Division
Nick McKim Can I just clarify that the amendments that were just negatived by the chamber were about extending unfair trading practices to include lead generation. I want to make a couple of comments about that. We'll come to our amendments to extend the requirements to the financial services sector shortly, and I will move those shortly. Firstly, on lead generation, as I said in my second reading speech, we have just lived through the collapse of First Guardian and Shield. These matters have been explored and examined at length in this chamber and in Senate estimates not just by the Greens but by a range of other senators right across the political spectrum—and so they should have been examined very closely in those contexts, because the collapse of Shield and First Guardian cost about 12,000 Australian people over $1 billion in lost retirement savings. As I said in my second reading speech, the chair of ASIC, Ms Sarah Court, indicated in estimates in October last year that a ban on unfair trading practices in the financial services sector may have assisted ASIC in their investigation and prosecution of the complex web of actors that were involved in the collapse of First Guardian and Shield. The reason that lead generation should be included and explicitly caught in the provisions of this legislation is, if we did so, firstly, it would send an unambiguous signal to the 12,000-odd Australians who were ripped off so egregiously during the collapse of First Guardian and Shield that the Senate has got their backs, that the Senate understands what happened and that the parliament understands what happened. It's an opportunity for the government to show that the government understands how absolutely destructive that experience was for a significant number of Australians. Although it wouldn't necessarily get them their money back or provide the full recourse that they deserve and that justice demands, it would at least show that the Senate, the parliament and the governm
Senate, 2026-07-02. negative: ayes 11, noes 25.
Question
Nick McKim Can I just clarify that the amendments that were just negatived by the chamber were about extending unfair trading practices to include lead generation. I want to make a couple of comments about that. We'll come to our amendments to extend the requirements to the financial services sector shortly, and I will move those shortly. Firstly, on lead generation, as I said in my second reading speech, we have just lived through the collapse of First Guardian and Shield. These matters have been explored and examined at length in this chamber and in Senate estimates not just by the Greens but by a range of other senators right across the political spectrum—and so they should have been examined very closely in those contexts, because the collapse of Shield and First Guardian cost about 12,000 Australian people over $1 billion in lost retirement savings. As I said in my second reading speech, the chair of ASIC, Ms Sarah Court, indicated in estimates in October last year that a ban on unfair trading practices in the financial services sector may have assisted ASIC in their investigation and prosecution of the complex web of actors that were involved in the collapse of First Guardian and Shield. The reason that lead generation should be included and explicitly caught in the provisions of this legislation is, if we did so, firstly, it would send an unambiguous signal to the 12,000-odd Australians who were ripped off so egregiously during the collapse of First Guardian and Shield that the Senate has got their backs, that the Senate understands what happened and that the parliament understands what happened. It's an opportunity for the government to show that the government understands how absolutely destructive that experience was for a significant number of Australians. Although it wouldn't necessarily get them their money back or provide the full recourse that they deserve and that justice demands, it would at least show that the Senate, the parliament and the governm
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.