Division
Mathias Cormann I move government amendment No. (4) on sheet JP109: (4) Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (after line 9), at the end of subsection 269(1A), add: Note: Paragraph (1A)(b) applies both for the purposes of determining whether a ballot paper is formal, and for the purposes of determining which numbers marked on a ballot paper are counted in the election. Example: A ballot paper has squares above the line that are numbered 1, 1, 2 and 3. The vote is informal because, by disregarding the numbers 1 and upwards under subparagraph (2)(b)(i), no squares have been numbered. A second ballot paper has squares above the line that are numbered consecutively from 1 to 9 and then 11, 12, 13 and 14. The vote is formal under paragraph (1)(b). However, only the squares numbered from 1 to 9 are counted for the purposes of sections 273 and 273A because the numbers 11 and upwards are disregarded under subparagraph (b)(ii) of this subsection. Doug Cameron I just want to go back to an issue that Senator Wong raised in relation to this voting below the line. This was an analysis that was done by Ross Gittins. The article I have was reported in _The Canberra Times_ on 29 February. What Mr Gittins is saying in relation to this issue—and I did mention this myself in a contribution I made earlier—is that if this bill were passed it would make life a lot easier for lobbyists. They would have a much smaller list of Senate parties to get around—in both senses, he argues. He says: Another fear about Turnbull’s voting change – being supported by the Greens and Nick Xenophon, but opposed by everyone else in the Senate – is that it will lead to a decline in political competition by raising the barriers to entry by other, newly emerging parties. I think it is clear that the purpose of this bill is to consolidate those who are here in this Senate and to ensure that no other emerging parties could challenge the Greens in relation to the position they have at the moment. They have basically made s
Senate, 2016-03-17. affirmative: ayes 40, noes 18.
Question
Mathias Cormann I move government amendment No. (4) on sheet JP109: (4) Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (after line 9), at the end of subsection 269(1A), add: Note: Paragraph (1A)(b) applies both for the purposes of determining whether a ballot paper is formal, and for the purposes of determining which numbers marked on a ballot paper are counted in the election. Example: A ballot paper has squares above the line that are numbered 1, 1, 2 and 3. The vote is informal because, by disregarding the numbers 1 and upwards under subparagraph (2)(b)(i), no squares have been numbered. A second ballot paper has squares above the line that are numbered consecutively from 1 to 9 and then 11, 12, 13 and 14. The vote is formal under paragraph (1)(b). However, only the squares numbered from 1 to 9 are counted for the purposes of sections 273 and 273A because the numbers 11 and upwards are disregarded under subparagraph (b)(ii) of this subsection. Doug Cameron I just want to go back to an issue that Senator Wong raised in relation to this voting below the line. This was an analysis that was done by Ross Gittins. The article I have was reported in _The Canberra Times_ on 29 February. What Mr Gittins is saying in relation to this issue—and I did mention this myself in a contribution I made earlier—is that if this bill were passed it would make life a lot easier for lobbyists. They would have a much smaller list of Senate parties to get around—in both senses, he argues. He says: Another fear about Turnbull’s voting change – being supported by the Greens and Nick Xenophon, but opposed by everyone else in the Senate – is that it will lead to a decline in political competition by raising the barriers to entry by other, newly emerging parties. I think it is clear that the purpose of this bill is to consolidate those who are here in this Senate and to ensure that no other emerging parties could challenge the Greens in relation to the position they have at the moment. They have basically made s
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.