Division
Michaelia Cash I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in _Hansard_. Leave granted. _The speech read as follows—_ The Government is introducing the _Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill_because this Government stands by owner drivers and mum and dad small businesses who just want to earn an honest living. It has been clear for some time that the Road Safety Remuneration System, established in 2012 by the former Labor Government, has demonstrated no tangible safety outcomes for the road transport industry. Two separate, comprehensive, evidence based reviews have supported this in the strongest of terms. Even Labor's own regulatory analysis completed at the time the System was introduced acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a clear link between road safety and remuneration. There is nothing fair or safe about the Road Safety Remuneration System and that is why the Coalition Government has listened to thousands of owner drivers across the country and put this very urgent bill before the House today. The refusal of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to listen to reason and delay the commencement of the 2016 Payments Order in the face of widespread confusion and misunderstanding is the last straw. Around 800 submissions were made to the Tribunal. Almost all of these called for a delay to the Payments Order, with many indicating that the Order will negatively impact their business and, in a number of cases, put them out of business altogether. Even in the face of this evidence, the Tribunal refused to delay the start date of the Payments Order to allow these small businesses time to try to comply. I note that, notwithstanding the Transport Workers Union's strong opposition to any delay, the TWU is before the Tribunal today, seeking to delay the payments in the Order to 1 January 2017. What an extraordinary and absurd turn of events - the union for whom the Tribunal was cre
Senate, 2016-04-18. negative: ayes 32, noes 36.
Question
Michaelia Cash I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in _Hansard_. Leave granted. _The speech read as follows—_ The Government is introducing the _Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill_because this Government stands by owner drivers and mum and dad small businesses who just want to earn an honest living. It has been clear for some time that the Road Safety Remuneration System, established in 2012 by the former Labor Government, has demonstrated no tangible safety outcomes for the road transport industry. Two separate, comprehensive, evidence based reviews have supported this in the strongest of terms. Even Labor's own regulatory analysis completed at the time the System was introduced acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a clear link between road safety and remuneration. There is nothing fair or safe about the Road Safety Remuneration System and that is why the Coalition Government has listened to thousands of owner drivers across the country and put this very urgent bill before the House today. The refusal of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to listen to reason and delay the commencement of the 2016 Payments Order in the face of widespread confusion and misunderstanding is the last straw. Around 800 submissions were made to the Tribunal. Almost all of these called for a delay to the Payments Order, with many indicating that the Order will negatively impact their business and, in a number of cases, put them out of business altogether. Even in the face of this evidence, the Tribunal refused to delay the start date of the Payments Order to allow these small businesses time to try to comply. I note that, notwithstanding the Transport Workers Union's strong opposition to any delay, the TWU is before the Tribunal today, seeking to delay the payments in the Order to 1 January 2017. What an extraordinary and absurd turn of events - the union for whom the Tribunal was cre
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.