Division
Gavin Marshall The next two items on the running sheet—one by Senators Madigan, Rhiannon and Xenophon and the other one by the opposition—effectively deal in part with the same item that we have just voted on. They also deal with schedule 2. I intend to separate the questions. The first question I will put before the committee—and people can talk about this, but I am letting the chamber know how I intend to proceed—is that schedule 1, as amended, be agreed to. Then I will separately put that schedule 2 stand as printed. That is how I intend to proceed. Lee Rhiannon I, and also on behalf of Senator Nick Xenophon and Senator John Madigan, oppose schedules 1 and 2 in the following terms: (3) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 5), to be opposed. (4) Schedule 2, page 4 (lines 1 to 16), to be opposed. I have been working with Senator Madigan on this aspect of the committee proceedings. We do have concerns with these schedules. We are endeavouring to keep the current foreign ownership requirements contained in the Qantas Sale Act. We need to strengthen the requirements in the Qantas Sale Act in respect of Qantas facilities being located in Australia. I think that is where we, hopefully, have agreement. We have also specified that it is important that any future subsidiaries of Qantas are covered. That is also a point we have included. We are also preventing Qantas from creating any new subsidiaries in order to shift operations overseas. Under the current Qantas Sale Act the majority of Qantas's facilities are taken in aggregate and must be located in Australia. We are referring there obviously to maintenance, administration and catering. It is very important that the majority are located in Australia but, because they are grouped together, the Qantas Sale Act gives Qantas the potential to move individual facilities offshore as long as the majority of all facilities remain in Australia. You can see that this is a very unfortunate loophole that can be exploited. For example, Qan
Senate, 2014-07-17. negative: ayes 11, noes 43.
Question
Gavin Marshall The next two items on the running sheet—one by Senators Madigan, Rhiannon and Xenophon and the other one by the opposition—effectively deal in part with the same item that we have just voted on. They also deal with schedule 2. I intend to separate the questions. The first question I will put before the committee—and people can talk about this, but I am letting the chamber know how I intend to proceed—is that schedule 1, as amended, be agreed to. Then I will separately put that schedule 2 stand as printed. That is how I intend to proceed. Lee Rhiannon I, and also on behalf of Senator Nick Xenophon and Senator John Madigan, oppose schedules 1 and 2 in the following terms: (3) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 5), to be opposed. (4) Schedule 2, page 4 (lines 1 to 16), to be opposed. I have been working with Senator Madigan on this aspect of the committee proceedings. We do have concerns with these schedules. We are endeavouring to keep the current foreign ownership requirements contained in the Qantas Sale Act. We need to strengthen the requirements in the Qantas Sale Act in respect of Qantas facilities being located in Australia. I think that is where we, hopefully, have agreement. We have also specified that it is important that any future subsidiaries of Qantas are covered. That is also a point we have included. We are also preventing Qantas from creating any new subsidiaries in order to shift operations overseas. Under the current Qantas Sale Act the majority of Qantas's facilities are taken in aggregate and must be located in Australia. We are referring there obviously to maintenance, administration and catering. It is very important that the majority are located in Australia but, because they are grouped together, the Qantas Sale Act gives Qantas the potential to move individual facilities offshore as long as the majority of all facilities remain in Australia. You can see that this is a very unfortunate loophole that can be exploited. For example, Qan
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.