Menu

Division

Katy Gallagher I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Claire Chandler I ask that the question be divided so that the question that the bill proceed without formalities is put separately? Slade Brockman Alright. I will put those questions separately. Claire Chandler Thank you very much. My understanding is that I can now speak on that motion; I would like to do so to explain what we are doing here today. I have sought that the question be divided so that the question relating to these bills proceeding without formalities can be put separately. While it is a common occurrence in this chamber for bills to proceed without formalities, and indeed the motion that is currently before the chair is rarely debated, it's worth understanding why we are seeking for this to occur. Usually, putting a question without formalities allows for expedited proceedings which provide for a simple, rational and flexible means of considering bills. But nothing about these bills, or the government's approach, has been simple, rational or flexible. I want to be very clear about what is actually before the Senate today. The bills that will be brought on shortly were rushed through a process and followed by a Senate inquiry that, frankly, I can only describe as a stitch-up. This is a bill that will bundle higher taxes on housing, savings, small business, start-ups and family wealth, and this government has the audacity to call that tax reform. The Australian people and Australian businesses are angry and disappointed with Labor's toxic taxes. The government, like I said, is calling this tax reform, but it's not. They are very major changes to the tax system and they come with very real consequences, because when you strip it all back and when you take away the branding and the label 'tax reform No. 1' you are left with a set of measures that will increase taxes, make the system more complicated and introduce new risks into th

Senate, 2026-06-22. affirmative: ayes 32, noes 23.

Question

Katy Gallagher I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Claire Chandler I ask that the question be divided so that the question that the bill proceed without formalities is put separately? Slade Brockman Alright. I will put those questions separately. Claire Chandler Thank you very much. My understanding is that I can now speak on that motion; I would like to do so to explain what we are doing here today. I have sought that the question be divided so that the question relating to these bills proceeding without formalities can be put separately. While it is a common occurrence in this chamber for bills to proceed without formalities, and indeed the motion that is currently before the chair is rarely debated, it's worth understanding why we are seeking for this to occur. Usually, putting a question without formalities allows for expedited proceedings which provide for a simple, rational and flexible means of considering bills. But nothing about these bills, or the government's approach, has been simple, rational or flexible. I want to be very clear about what is actually before the Senate today. The bills that will be brought on shortly were rushed through a process and followed by a Senate inquiry that, frankly, I can only describe as a stitch-up. This is a bill that will bundle higher taxes on housing, savings, small business, start-ups and family wealth, and this government has the audacity to call that tax reform. The Australian people and Australian businesses are angry and disappointed with Labor's toxic taxes. The government, like I said, is calling this tax reform, but it's not. They are very major changes to the tax system and they come with very real consequences, because when you strip it all back and when you take away the branding and the label 'tax reform No. 1' you are left with a set of measures that will increase taxes, make the system more complicated and introduce new risks into th

View original

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.