Division
Doug Cameron Labor opposes schedules 1, 3 and 4 in the following terms: (4) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 21), to be opposed. (5) Schedule 3, page 6 (line 1) to page 16 (line 35), to be opposed. (6) Schedule 4, page 17 (lines 1 to 9), to be opposed. I have heard all of the debate tonight, and I think the debate has been very good, especially from Senator Lambie and Senator Gallagher, who have actually experienced relying on social security to help them and their families. Not too many in this place would have had to rely on that position, and that is why Labor sees social security as absolutely essential to have a decent society in this country. That is why we are opposed to this bill, because this is not the end of the cuts that this government is proposing. I am not sure if, in the negotiations that took place between One Nation, Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch, the government indicated that this was only the first tranche of cuts to social security in this country. I listened to Senator Cormann when we were discussing the bill today, and this is what he said: 'These measures have been around for so long—why are you persisting with them?' But the government is persisting with them. The government is continuing to seek to legislate, and it is true that we have worked with crossbench senators because Labor and the Greens in relation to these measures were not prepared to pursue further budget repair, even though it was necessary, given the mess Labor left behind. I do not know what you would call the fiscal and economic position that you are in at the moment, but what we are not prepared to do is simply deal with budget repair at arm's length from the implications it has for ordinary families in this country. Senator Cormann said: Today is the next instalment. Building on the progress that we made in the initial omnibus savings bill, we will be able to secure more savings today. There will be more work to do after today, but this is as far as we believe the Sena
Senate, 2017-03-22. affirmative: ayes 34, noes 31.
Question
Doug Cameron Labor opposes schedules 1, 3 and 4 in the following terms: (4) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 21), to be opposed. (5) Schedule 3, page 6 (line 1) to page 16 (line 35), to be opposed. (6) Schedule 4, page 17 (lines 1 to 9), to be opposed. I have heard all of the debate tonight, and I think the debate has been very good, especially from Senator Lambie and Senator Gallagher, who have actually experienced relying on social security to help them and their families. Not too many in this place would have had to rely on that position, and that is why Labor sees social security as absolutely essential to have a decent society in this country. That is why we are opposed to this bill, because this is not the end of the cuts that this government is proposing. I am not sure if, in the negotiations that took place between One Nation, Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch, the government indicated that this was only the first tranche of cuts to social security in this country. I listened to Senator Cormann when we were discussing the bill today, and this is what he said: 'These measures have been around for so long—why are you persisting with them?' But the government is persisting with them. The government is continuing to seek to legislate, and it is true that we have worked with crossbench senators because Labor and the Greens in relation to these measures were not prepared to pursue further budget repair, even though it was necessary, given the mess Labor left behind. I do not know what you would call the fiscal and economic position that you are in at the moment, but what we are not prepared to do is simply deal with budget repair at arm's length from the implications it has for ordinary families in this country. Senator Cormann said: Today is the next instalment. Building on the progress that we made in the initial omnibus savings bill, we will be able to secure more savings today. There will be more work to do after today, but this is as far as we believe the Sena
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.