Division
Doug Cameron It seems to me that things are very fluid out there in relation to this bill. There are a number of amendments we have got sheets for that outline amendments from Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch—and we have got an amendment. But I notice that Senator Xenophon has been publicly indicating that there is some deal in place that means there will be some process to deal with water for South Australia that includes COAG. As I understand it, the deal is that there will be discussions at COAG and there will be some discussions on an ongoing basis like an estimates process within the processes of the Senate itself. Whether this is at estimates, whether there is going to be a special estimates process, is pretty unclear. But I did hear Peter Hartcher, one of the leading commentators on parliamentary issues, indicate that what has happened is that the issue of water for South Australia has been sent to what he described as 'the sinkhole of reform'—which, in his view, is COAG—and he said this was a win for the Liberal Party. In going through this, I cannot see much that Senator Xenophon has achieved in relation to this so-called agreement. I heard Paul Kelly indicate that he felt that Senator Xenophon had overreached in his rhetoric and that what he had was a deal on process. So there will be a process to talk about South Australian water. I do not understand. This is a bit like the situation we had under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Bill, where someone who was in a very powerful position to negotiate a settlement to the issues that he is concerned about simply rolled over. If I were a South Australian resident, I would be very worried about putting all this faith in the Xenophon political party and getting so little in return—commitments to process, which mean nothing. I noticed Senator Xenophon on the television later on. He said that, if there is no progress on the issue of water, then obviously there will be consequences. Well, if you are in the
Senate, 2016-11-29. affirmative: ayes 35, noes 28.
Question
Doug Cameron It seems to me that things are very fluid out there in relation to this bill. There are a number of amendments we have got sheets for that outline amendments from Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch—and we have got an amendment. But I notice that Senator Xenophon has been publicly indicating that there is some deal in place that means there will be some process to deal with water for South Australia that includes COAG. As I understand it, the deal is that there will be discussions at COAG and there will be some discussions on an ongoing basis like an estimates process within the processes of the Senate itself. Whether this is at estimates, whether there is going to be a special estimates process, is pretty unclear. But I did hear Peter Hartcher, one of the leading commentators on parliamentary issues, indicate that what has happened is that the issue of water for South Australia has been sent to what he described as 'the sinkhole of reform'—which, in his view, is COAG—and he said this was a win for the Liberal Party. In going through this, I cannot see much that Senator Xenophon has achieved in relation to this so-called agreement. I heard Paul Kelly indicate that he felt that Senator Xenophon had overreached in his rhetoric and that what he had was a deal on process. So there will be a process to talk about South Australian water. I do not understand. This is a bit like the situation we had under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Bill, where someone who was in a very powerful position to negotiate a settlement to the issues that he is concerned about simply rolled over. If I were a South Australian resident, I would be very worried about putting all this faith in the Xenophon political party and getting so little in return—commitments to process, which mean nothing. I noticed Senator Xenophon on the television later on. He said that, if there is no progress on the issue of water, then obviously there will be consequences. Well, if you are in the
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
- Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
- Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.