Division
David Johnston I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. Scott Ludlam I will put a couple of general questions relating to the purposes of the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the amendments that Senator Johnston has just tabled. They actually go quite a long way, a remarkable way, towards quieting some of the concerns that have been expressed by those in the sector, by transport academics and by people who watch this area. So I would like to acknowledge quite genuinely that it is rare in this place to see errors as grievous as those contained in the bill not have to be shot out on the floor of the chamber but in fact moved by the government. It saves the opposition and the cross benches a great deal of time when a government of either political persuasion brings these amendments forward themselves. Senator Johnston, I have a couple of general questions before we get into the substance and detail of the amendments that the Greens, the opposition and the government are proposing to move. Can you explain for us in simple terms why the Australian government has cancelled all funding for public transport and on what policy basis the Australian government has decided to get out of the business of funding urban rail infrastructure? David Johnston I think that question is a bit of a distraction and away from the bill, but the point is that the government has chosen where it seeks to augment and facilitate productivity and to enhance the Australian economy. We have acknowledged that road funding, which is an integral part of public transport, is a very important part of infrastructure that has been neglected. Scott Ludlam I am also acknowledging, Senator Johnston, that this is not your portfolio. You are here in a representative capacity and you just have to make do with the best that your advisers can throw at you this evening. I found the answer profoundly unsatisfying. Are you aware of the product
Senate, 2014-06-23. affirmative: ayes 33, noes 27.
Question
David Johnston I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. Scott Ludlam I will put a couple of general questions relating to the purposes of the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the amendments that Senator Johnston has just tabled. They actually go quite a long way, a remarkable way, towards quieting some of the concerns that have been expressed by those in the sector, by transport academics and by people who watch this area. So I would like to acknowledge quite genuinely that it is rare in this place to see errors as grievous as those contained in the bill not have to be shot out on the floor of the chamber but in fact moved by the government. It saves the opposition and the cross benches a great deal of time when a government of either political persuasion brings these amendments forward themselves. Senator Johnston, I have a couple of general questions before we get into the substance and detail of the amendments that the Greens, the opposition and the government are proposing to move. Can you explain for us in simple terms why the Australian government has cancelled all funding for public transport and on what policy basis the Australian government has decided to get out of the business of funding urban rail infrastructure? David Johnston I think that question is a bit of a distraction and away from the bill, but the point is that the government has chosen where it seeks to augment and facilitate productivity and to enhance the Australian economy. We have acknowledged that road funding, which is an integral part of public transport, is a very important part of infrastructure that has been neglected. Scott Ludlam I am also acknowledging, Senator Johnston, that this is not your portfolio. You are here in a representative capacity and you just have to make do with the best that your advisers can throw at you this evening. I found the answer profoundly unsatisfying. Are you aware of the product
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.