Division
The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-06-03.137.1) introduced by Hughes MP [Craig Kelly](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hughes/craig_kelly) (Independent), which means they failed. MP Kelly [explained his amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-06-03.137.1): > *This is very significant legislation that requires an enormous amount of change for the superannuation industry—and much of it justified. However, we are now in June. To have a start date for this legislation of 1 July when it is yet to even go to the Senate is, I believe, rush and haste. When you rush and you do things in haste, you make mistakes. I believe it would be far more prudent and wise of this House if we moved the start date for this legislation to 1 July 2022 rather than 2021. I believe that, if we are doing our job, that would give time for all the vested stakeholders to go through all the detail, and it would be far more prudent for our economy to get the best outcomes, which is what we all require.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Section 2 (Commencement), where the Bill specifies "the day this Act receives Royal Assent" or "1 July 2021", replace with "1 July 2022"* > > *Note: The intent of amendment 1 is to delay the start of all elements of the legislation until 1 July 2022.* ### What does the bill do? According to the [bill homepage](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6672), the bill was introduced to: * *provide that if a new employee has an existing 'stapled' superannuation fund and does not choose a fund to receive contributions, their employer is required to make contributions on behalf of the employee into the stapled fund; and ensure that employers are not in breach of various rules, or are not liable for superannuation guarantee charge, in certain circumstances;* * *require the Australian Prudential Regulation Authorit
House of Representatives, 2021-06-03. affirmative: ayes 68, noes 61.
Question
The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-06-03.137.1) introduced by Hughes MP [Craig Kelly](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hughes/craig_kelly) (Independent), which means they failed. MP Kelly [explained his amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-06-03.137.1): > *This is very significant legislation that requires an enormous amount of change for the superannuation industry—and much of it justified. However, we are now in June. To have a start date for this legislation of 1 July when it is yet to even go to the Senate is, I believe, rush and haste. When you rush and you do things in haste, you make mistakes. I believe it would be far more prudent and wise of this House if we moved the start date for this legislation to 1 July 2022 rather than 2021. I believe that, if we are doing our job, that would give time for all the vested stakeholders to go through all the detail, and it would be far more prudent for our economy to get the best outcomes, which is what we all require.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Section 2 (Commencement), where the Bill specifies "the day this Act receives Royal Assent" or "1 July 2021", replace with "1 July 2022"* > > *Note: The intent of amendment 1 is to delay the start of all elements of the legislation until 1 July 2022.* ### What does the bill do? According to the [bill homepage](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6672), the bill was introduced to: * *provide that if a new employee has an existing 'stapled' superannuation fund and does not choose a fund to receive contributions, their employer is required to make contributions on behalf of the employee into the stapled fund; and ensure that employers are not in breach of various rules, or are not liable for superannuation guarantee charge, in certain circumstances;* * *require the Australian Prudential Regulation Authorit
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.