Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.230.1) introduced by ACT Senator [Katy Gallagher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/katy_gallagher) (Labor), which means they were not successful. Senator Gallagher [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.230.1): > *With the way the government's bill is drafted, the directors don't have to prove that they have the benefit of the defence. Instead, once directors bring evidence that satisfies an evidentiary burden that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matters exist or do not exist in that they are entitled to the safe harbour, the burden of proof or the legal burden falls on the party bringing proceedings to prove that the director is not entitled to the safe harbour. Our amendments on sheet 8224 would mean that directors who want to access the safe harbour bear the burden of proof in showing that they are genuinely taking a reasonable course of action to turn the company around. This is consistent with other existing defences to liability for insolvent trading.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 7 to 13), omit all the words from and including "evidence" to the end of subsection 588E(8A), substitute:* > >> *it has been proved that:* >> >> *(a) subsection 588GA(1) applies in relation to a person and a debt; or* >> >> *(b) subsection 588WA(1) applies in relation to a corporation and a debt;* >> >> *it must be presumed that the relevant subsection applies in relation to the person or the corporation and the debt.* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 16), after "harbour", insert "defence".* > > *(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 19 and 20), omit "Subsection 588G(2) does not apply in relation to a person and a debt if", substitute "In any proceedings against a person under subsection 588G(2), it is a defence if the person proves, in relation to a debt, that".* > > *(4) Schedule 1, item 2
Senate, 2017-09-11. negative: ayes 20, noes 36.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.230.1) introduced by ACT Senator [Katy Gallagher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/katy_gallagher) (Labor), which means they were not successful. Senator Gallagher [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.230.1): > *With the way the government's bill is drafted, the directors don't have to prove that they have the benefit of the defence. Instead, once directors bring evidence that satisfies an evidentiary burden that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matters exist or do not exist in that they are entitled to the safe harbour, the burden of proof or the legal burden falls on the party bringing proceedings to prove that the director is not entitled to the safe harbour. Our amendments on sheet 8224 would mean that directors who want to access the safe harbour bear the burden of proof in showing that they are genuinely taking a reasonable course of action to turn the company around. This is consistent with other existing defences to liability for insolvent trading.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 7 to 13), omit all the words from and including "evidence" to the end of subsection 588E(8A), substitute:* > >> *it has been proved that:* >> >> *(a) subsection 588GA(1) applies in relation to a person and a debt; or* >> >> *(b) subsection 588WA(1) applies in relation to a corporation and a debt;* >> >> *it must be presumed that the relevant subsection applies in relation to the person or the corporation and the debt.* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 16), after "harbour", insert "defence".* > > *(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 19 and 20), omit "Subsection 588G(2) does not apply in relation to a person and a debt if", substitute "In any proceedings against a person under subsection 588G(2), it is a defence if the person proves, in relation to a debt, that".* > > *(4) Schedule 1, item 2
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.