|
senate vote 2022-08-03#4
Edited by
pizza1016
on
2022-08-21 22:03:29
|
Title
Description
-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2022-08-03.126.2) introduced by South Australian Senator [Alex Antic](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/alex_antic) (Liberal), which means it failed.
- ### Rebellions
- South Australian Senator [Barbara Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/barbara_pocock) (Greens) and Victorian Senator [Jess Walsh](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/jess_walsh) (Labor) both [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "Yes" against the rest of their parties.
The Jacqui Lambie Network was split, with Tasmanian Senator [Jacqui Lambie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/jacqui_lambie) voting "Yes" Tasmanian Senator [Tammy Tyrrell](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/tammy_tyrrell) voting "No."- The Jacqui Lambie Network was split, with Tasmanian Senator [Jacqui Lambie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/jacqui_lambie) voting "Yes" and Tasmanian Senator [Tammy Tyrrell](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/tammy_tyrrell) voting "No."
- ### Motion text
- > *That the following proposed amendment to the resolutions relating to senators' interests be referred to the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests for inquiry and report:*
- >
- > *Resolution 3 — Registrable interests*
- >
- > *After paragraph (m), insert:*
- >
- >> *(ma) any association or involvement with domestic or international political, activist or lobbying organisations, non-government organisations or other bodies, international societies, charitable foundations, not for profit organisations, or advocacy groups in the previous ten (10) years including but not limited to:*
- >>
- >>> *(i) employment by such bodies;*
- >>>
- >>> *(ii) membership of such bodies;*
- >>>
- >>> *(iii) office(s) held with such bodies;*
- >>>
- >>> *(iv) participation in, or receiving of, training or other educational programs or material with or from such bodies; or*
- >>>
>>> *(v) prizes, awards or commendations sought or received from such bodies.*- >>> *(v) prizes, awards or commendations sought or received from such bodies.*
-
-
|
|
senate vote 2022-08-03#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-08-12 15:51:48
|
Title
Committees — Senators' Interests Committee; Reference- Committees - Senators' Interests Committee - Reference
Description
<p class="speaker">Alex Antic</p><p>I move:</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2022-08-03.126.2) introduced by South Australian Senator [Alex Antic](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/alex_antic) (Liberal), which means it failed.
- ### Rebellions
- South Australian Senator [Barbara Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/barbara_pocock) (Greens) and Victorian Senator [Jess Walsh](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/jess_walsh) (Labor) both [crossed the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote "Yes" against the rest of their parties.
- The Jacqui Lambie Network was split, with Tasmanian Senator [Jacqui Lambie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/jacqui_lambie) voting "Yes" Tasmanian Senator [Tammy Tyrrell](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/tammy_tyrrell) voting "No."
- ### Motion text
- > *That the following proposed amendment to the resolutions relating to senators' interests be referred to the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests for inquiry and report:*
- >
- > *Resolution 3 — Registrable interests*
- >
- > *After paragraph (m), insert:*
- >
- >> *(ma) any association or involvement with domestic or international political, activist or lobbying organisations, non-government organisations or other bodies, international societies, charitable foundations, not for profit organisations, or advocacy groups in the previous ten (10) years including but not limited to:*
- >>
- >>> *(i) employment by such bodies;*
- >>>
- >>> *(ii) membership of such bodies;*
- >>>
- >>> *(iii) office(s) held with such bodies;*
- >>>
- >>> *(iv) participation in, or receiving of, training or other educational programs or material with or from such bodies; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(v) prizes, awards or commendations sought or received from such bodies.*
<p class="italic">That the following proposed amendment to the resolutions relating to senators' interests be referred to the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests for inquiry and report:</p><p class="italic">Resolution 3 — Registrable interests</p><p class="italic">After paragraph (m), insert:</p><p class="italic">(ma) any association or involvement with domestic or international political, activist or lobbying organisations, non-government organisations or other bodies, international societies, charitable foundations, not for profit organisations, or advocacy groups in the previous ten (10) years including but not limited to:</p><p class="italic">(i) employment by such bodies;</p><p class="italic">(ii) membership of such bodies;</p><p class="italic">(iii) office(s) held with such bodies;</p><p class="italic">(iv) participation in, or receiving of, training or other educational programs or material with or from such bodies; or</p><p class="italic">(v) prizes, awards or commendations sought or received from such bodies.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>The Greens support increased transparency, and we believe that people should know who is influencing the decisions made by their representatives. But this proposal doesn't seek more transparency about politicians' relationships with all groups—only some groups. It doesn't seek disclosure of senators' relationships with religious groups or industry lobby groups—no, it's just another in a very long line of thinly veiled attacks on charities and the not-for-profit sector. The previous government consistently tried to silence the voices of organisations fighting in the public interest, whether they were refugee advocates, environmental groups or welfare organisations. They threatened the tax-deductibility of environmental charities, they cut funding to NGOs, they gagged charities from engaging in public debate, they tied charities up in red tape, and they tried—and, thankfully, failed—to remove charitable status of organisations involved in protests against unconscionable laws. This motion isn't about transparency. If you were actually serious about that, you'd be calling for donations reform and stopping the revolving door that will set people like you up for a future job— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 1, moved by Senator Antic, be agreed to.</p> -
-
|