Division
David Leyonhjelm by leave—I move Liberal Democratic Party amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 8103: (1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 36, (lines 26 and 27), omit step 4 of the method statement, substitute: Step 4. Work out the hourly rate of CCS for the individual for each of those sessions of care (see clause 2). If the applicable percentage is 0% for each of those sessions of care, the amount of child care subsidy for the individual for the week, for those sessions, is nil. Otherwise, go to step 5. (2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 38 (after line 8), at the end of subclause 2(1), add: Note: If the applicable percentage for a session of care is 0% (see table item 5 of subclause 3(1)), the hourly rate of CCS for the individual for the session of care is nil. (3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 39 (table item 5), omit "20%", substitute "0%". (4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 40 (line 16), omit "$184,290", substitute "$134,290". (5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 40 (line 18), omit "$274,290", substitute "$284,290". I did not give a speech during the second reading debate on the bill, so I have a few remarks to make now. I do not like this bill. Putting more money into child care is a bad idea, and $1.6 billion is a lot of money. Childcare subsidies take money from taxpayers and give it to people who have children and choose to send those children to child care or family day care. The taxpayers who pay this money are both rich and poor. Some have children and some do not. Many of them enjoyed no subsidised child care when they were a child. They might have been raised by a stay-at-home parent, a relative or a neighbour, or their parents may have paid for their child care without a subsidy. So why do we subsidise child care? It is true that childcare subsidies go to disadvantaged families, for whom child care represents an important complement to their personal efforts to raise their own children. But childcare subsidies also go to families that are not disadvantaged, for whom child care is no be
Senate, 2017-03-23. negative: ayes 6, noes 38.
Question
David Leyonhjelm by leave—I move Liberal Democratic Party amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 8103: (1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 36, (lines 26 and 27), omit step 4 of the method statement, substitute: Step 4. Work out the hourly rate of CCS for the individual for each of those sessions of care (see clause 2). If the applicable percentage is 0% for each of those sessions of care, the amount of child care subsidy for the individual for the week, for those sessions, is nil. Otherwise, go to step 5. (2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 38 (after line 8), at the end of subclause 2(1), add: Note: If the applicable percentage for a session of care is 0% (see table item 5 of subclause 3(1)), the hourly rate of CCS for the individual for the session of care is nil. (3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 39 (table item 5), omit "20%", substitute "0%". (4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 40 (line 16), omit "$184,290", substitute "$134,290". (5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 40 (line 18), omit "$274,290", substitute "$284,290". I did not give a speech during the second reading debate on the bill, so I have a few remarks to make now. I do not like this bill. Putting more money into child care is a bad idea, and $1.6 billion is a lot of money. Childcare subsidies take money from taxpayers and give it to people who have children and choose to send those children to child care or family day care. The taxpayers who pay this money are both rich and poor. Some have children and some do not. Many of them enjoyed no subsidised child care when they were a child. They might have been raised by a stay-at-home parent, a relative or a neighbour, or their parents may have paid for their child care without a subsidy. So why do we subsidise child care? It is true that childcare subsidies go to disadvantaged families, for whom child care represents an important complement to their personal efforts to raise their own children. But childcare subsidies also go to families that are not disadvantaged, for whom child care is no be
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.