Division
The majority voted in favour of [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.191.1) introduced by West Australian Senator [Michaelia Cash](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/michaelia_cash) (Labor), which means they will now be included in the bill. ### What do these amendments do? Senator Cash [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.191.1): > *Under this amendment the current intent-to-claim provisions will be retained so as to only apply to claimants who are in vulnerable circumstances. The amendment includes an instrument-making power to allow a legislative instrument to define a vulnerable claimant for the purposes of the intent-to-claim provisions. For all other claimants the date of the claim will be the date the claim is lodged rather than the date they initially contact the department. Vulnerable claimants will be those who have a genuine difficulty in collating their documentation. These difficulties will include but not be limited to being homeless, affected by a major disaster or family and domestic violence, a recent humanitarian entrant or recently released from prison or psychiatric confinement.* > > *Amendment (1) omits schedule 11, 'Removal of intent to claim provisions', and substitutes new schedule 11, 'Intent to claim provisions'. New schedule 11 retains and amends the current intent-to-claim provisions in the social security law. As I've stated, these provisions will now apply to a person in vulnerable circumstances, being a person who is included in the class of persons determined by the minister in a legislative instrument—and I've outline examples of that. This amendment will also remove the requirement for the secretary to give a person a written notice acknowledging the Department of Human Services has been contacted in relation to the making of a claim for a social security payment or concession card.*
Senate, 2018-03-19. affirmative: ayes 30, noes 27.
Question
The majority voted in favour of [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.191.1) introduced by West Australian Senator [Michaelia Cash](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/michaelia_cash) (Labor), which means they will now be included in the bill. ### What do these amendments do? Senator Cash [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.191.1): > *Under this amendment the current intent-to-claim provisions will be retained so as to only apply to claimants who are in vulnerable circumstances. The amendment includes an instrument-making power to allow a legislative instrument to define a vulnerable claimant for the purposes of the intent-to-claim provisions. For all other claimants the date of the claim will be the date the claim is lodged rather than the date they initially contact the department. Vulnerable claimants will be those who have a genuine difficulty in collating their documentation. These difficulties will include but not be limited to being homeless, affected by a major disaster or family and domestic violence, a recent humanitarian entrant or recently released from prison or psychiatric confinement.* > > *Amendment (1) omits schedule 11, 'Removal of intent to claim provisions', and substitutes new schedule 11, 'Intent to claim provisions'. New schedule 11 retains and amends the current intent-to-claim provisions in the social security law. As I've stated, these provisions will now apply to a person in vulnerable circumstances, being a person who is included in the class of persons determined by the minister in a legislative instrument—and I've outline examples of that. This amendment will also remove the requirement for the secretary to give a person a written notice acknowledging the Department of Human Services has been contacted in relation to the making of a claim for a social security payment or concession card.*
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.