All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
senate vote 2021-03-18#19
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-05-07 08:40:27
|
Title
Bills — Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021; Second Reading- Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021 - Second Reading – Increase Jobseeker Payment
Description
<p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>The time allotted for debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021 has expired. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I will now put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the other bills listed in that resolution. I will first deal with the second reading amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the second reading amendments on sheets 1262 and 1267, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.</p><p> <i>The Greens</i> <i>'</i> <i> circulated second reading amendment on sheet 1262 revised—</i></p>- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2021-03-18.77.1) to the usual [second reading motion]( https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/), which is *”that the bill be read a second time”*. Reading a bill for a second time in parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill.
- ### Amendment text
- > *At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:*
- >
- > *(a) increase the Jobseeker Payment to above the poverty line;*
<p class="italic">At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:</p><p class="italic">(a) increase the Jobseeker Payment to above the poverty line;</p><p class="italic">(b) abolish mutual obligations which are hurting unemployed Australians and making it harder to find work; and</p><p class="italic">(c) abolish all forms of compulsory income management from our social security system, including the Cashless Debit Card and the Basics Card".</p><p> <i>The Greens</i> <i>'</i> <i> circulated second reading amendment on sheet 1267—</i></p><p class="italic">At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate calls on the Government to increase the Jobseeker Payment to above the poverty line".</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Can we ask that the two separate second reading amendments be put separately, given that they are separate amendments and people will vote differently on them?</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I need someone to assert who will be voting differently on them.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>I will.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Okay. I am happy to do that. I will recommit that matter and deal with them separately. The question is now that the second reading amendment on sheet 1262, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.</p><p><i>A division having been called and the bells being run</i> <i>g</i> <i></i></p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>There has been a bit of confusion here. What I wanted was for clause (a) to be separated from clauses (b) and (c) in the second reading amendment on sheet 1262 and taken separately.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Okay. I will cancel the division, with the leave of the chamber.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>So with the amendment on sheet 1262 revised, Senator Lambie, you would like (a) dealt with separately from (b) and (c). Is that correct?</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>That is correct.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>The question is that clause (a) of the second reading amendment on sheet 1262 revised be agreed to.</p>
|