Division
Scott Ryan In reference to the amendment we have just dealt with, I have been informed that Senator Wong referred to that amount of money as the LGA grant a few minutes ago on television. I am not sure if that provides any extra clarity for the government to be able to give answers. I am led to believe, although I was not a witness to it, that Senator Wong also conceded on air that equal funding should be given to proponents and opponents. I am not a witness to that and I am happy to be corrected, but that is the message I have received, which I thought might inform the house of, given the debate we just had. The opposition oppose schedule 1 in the following terms: (2) Schedule 1, items 1 to 3, page 3 (lines 4 to 21), items TO BE OPPOSED. This amendment concerns the distribution of what is simply known as the yes/no booklet. This booklet has a history in this country and this booklet is a century old. It was conceived in 1912 to inform electors of the arguments for the yes and the no cases in amending our constitution. I cannot understand why on earth the people on the other side of this chamber and their Green allies are so desperate to stop the booklet going to each elector. I have never heard such a contrived excuse as saving money from this government when it just voted to spend $10 million on an advertising campaign. I notice that Senator Rhiannon said that the combination of these two measures improved the budget. Only the Greens could say that saving four and spending 10 improves the budget. This booklet is prepared by a majority of the people who voted yes in the parliament and by a majority of those who voted no in the parliament. It gets mailed to every elector, and I think it is fair to say that we all, maybe, open mail that looks more official rather than something that might come in a plastic envelope and says, 'To the householder'. The government stood up here and preached about the need for information to voters and how an advertising campaign was so
Senate, 2013-05-15. affirmative: ayes 35, noes 31.
Question
Scott Ryan In reference to the amendment we have just dealt with, I have been informed that Senator Wong referred to that amount of money as the LGA grant a few minutes ago on television. I am not sure if that provides any extra clarity for the government to be able to give answers. I am led to believe, although I was not a witness to it, that Senator Wong also conceded on air that equal funding should be given to proponents and opponents. I am not a witness to that and I am happy to be corrected, but that is the message I have received, which I thought might inform the house of, given the debate we just had. The opposition oppose schedule 1 in the following terms: (2) Schedule 1, items 1 to 3, page 3 (lines 4 to 21), items TO BE OPPOSED. This amendment concerns the distribution of what is simply known as the yes/no booklet. This booklet has a history in this country and this booklet is a century old. It was conceived in 1912 to inform electors of the arguments for the yes and the no cases in amending our constitution. I cannot understand why on earth the people on the other side of this chamber and their Green allies are so desperate to stop the booklet going to each elector. I have never heard such a contrived excuse as saving money from this government when it just voted to spend $10 million on an advertising campaign. I notice that Senator Rhiannon said that the combination of these two measures improved the budget. Only the Greens could say that saving four and spending 10 improves the budget. This booklet is prepared by a majority of the people who voted yes in the parliament and by a majority of those who voted no in the parliament. It gets mailed to every elector, and I think it is fair to say that we all, maybe, open mail that looks more official rather than something that might come in a plastic envelope and says, 'To the householder'. The government stood up here and preached about the need for information to voters and how an advertising campaign was so
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.