Division
Bob Day by leave—I move Family First amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 7757 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 7), omit "$100,000", substitute "$500,000". (2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 10), omit "$250,000", substitute "$1,500,000". (3) Schedule 1, item 31, page 9 (line 21), omit "$100,000", substitute "$500,000". (4) Schedule 1, item 31, page 9 (line 24), omit "$250,000", substitute "$1,500,000". We have had a discussion about whether the threshold should be $100,000, whether it should be $300,000. I am moving that the threshold be $500,000 to get a more comprehensive sample of contractors who may be affected by this legislation. I ask honourable senators to support my amendments. Question negatived. David Leyonhjelm I move amendment (1) on sheet 7759: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months". This is a very minor amendment and it simply reflects feedback that I have had, and I am sure others have had the same feedback, to the effect that six months is an insufficient period for a number of major organisations to adjust their contracts to take account of the legislation. Indeed, the Bankers' Association sought 12 months and Westpac sought two years and has been earbashing everyone who wants to pay attention. The fact is that adjusting standard form contracts in a period of six months is quite a challenge. I think this is a minor amendment which will allow them practical time in which to accommodate the provisions of this act. Mathias Cormann I will just indicate quickly the position of the government. We do not support this amendment. We have proposed in the legislation a six-month transition period. There will be guidance and assistance from the ACCC and from ASIC and there will be a 12-month 'light touch' implementation of the regulatory change. Furthermore, in terms of providing some more detail on how the ACCC will work with industry once the protections are in effect, the ACCC will work with business and indus
Senate, 2015-09-14. affirmative: ayes 34, noes 26.
Question
Bob Day by leave—I move Family First amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 7757 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 7), omit "$100,000", substitute "$500,000". (2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 10), omit "$250,000", substitute "$1,500,000". (3) Schedule 1, item 31, page 9 (line 21), omit "$100,000", substitute "$500,000". (4) Schedule 1, item 31, page 9 (line 24), omit "$250,000", substitute "$1,500,000". We have had a discussion about whether the threshold should be $100,000, whether it should be $300,000. I am moving that the threshold be $500,000 to get a more comprehensive sample of contractors who may be affected by this legislation. I ask honourable senators to support my amendments. Question negatived. David Leyonhjelm I move amendment (1) on sheet 7759: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months". This is a very minor amendment and it simply reflects feedback that I have had, and I am sure others have had the same feedback, to the effect that six months is an insufficient period for a number of major organisations to adjust their contracts to take account of the legislation. Indeed, the Bankers' Association sought 12 months and Westpac sought two years and has been earbashing everyone who wants to pay attention. The fact is that adjusting standard form contracts in a period of six months is quite a challenge. I think this is a minor amendment which will allow them practical time in which to accommodate the provisions of this act. Mathias Cormann I will just indicate quickly the position of the government. We do not support this amendment. We have proposed in the legislation a six-month transition period. There will be guidance and assistance from the ACCC and from ASIC and there will be a 12-month 'light touch' implementation of the regulatory change. Furthermore, in terms of providing some more detail on how the ACCC will work with industry once the protections are in effect, the ACCC will work with business and indus
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.