Division
Lee Rhiannon I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7882: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 2), after Part 1, insert: Division 1—Amendments It is very straightforward. This just inserts the title on the measures that we have just dealt with in amendments (2) and (3). Ricky Muir by leave—I move amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 7887: (4) Amendment (2), item 42A, omit "1 July 2016" (wherever occurring), substitute "5 August 2016". (5) Amendment (3), item 95, omit "1 July 2016" (wherever occurring), substitute "5 August 2016". I will speak very briefly. This amendment omits 1 July 2016 and substitutes it with 5 August 2016. It is delaying the implementation till a general election or the possibility of a general election. This is a very serious change to our electoral system. It is very vague as to whether the AEC would be able to make the appropriate implementations in time. It is all but mitigating risk. Essentially, as things are with the current date, the Greens are handing the government a double dissolution, or the potential for a double dissolution trigger. But, most importantly, there is the risk of administrative errors, which would of course raise constitutional issues at the time of the election if votes were not counted properly, if the implementation that the AEC put in place was not successful. Mathias Cormann I indicate that the government will not be supporting Senator Muir's amendments to the Greens amendment. We believe that the 1 July date that is part of the Greens amendment is the appropriate date. It does give sufficient time for the Electoral Commission to do all of the necessary preparation for an effective implementation of these changes at an election. The 5 August date is unnecessarily delaying the effective date of these important changes. Jacinta Collins The opposition will not be supporting these amendments. As I explained when I spoke to Senator Rhiannon's amendments, Labor has concerns about the legal efficacy of these application provision
Senate, 2016-03-17. affirmative: ayes 34, noes 20.
Question
Lee Rhiannon I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7882: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 2), after Part 1, insert: Division 1—Amendments It is very straightforward. This just inserts the title on the measures that we have just dealt with in amendments (2) and (3). Ricky Muir by leave—I move amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 7887: (4) Amendment (2), item 42A, omit "1 July 2016" (wherever occurring), substitute "5 August 2016". (5) Amendment (3), item 95, omit "1 July 2016" (wherever occurring), substitute "5 August 2016". I will speak very briefly. This amendment omits 1 July 2016 and substitutes it with 5 August 2016. It is delaying the implementation till a general election or the possibility of a general election. This is a very serious change to our electoral system. It is very vague as to whether the AEC would be able to make the appropriate implementations in time. It is all but mitigating risk. Essentially, as things are with the current date, the Greens are handing the government a double dissolution, or the potential for a double dissolution trigger. But, most importantly, there is the risk of administrative errors, which would of course raise constitutional issues at the time of the election if votes were not counted properly, if the implementation that the AEC put in place was not successful. Mathias Cormann I indicate that the government will not be supporting Senator Muir's amendments to the Greens amendment. We believe that the 1 July date that is part of the Greens amendment is the appropriate date. It does give sufficient time for the Electoral Commission to do all of the necessary preparation for an effective implementation of these changes at an election. The 5 August date is unnecessarily delaying the effective date of these important changes. Jacinta Collins The opposition will not be supporting these amendments. As I explained when I spoke to Senator Rhiannon's amendments, Labor has concerns about the legal efficacy of these application provision
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.