|
senate vote 2017-12-06#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-10-06 10:35:22
|
Title
Description
-
- 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.
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:- 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 superior model for resolving superannuation disputes than the private AFCA body.*
-
-
|
|
senate vote 2017-12-06#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-28 10:47:09
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First — Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017; in Committee- Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First — Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Keep parts unchanged
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>I'm now going to put the second question to the voices. The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Cameron be agreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I just flag for the chamber that the government's view is that the vote that just occurred does not reflect the will of the chamber. I'm just flagging that it is likely that the government will seek to recommit this vote once we've ascertained why the vote that just happened did not reflect the will of the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>I'm not sure why this would not have reflected the will of the chamber. If the minister can explain now why this has not reflected the will of the chamber, it might assist the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>My initial advice from the whip is that, on the basis of some confusion during the division about which side of the chamber the Nick Xenophon Team would be voting on, one of our senators was sent out when he shouldn't have been sent out, and he wasn't able to come back into the chamber on time. That was Senator Scullion. The whip is just confirming that that is what has happened.</p><p>The CHAIR: Just for clarity, I take it you are referring to the question on the first part of that amendment?</p><p>The amendment is an amendment as a whole; it was just taken in two parts: one was that the bill stand as printed, to which we voted yes, and the other, which is consequential and related, was the one on which the government voted no. But, even though we had an indication that the Nick Xenophon Team would be supporting the government's position against the amendments, on the basis that for a period it looked as though the Nick Xenophon Team was seated on the other side—eventually they moved over—in informal communications that happened across the chamber, I am advised by our duty whip that somebody was sent out from our side who should not have been sent out, and he wasn't able to get back into the chamber on time.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Urquhart</p><p>If I could actually clarify the situation—I understood that the Nick Xenophon Team was with us. I confirmed that with Senator Griff. He then went and said that, no, that was wrong. Senator Scullion was sent out on that basis, so what I did was pair Senator Bilyk with Senator Scullion, and I did not count Senator Bilyk in that count.</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>If my understanding of this is correct—and I don't doubt what Senator Urquhart or Senator Cormann have said—there is some question about whether the will of the chamber has been correctly reflected. In those circumstances, it is not unusual, once a bit of humble pie has been eaten, to recommit the vote. If that's necessary, I will support that.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I seek leave to recommit the vote for the opposition amendments that were just divided on.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>The CHAIR: The question is that 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 stand as printed.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Senator Gallagher did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Parry. </i></p><p class="italic"> <i>Senator Polley did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Nash </i></p><p class="italic"> <i>Senator Bilyk did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore. </i></p> -
- 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.
- 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 superior model for resolving superannuation disputes than the private AFCA body.*
-
-
|