Division
Deborah O'Neill I seek to continue the scrutiny that is required of these bills and hark back to a significant political speech nearly 100 years ago by a very important senator of this place: Senator Gardiner, who in 1918 was trying to make a point in a similar way that I think is being undertaken by the opposition this evening. It was to draw attention to the fact of the unseemly haste of the government in advancing a deliberate agenda to marginalise the voice of the Australian people in the way in which our democracy operates. I just got up to recounting the point that there was a concern about the nature of debate happening through the middle of the night, and that is indeed what we have seen. In this last bit of the pre-light hours I want to indicate that, at that time, the attempted action was particularly egregious in that it sought to alter electoral law after the issue of the writ for the by-election in the division of Corangamite was achieved. It was for this reason that Senator Gardiner even went so far as to say about the bill that its title should be changed. He advocated that it should be called 'A Bill to Improve the Chances of the National Party at the Corangamite Election'. I am thinking perhaps I should move an amendment to this bill before the chamber to change the title to 'A Bill to Improve the Chances of Larger Parties to Squash the Smaller Ones in the Senate Election,' especially if it ends up being a double dissolution on 2 July. This government, in cohorts with the Greens, is attempting to wipe out all the Independents who have found their place in this parliament and, I think we could say through the contribution of senators tonight, are well and truly able to hold this government to account in language and practices that the Australian people respect, admire and understand. As a Labor senator, like all my illustrious colleagues on this side of the chamber, Senator Gardiner was a very astute man. Being the astute man that he was, he made thi
Senate, 2016-03-17. affirmative: ayes 40, noes 18.
Question
Deborah O'Neill I seek to continue the scrutiny that is required of these bills and hark back to a significant political speech nearly 100 years ago by a very important senator of this place: Senator Gardiner, who in 1918 was trying to make a point in a similar way that I think is being undertaken by the opposition this evening. It was to draw attention to the fact of the unseemly haste of the government in advancing a deliberate agenda to marginalise the voice of the Australian people in the way in which our democracy operates. I just got up to recounting the point that there was a concern about the nature of debate happening through the middle of the night, and that is indeed what we have seen. In this last bit of the pre-light hours I want to indicate that, at that time, the attempted action was particularly egregious in that it sought to alter electoral law after the issue of the writ for the by-election in the division of Corangamite was achieved. It was for this reason that Senator Gardiner even went so far as to say about the bill that its title should be changed. He advocated that it should be called 'A Bill to Improve the Chances of the National Party at the Corangamite Election'. I am thinking perhaps I should move an amendment to this bill before the chamber to change the title to 'A Bill to Improve the Chances of Larger Parties to Squash the Smaller Ones in the Senate Election,' especially if it ends up being a double dissolution on 2 July. This government, in cohorts with the Greens, is attempting to wipe out all the Independents who have found their place in this parliament and, I think we could say through the contribution of senators tonight, are well and truly able to hold this government to account in language and practices that the Australian people respect, admire and understand. As a Labor senator, like all my illustrious colleagues on this side of the chamber, Senator Gardiner was a very astute man. Being the astute man that he was, he made thi
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.