at both the federal and state level. Today, Labor stands here and says enough is enough. Last night in the Senate the crossbench stood with us and said enough is enough. Because the truth is that a new national partnership is due at the end of next June in order to outline how TAFE will be supported—how the government will ensure that they do not have to cut more courses, lose more teachers, close more classes and campuses. But this government is not even committing to putting a new national partnership in place. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago the assistant minister, when asked about it, said, 'Well, if you want more money, you better go and speak to the Treasurer.' Well, no, Assistant Minister, that is actually your job. Your job is to go and speak to the Treasurer and make sure that t
House of Representatives, 2016-12-01. affirmative: ayes 76, noes 72.
Question
Karen Andrews I move: That the requested amendments be not made. Kate Ellis I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House calls on the government to recommend an appropriation from the Governor-General consistent with the request from the Senate." Last night, the Senate made perfectly clear that they agree with Labor that it is time to stand up and protect our TAFE system. Today, the government has the opportunity, belatedly, to get on board. This is too important for us to ignore. What we know is that the measures within this bill will rip $7 billion out of our vocational education sector. That is something that the government agrees with, that the government states. But what they have not done is said in any way that they will help to protect quality providers, that they will stand up for the not-for-profits who will be hit hard and, most importantly, how they will ensure that this does not have a further and a devastating impact on our TAFE sector. We know that TAFE is the backbone of our system and that TAFE, along with the innocent students, has suffered the most in recent years from Liberal cuts and mismanagement at both the federal and state level. Today, Labor stands here and says enough is enough. Last night in the Senate the crossbench stood with us and said enough is enough. Because the truth is that a new national partnership is due at the end of next June in order to outline how TAFE will be supported—how the government will ensure that they do not have to cut more courses, lose more teachers, close more classes and campuses. But this government is not even committing to putting a new national partnership in place. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago the assistant minister, when asked about it, said, 'Well, if you want more money, you better go and speak to the Treasurer.' Well, no, Assistant Minister, that is actually your job. Your job is to go and speak to the Treasurer and make sure that t
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.