Division
David Leyonhjelm I withdraw my amendment on sheet 7886, and I move amendment No. (1) on sheet 7868 standing in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 89, page 24 (lines 19 to 25), omit paragraphs 214A(3)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) no more than 3 logos may be printed adjacent to the square that is printed, in accordance with paragraph 214(2)(d), adjacent to the names of the parties; and (b) if more than 3 of those parties have logos entered in the Register—the parties must notify the Electoral Commission, in writing, which of the logos are to be printed adjacent to that square. Existing electoral law allows candidates from different parties to appear in the same column on the ballot and for the names of each of these parties to be printed in that column above the line. There could be two, three, four or more parties that wish to share a column under this provision. The government's bill allows for party logos to be printed above the line also. However, it does not allow for the logo of each party in a column to be printed above the line; it only allows for two logos to be printed in a column above the line. By sheer coincidence, I am sure, this assists the Liberal-National coalition. They have regularly used the existing provision to have their candidates appear in the same column. Now each of their logos will appear in that column above the line. This will make the Liberal-National coalition more prominent on the ballot compared to their rivals, like the Labor Party. I am surprised that the government did not go further and require that the logos of the Liberals and the Nationals should appear in colour while everyone else's logos must be in black and white. However, in the preparation of the government's bills there has been an oversight. Because I want to help the government, my amendment addresses this oversight—after all, we crossbenchers are here to help. It appears that the drafters of the government's bill did not realise the potential for a Liberal-National-Greens c
Senate, 2016-03-17. negative: ayes 5, noes 45.
Question
David Leyonhjelm I withdraw my amendment on sheet 7886, and I move amendment No. (1) on sheet 7868 standing in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 89, page 24 (lines 19 to 25), omit paragraphs 214A(3)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) no more than 3 logos may be printed adjacent to the square that is printed, in accordance with paragraph 214(2)(d), adjacent to the names of the parties; and (b) if more than 3 of those parties have logos entered in the Register—the parties must notify the Electoral Commission, in writing, which of the logos are to be printed adjacent to that square. Existing electoral law allows candidates from different parties to appear in the same column on the ballot and for the names of each of these parties to be printed in that column above the line. There could be two, three, four or more parties that wish to share a column under this provision. The government's bill allows for party logos to be printed above the line also. However, it does not allow for the logo of each party in a column to be printed above the line; it only allows for two logos to be printed in a column above the line. By sheer coincidence, I am sure, this assists the Liberal-National coalition. They have regularly used the existing provision to have their candidates appear in the same column. Now each of their logos will appear in that column above the line. This will make the Liberal-National coalition more prominent on the ballot compared to their rivals, like the Labor Party. I am surprised that the government did not go further and require that the logos of the Liberals and the Nationals should appear in colour while everyone else's logos must be in black and white. However, in the preparation of the government's bills there has been an oversight. Because I want to help the government, my amendment addresses this oversight—after all, we crossbenchers are here to help. It appears that the drafters of the government's bill did not realise the potential for a Liberal-National-Greens c
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.