|
senate vote 2020-12-03#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-10-22 14:31:13
|
Title
Bills — Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020; in Committee- Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and another - in Committee - Universities
Description
-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-03.20.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Mehreen Faruqi](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/mehreen_faruqi) (Greens), which means it failed.
- ### What does this amendment do?
- Senator Faruqi [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-03.20.1):
- > *I was hoping that I wouldn't have to move this amendment, because really universities should be excluded, but now that's not the case. This amendment really is about at least making sure that the larger projects or agreements are the ones that allow the government's broad scope to be looked at by the government. This amendment has a threshold amount of $250,000 for the government to be able to do what they want to do. Like I said: sadly, in the absence of universities being excluded from this legislation, at least this will minimise some of the damage and the harm done to universities and the people who work there.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 9, page 11 (after line 10), after subclause (1), insert:*
- >
- >> *(1A) However, if a party to the arrangement is a university within the meaning of subsection 7(e), an arrangement has a value equal to, or more than, the threshold amount per financial year.*
- >>
>> *(1B) The threshold amount for the financial year starting on 1 July 2020 is $250,000. The amount is to be indexed in accordance with Part 5-6 (Indexation) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003.*- >> *(1B) The threshold amount for the financial year starting on 1 July 2020 is $250,000. The amount is to be indexed in accordance with Part 5-6 (Indexation) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003.*
-
-
|
|
senate vote 2020-12-03#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-10-22 14:30:31
|
Title
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>In relation to amendment (5) on sheet 1120, and the question is that division 6 stand as printed.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-03.20.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Mehreen Faruqi](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/mehreen_faruqi) (Greens), which means it failed.
- ### What does this amendment do?
- Senator Faruqi [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-03.20.1):
- > *I was hoping that I wouldn't have to move this amendment, because really universities should be excluded, but now that's not the case. This amendment really is about at least making sure that the larger projects or agreements are the ones that allow the government's broad scope to be looked at by the government. This amendment has a threshold amount of $250,000 for the government to be able to do what they want to do. Like I said: sadly, in the absence of universities being excluded from this legislation, at least this will minimise some of the damage and the harm done to universities and the people who work there.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 9, page 11 (after line 10), after subclause (1), insert:*
- >
- >> *(1A) However, if a party to the arrangement is a university within the meaning of subsection 7(e), an arrangement has a value equal to, or more than, the threshold amount per financial year.*
- >>
- >> *(1B) The threshold amount for the financial year starting on 1 July 2020 is $250,000. The amount is to be indexed in accordance with Part 5-6 (Indexation) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003.*
<p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>In respect of the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1118:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 9, page 11 (after line 10), after subclause (1), insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) However, if a party to the arrangement is a university within the meaning of subsection 7(e), an arrangement has a value equal to, or more than, the threshold amount per financial year.</p><p class="italic">(1B) The <i>threshold amount </i>for the financial year starting on 1 July 2020 is $250,000. The amount is to be indexed in accordance with Part 5-6 (Indexation) of the <i>Higher Education Support Act 2003</i>.</p><p>I was hoping that I wouldn't have to move this amendment, because really universities should be excluded, but now that's not the case. This amendment really is about at least making sure that the larger projects or agreements are the ones that allow the government's broad scope to be looked at by the government. This amendment has a threshold amount of $250,000 for the government to be able to do what they want to do. Like I said: sadly, in the absence of universities being excluded from this legislation, at least this will minimise some of the damage and the harm done to universities and the people who work there. I commend the amendment to the Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p><p>The government opposes this amendment. The principles of this bill and the motivation behind it are related neither to the monetary value of arrangements such as this nor to the potential impact of the arrangements. It is our view that including a monetary value to limit application of the scheme could potentially allow circumvention of the scheme by breaking projects down into smaller amounts for precisely that reason—to avoid its application—and by masking arrangements with monetary value in subsidiary arrangements, which are not within the scheme unless head arrangements are caught. I also think, from an administrative perspective, it may on occasion be difficult to ascertain the value of certain arrangements, creating uncertainty in the bill's application. I don't think this amendment would go any way to assisting the implementation of the bill at all.</p> <p class="speaker">Wendy Askew</p><p>The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1118 moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.</p> -
-
|