Division
The majority voted against amendments introduced by MP for Whitlam [Stephen Jones](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/whitlam/stephen_jones) (Labor), which means they failed. ### What were the amendments about? Senator Jones explained that: > *While most young workers and workers with low-balance accounts would be able to access life insurance or income protection insurance other than through group insurance through superannuation, this is not the case for many workers in high-risk industries. Concerns about this group of workers were, indeed, raised by the Productivity Commission in the report which led to this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019, coming before the House. Importantly, the Productivity Commission contemplated an exemption for these workers, recommending that exemptions to the under-25 opt-in restriction should only be granted if the trustee can demonstrate to APRA that opt-out disability or income protection insurance would be in the best interests of that specific cohort of young members. It's exactly that proposition that Labor's second group of amendments go to.* ### Amendments text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 13), at the end of subsection 68AAB(4), add:* > >> *; or (e) a member to whom the occupation or industry exception applies (see section 68AAF).* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 29), at the end of subsection 68AAC(4), add:* > >> *; or (e) a member to whom the occupation or industry exception applies (see section 68AAF).* > > *(3) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 35), after item 3, insert:* > >> *3A After section 68AAE* >> >> *Insert:* >> >> *68AAF Occupation or industry exception* >> >> *(1) The occupation or industry exception applies to a member of a regulated superannuation fund who holds a choice product or MySuper product in the fund if, at the time the member first holds the product, the member is working in an occupation or industry covered by an election
House of Representatives, 2019-09-16. negative: ayes 64, noes 78.
Question
The majority voted against amendments introduced by MP for Whitlam [Stephen Jones](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/whitlam/stephen_jones) (Labor), which means they failed. ### What were the amendments about? Senator Jones explained that: > *While most young workers and workers with low-balance accounts would be able to access life insurance or income protection insurance other than through group insurance through superannuation, this is not the case for many workers in high-risk industries. Concerns about this group of workers were, indeed, raised by the Productivity Commission in the report which led to this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019, coming before the House. Importantly, the Productivity Commission contemplated an exemption for these workers, recommending that exemptions to the under-25 opt-in restriction should only be granted if the trustee can demonstrate to APRA that opt-out disability or income protection insurance would be in the best interests of that specific cohort of young members. It's exactly that proposition that Labor's second group of amendments go to.* ### Amendments text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 13), at the end of subsection 68AAB(4), add:* > >> *; or (e) a member to whom the occupation or industry exception applies (see section 68AAF).* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 29), at the end of subsection 68AAC(4), add:* > >> *; or (e) a member to whom the occupation or industry exception applies (see section 68AAF).* > > *(3) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 35), after item 3, insert:* > >> *3A After section 68AAE* >> >> *Insert:* >> >> *68AAF Occupation or industry exception* >> >> *(1) The occupation or industry exception applies to a member of a regulated superannuation fund who holds a choice product or MySuper product in the fund if, at the time the member first holds the product, the member is working in an occupation or industry covered by an election
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.