Division
The majority voted in favour of keeping the following parts of the bill unchanged: division 3 in item 2, and items (5) to (10), (12), (15) to (30), (42), (43), (45), (46) and (52) to (57) of schedule 1, and schedule 3. In parliamentary jargon, they voted that those parts "*stand as printed.*" This division was put after NSW Senator [Doug Cameron](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/doug_cameron) (Labor) [proposed](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-12-06.29.1) to oppose these parts. Note that this is the [second time](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2017-12-06/1) this vote took place. While opposing those parts, and introducing a series of other amendments, Senator Cameron [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-12-06.29.1): > *Our position is clear: we think that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [SCT] should be maintained in its current position. The complaints tribunal, as I've indicated, has operated for some time. The very fact that the government has tried to replicate the powers of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal in the AFCA bill demonstrates that the current powers, protections and structures for the SCT are appropriate. In May this year, the draft legislation tried to copy and paste a few of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's statutory provisions into the new AFCA [Australian Financial Complaints Authority]. In September this year, the final legislation introduced, copied and pasted, more of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's statutory provisions in the new AFCA. Now, after the Senate inquiry and after Labor senators exposed serious flaws, the government has circulated amendments to copy even more of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal provisions into the new AFCA. The ad hoc process of grafting features of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal onto the AFCA has been a tacit admission by the government that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal is a far superio
Senate, 2017-12-06. affirmative: ayes 33, noes 32.
Question
The majority voted in favour of keeping the following parts of the bill unchanged: division 3 in item 2, and items (5) to (10), (12), (15) to (30), (42), (43), (45), (46) and (52) to (57) of schedule 1, and schedule 3. In parliamentary jargon, they voted that those parts "*stand as printed.*" This division was put after NSW Senator [Doug Cameron](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/doug_cameron) (Labor) [proposed](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-12-06.29.1) to oppose these parts. Note that this is the [second time](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2017-12-06/1) this vote took place. While opposing those parts, and introducing a series of other amendments, Senator Cameron [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-12-06.29.1): > *Our position is clear: we think that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [SCT] should be maintained in its current position. The complaints tribunal, as I've indicated, has operated for some time. The very fact that the government has tried to replicate the powers of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal in the AFCA bill demonstrates that the current powers, protections and structures for the SCT are appropriate. In May this year, the draft legislation tried to copy and paste a few of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's statutory provisions into the new AFCA [Australian Financial Complaints Authority]. In September this year, the final legislation introduced, copied and pasted, more of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's statutory provisions in the new AFCA. Now, after the Senate inquiry and after Labor senators exposed serious flaws, the government has circulated amendments to copy even more of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal provisions into the new AFCA. The ad hoc process of grafting features of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal onto the AFCA has been a tacit admission by the government that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal is a far superio
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.