Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.290.1) introduced by WA Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert) (Greens), which means it failed. ### What does this amendment do? Senator Siewert [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.290.1): > *This amendment relates to additional requirements and a cap, and I have a couple of questions relating to this issue. This amendment relates to provisions for avoiding a reduction in or cancellation of a payment by undertaking a requirement and also addresses the cap of seven weeks, during which time a participant payment can be reduced or cancelled.* > > *The eight-week compliance penalty of the old compliance regime had a very significant impact and it happened all at once. So we can appreciate what the government is trying to do in having a one-week suspension, a two-week suspension and a four-week suspension. But by the time you get to a four-week suspension from payments you've already had a three-week non-payment period. By the time you get to four, that's seven. The concern is that somebody could go through a cycle of a number of weeks of suspension. People can be almost as badly off, potentially, as they were under the old regime. We want to apply a cap to this process so it's really clear.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 15 , item 1 , page 208 (line 3) , after section 42AP , insert:* > > *42APA Secretary may require person to comply with additional requirements* > >> *(1) The Secretary may require a person to comply with a requirement during a period in respect of which:* >> >>> *(a) the person’s participation payment is to be cancelled; or* >>> >>> *(b) instalments of the person’s participation payment are to be reduced.* >> >> *(2) Despite any other provision of this Subdivision, if the person complies with the requirement at any time during the period:* >> >>> *(a) the person’s par
Senate, 2018-03-20. negative: ayes 30, noes 33.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.290.1) introduced by WA Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert) (Greens), which means it failed. ### What does this amendment do? Senator Siewert [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.290.1): > *This amendment relates to additional requirements and a cap, and I have a couple of questions relating to this issue. This amendment relates to provisions for avoiding a reduction in or cancellation of a payment by undertaking a requirement and also addresses the cap of seven weeks, during which time a participant payment can be reduced or cancelled.* > > *The eight-week compliance penalty of the old compliance regime had a very significant impact and it happened all at once. So we can appreciate what the government is trying to do in having a one-week suspension, a two-week suspension and a four-week suspension. But by the time you get to a four-week suspension from payments you've already had a three-week non-payment period. By the time you get to four, that's seven. The concern is that somebody could go through a cycle of a number of weeks of suspension. People can be almost as badly off, potentially, as they were under the old regime. We want to apply a cap to this process so it's really clear.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 15 , item 1 , page 208 (line 3) , after section 42AP , insert:* > > *42APA Secretary may require person to comply with additional requirements* > >> *(1) The Secretary may require a person to comply with a requirement during a period in respect of which:* >> >>> *(a) the person’s participation payment is to be cancelled; or* >>> >>> *(b) instalments of the person’s participation payment are to be reduced.* >> >> *(2) Despite any other provision of this Subdivision, if the person complies with the requirement at any time during the period:* >> >>> *(a) the person’s par
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.