Division
Jacinta Collins I move opposition amendment (1) on a sheet 7859: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "The day after this Act receives the Royal Asset.", substitute "19 July 2016". Before I address that amendment, because Senator Rhiannon seems to think that commentary about how we are proceeding is the order of the day—and, of course, hers is not particularly accurate—I will indicate, given some of the nature of the interjections that occurred during that last division, that, as an example of how we are proceeding in a way that deals with the substantive matters in this bill, Labor did not believe it was appropriate or necessary to pull out of the previous discussion amendments such as amendment (6) which is simply: (6) Schedule 1, items 26 and 27, page 7 (lines 16 to 21), omit the items, substitute: 26 Section 270 Repeal the section. There have been accusations during this debate about the time wasting and the like that has been occurring. We have made our points in relation to those amendments and we are more than happy to move on to our first significant amendment. This amendment, which will delay the commencement of the bill until 19 July 2016, demonstrates to the minister that it is possible to be very clear about when the provisions of the bill will first apply. He could, hypothetically, have been far more clear with us about how an advertising campaign might occur and when it could commence and, therefore, give the AEC the certainty that they need. But of course the one thing it would not do is give the government their policy rationale, which is to run a double-D. So, whilst the minister in the earlier discussion attempted, disingenuously, to argue that the issue of a double-D and the provisions in this bill were independent, anyone following this debate knows otherwise—except, of course, the Greens, who cottoned on a little bit too late. But I will come to that in a moment. Setting a clear commencement date of 19 July is important because it will prev
Senate, 2016-03-17. negative: ayes 23, noes 37.
Question
Jacinta Collins I move opposition amendment (1) on a sheet 7859: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "The day after this Act receives the Royal Asset.", substitute "19 July 2016". Before I address that amendment, because Senator Rhiannon seems to think that commentary about how we are proceeding is the order of the day—and, of course, hers is not particularly accurate—I will indicate, given some of the nature of the interjections that occurred during that last division, that, as an example of how we are proceeding in a way that deals with the substantive matters in this bill, Labor did not believe it was appropriate or necessary to pull out of the previous discussion amendments such as amendment (6) which is simply: (6) Schedule 1, items 26 and 27, page 7 (lines 16 to 21), omit the items, substitute: 26 Section 270 Repeal the section. There have been accusations during this debate about the time wasting and the like that has been occurring. We have made our points in relation to those amendments and we are more than happy to move on to our first significant amendment. This amendment, which will delay the commencement of the bill until 19 July 2016, demonstrates to the minister that it is possible to be very clear about when the provisions of the bill will first apply. He could, hypothetically, have been far more clear with us about how an advertising campaign might occur and when it could commence and, therefore, give the AEC the certainty that they need. But of course the one thing it would not do is give the government their policy rationale, which is to run a double-D. So, whilst the minister in the earlier discussion attempted, disingenuously, to argue that the issue of a double-D and the provisions in this bill were independent, anyone following this debate knows otherwise—except, of course, the Greens, who cottoned on a little bit too late. But I will come to that in a moment. Setting a clear commencement date of 19 July is important because it will prev
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.