Division
Jan McLucas Without going to specific amendments, I want to speak in generalities to start with. At the outset, I want to restate Labor's strong and absolute support for health and medical research in our country and for the establishment of a Medical Research Future Fund. But there are a number of issues in the bills that I outlined in my contribution on the second reading, when I outlined the concerns that Labor has had with these bills. I indicated in my speech on the second reading that Labor will be moving amendments. Those amendments were circulated a long time ago. At the first opportunity we had to circulate those amendments, we did, because Labor is interested in transparency. During Senator Di Natale's speech, he said that the Greens will vote for good ideas. I invite the Greens to have a look at the substance of our amendments and I invite them to be good to their word. In my speech on the second reading, I used the word 'messy' and said that this had been a messy process, that the gestation of these bills had been long and that the birth was going to be short and sharp. Well, it just got messier. We turn up today and we have another supplementary explanatory memorandum—tabled today We have 21 more amendments that were tabled at 9.30 this morning. They are complex amendments. We will go through the substance of those amendments. I talked about chaos and dysfunction in my second reading speech. Well, it has a 'C' and a 'D' as of this morning. As we know, the first bill had 20 amendments in the House of Representatives. They were passed in that place and we then got the bill and the consequential amendments bill. We had an inquiry just last Thursday. Who is running the show here? Just last Thursday we had an inquiry and then we had the bill appearing on the _Notice Paper_ on Monday morning. The report of that inquiry said: The committee recommends the bills be passed. It did not recommend that we need 21 more amendments, that we need another explanatory mem
Senate, 2015-08-12. negative: ayes 22, noes 43.
Question
Jan McLucas Without going to specific amendments, I want to speak in generalities to start with. At the outset, I want to restate Labor's strong and absolute support for health and medical research in our country and for the establishment of a Medical Research Future Fund. But there are a number of issues in the bills that I outlined in my contribution on the second reading, when I outlined the concerns that Labor has had with these bills. I indicated in my speech on the second reading that Labor will be moving amendments. Those amendments were circulated a long time ago. At the first opportunity we had to circulate those amendments, we did, because Labor is interested in transparency. During Senator Di Natale's speech, he said that the Greens will vote for good ideas. I invite the Greens to have a look at the substance of our amendments and I invite them to be good to their word. In my speech on the second reading, I used the word 'messy' and said that this had been a messy process, that the gestation of these bills had been long and that the birth was going to be short and sharp. Well, it just got messier. We turn up today and we have another supplementary explanatory memorandum—tabled today We have 21 more amendments that were tabled at 9.30 this morning. They are complex amendments. We will go through the substance of those amendments. I talked about chaos and dysfunction in my second reading speech. Well, it has a 'C' and a 'D' as of this morning. As we know, the first bill had 20 amendments in the House of Representatives. They were passed in that place and we then got the bill and the consequential amendments bill. We had an inquiry just last Thursday. Who is running the show here? Just last Thursday we had an inquiry and then we had the bill appearing on the _Notice Paper_ on Monday morning. The report of that inquiry said: The committee recommends the bills be passed. It did not recommend that we need 21 more amendments, that we need another explanatory mem
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
- Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015
- Medical Research Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2015
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.