Division
The majority voted in favour of [amendments (1) to (8), (17) to (31), and (33) to (38)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.219.1), which were introduced by West Australian Senator [Louise Pratt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/louise_pratt) (Labor). ### What do the amendments do? Senator Pratt explained that: > *These amendments go to the substantive parts of this bill and the core reasons that Labor are opposed to it.* > > *Schedule 3 provides for the cessation of the wife pension. This is not something that Labor support. We note that, of the 7,750 recipients, there are many who would transfer under this provision to the age pension and the carers payment and would be no worse off. Indeed, it makes sense to simplify payments. But I have to say that we are not prepared to see many other vulnerable women on the wife pension go backwards in their access to income support. There are 3,100 women who will be worse off and 2,900 women transferring onto a jobseeker payment. This is not a new area of social security; this has been closed to new applicants since 1995. So you have 2,900 women who will have been out of the workforce for more than 20 years who will be transferred onto a jobseeker payment. This is a pretty extraordinary thing to do to women who have had very little, if any, exposure to the workforce.* > > *We are also very concerned about the 200 women living overseas who will no longer be able to access any income support other than the support that their spouse is eligible for. We can see that, overnight, they would be $670 worse off a fortnight. This is an incredibly perilous situation to put them into. We have here a group of low-income women who will be left with nothing to live on other than their partner's pension, many of them having been out of the workforce for a great many years. As I said before, they will have been receiving the wife pension for a minimum of 22 years.* > > *It seems reasonable to us, in the oppos
Senate, 2018-03-19. negative: ayes 30, noes 32.
Question
The majority voted in favour of [amendments (1) to (8), (17) to (31), and (33) to (38)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.219.1), which were introduced by West Australian Senator [Louise Pratt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/louise_pratt) (Labor). ### What do the amendments do? Senator Pratt explained that: > *These amendments go to the substantive parts of this bill and the core reasons that Labor are opposed to it.* > > *Schedule 3 provides for the cessation of the wife pension. This is not something that Labor support. We note that, of the 7,750 recipients, there are many who would transfer under this provision to the age pension and the carers payment and would be no worse off. Indeed, it makes sense to simplify payments. But I have to say that we are not prepared to see many other vulnerable women on the wife pension go backwards in their access to income support. There are 3,100 women who will be worse off and 2,900 women transferring onto a jobseeker payment. This is not a new area of social security; this has been closed to new applicants since 1995. So you have 2,900 women who will have been out of the workforce for more than 20 years who will be transferred onto a jobseeker payment. This is a pretty extraordinary thing to do to women who have had very little, if any, exposure to the workforce.* > > *We are also very concerned about the 200 women living overseas who will no longer be able to access any income support other than the support that their spouse is eligible for. We can see that, overnight, they would be $670 worse off a fortnight. This is an incredibly perilous situation to put them into. We have here a group of low-income women who will be left with nothing to live on other than their partner's pension, many of them having been out of the workforce for a great many years. As I said before, they will have been receiving the wife pension for a minimum of 22 years.* > > *It seems reasonable to us, in the oppos
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.