Division
David Leyonhjelm I move amendment (1) on sheet 7866 standing in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 26 (after line 26), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 4—Election funding 96 Subsection 294(2) Omit "$1.50", substitute $1.125". 97 Section 297 Repeal the section, substitute: 297 Payment not to be made in House of Representative elections in certain circumstances A payment under this Division must not be made in respect of votes given in a House of Representative election for a candidate unless the total number of eligible votes polled in the candidate's favour is at least 4% of the total number of eligible votes polled in favour of all of the candidates in the election. 98 Application provision The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to elections the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this item. This amendment reduces Senate election funding per vote by a quarter and removes the requirement in the Senate to receive four per cent of first preference votes in order to receive funding. The amendment leaves funding arrangements for House of Representatives elections untouched. Removing the four per cent barrier will remove baseless discrimination against minor parties and minor-party voters. It is unconscionable that major parties get a couple of dollars per vote but minor parties do not. This is the antithesis of one-vote, one-value. The Liberal/Nationals/Greens coalition say that attacking minor parties is not the purpose of their bill. If this is the case they will take this opportunity to remove the four per cent barrier. At the very least they will explain why the four per cent barrier should be retained. I can see no principle nor practical reason for this four per cent barrier. My amendment reduces Senate election funding per vote to ensure that the removal of the four per cent barrier does not increase the burden on taxpayers to fund party-political election campaigning. I commend my amendment to the Senate. Mathias Cormann The go
Senate, 2016-03-17. negative: ayes 22, noes 36.
Question
David Leyonhjelm I move amendment (1) on sheet 7866 standing in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 26 (after line 26), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 4—Election funding 96 Subsection 294(2) Omit "$1.50", substitute $1.125". 97 Section 297 Repeal the section, substitute: 297 Payment not to be made in House of Representative elections in certain circumstances A payment under this Division must not be made in respect of votes given in a House of Representative election for a candidate unless the total number of eligible votes polled in the candidate's favour is at least 4% of the total number of eligible votes polled in favour of all of the candidates in the election. 98 Application provision The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to elections the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this item. This amendment reduces Senate election funding per vote by a quarter and removes the requirement in the Senate to receive four per cent of first preference votes in order to receive funding. The amendment leaves funding arrangements for House of Representatives elections untouched. Removing the four per cent barrier will remove baseless discrimination against minor parties and minor-party voters. It is unconscionable that major parties get a couple of dollars per vote but minor parties do not. This is the antithesis of one-vote, one-value. The Liberal/Nationals/Greens coalition say that attacking minor parties is not the purpose of their bill. If this is the case they will take this opportunity to remove the four per cent barrier. At the very least they will explain why the four per cent barrier should be retained. I can see no principle nor practical reason for this four per cent barrier. My amendment reduces Senate election funding per vote to ensure that the removal of the four per cent barrier does not increase the burden on taxpayers to fund party-political election campaigning. I commend my amendment to the Senate. Mathias Cormann The go
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.