Division
Rachel Siewert by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7817: (1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (lines 6 to 8), to be opposed. (2) Schedule 1, item 32, page 8 (lines 4 to 6), to be opposed. (3) Schedule 1, item 87, page 14 (lines 24 to 27), to be opposed. I did listen to and note the comments the minister made about the regulation impact statement. Unfortunately, it does not address the issues of our concerns. We believe that this amendment would in fact strengthen the regulatory process and protections. As I said, often it is the best explanation of why changes are being made, so we believe that this amendment would be a stronger approach than the approach that the minister outlined during her contribution. I commend the amendments to the chamber. Fiona Nash We as government do not support the amendment. So as not to take up any more time of the Senate chamber, I refer to my earlier statements in my summing up speech. We do believe that this is the most appropriate way forward. Katy Gallagher Labor will not be supporting this amendment. We are satisfied that the provisions contained in the government bill provide for a regulatory impact statement to be prepared as appropriate. The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7817 be considered. The question will be that items 14, 32 and 87 of schedule 1 stand as printed. Question agreed to. by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7804: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item. (2) Schedule 2, page 21 (line 1) to page 26 (line 13), to be opposed. I did cover off these amendments during my earlier speech. They relate to the composition of the FSANZ board and the fact that we are not supporting the changes to the composition of the FSANZ board. This is on the bases that it is currently finely balanced and we are concerned that the proposed amendments by the government give the minister discretion to appoint a bloc of members to the board from a range of cr
Senate, 2016-02-03. negative: ayes 26, noes 32.
Question
Rachel Siewert by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7817: (1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (lines 6 to 8), to be opposed. (2) Schedule 1, item 32, page 8 (lines 4 to 6), to be opposed. (3) Schedule 1, item 87, page 14 (lines 24 to 27), to be opposed. I did listen to and note the comments the minister made about the regulation impact statement. Unfortunately, it does not address the issues of our concerns. We believe that this amendment would in fact strengthen the regulatory process and protections. As I said, often it is the best explanation of why changes are being made, so we believe that this amendment would be a stronger approach than the approach that the minister outlined during her contribution. I commend the amendments to the chamber. Fiona Nash We as government do not support the amendment. So as not to take up any more time of the Senate chamber, I refer to my earlier statements in my summing up speech. We do believe that this is the most appropriate way forward. Katy Gallagher Labor will not be supporting this amendment. We are satisfied that the provisions contained in the government bill provide for a regulatory impact statement to be prepared as appropriate. The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7817 be considered. The question will be that items 14, 32 and 87 of schedule 1 stand as printed. Question agreed to. by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7804: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item. (2) Schedule 2, page 21 (line 1) to page 26 (line 13), to be opposed. I did cover off these amendments during my earlier speech. They relate to the composition of the FSANZ board and the fact that we are not supporting the changes to the composition of the FSANZ board. This is on the bases that it is currently finely balanced and we are concerned that the proposed amendments by the government give the minister discretion to appoint a bloc of members to the board from a range of cr
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.