All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
senate vote 2024-05-16#19
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-11-05 11:51:05
|
Title
Bills — Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024, Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2024, Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024; Second Reading- Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and two others - Second Reading - Agree with the main idea of the bills
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>I will first deal with the second reading amendment moved by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2618 be agreed to.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-05-16.194.1) to read the bills for a second time (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bills). This means our senators can now consider the bill in more detail.
- ### What do the bills do?
- The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2324a/24bd054) set out the following key points:
- * *The purpose of the [Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7117) is to establish the [Administrative Review Tribunal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Review_Tribunal) (the Tribunal), which will replace the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Bill details the Tribunal’s membership, structure, review procedures and other matters. It also re‑establishes the Administrative Review Council.*
- * *The [Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7127) repeals the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and makes consequential amendments to a number of Commonwealth Acts.*
- * *These Bills were introduced into Parliament on 7 December 2023 and were referred to the [House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/~/link.aspx?_id=AA0D2BD8399A43CEB91DEBEFD405391F&_z=z) for inquiry and report. The Committee recommended that the House pass the Bills. Submissions to the inquiry, while generally supportive of the purpose of the Bills include recommendations for further amendment.*
- * *Both the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have raised concerns with elements of the Bills.*
- * *The Bills Digest at a glance section on pages 5–7 includes a summary of the key points about the Bills.*
- * *A third Bill, the [Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7137) was introduced into Parliament on 7 February 2024.*
- * *All three Bills have been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 July 2024.*
<p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>by leave—I ask that the Greens' support for that amendment be noted, please.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Thank you, Senator McKim.</p><p>You want it recorded? Thank you, Senator Thorpe; we will do that. The question now is that these bills be read a second time.</p><p class="italic"> <i>A division having been called and the bells being rung—</i></p><p>An honourable senator: Four minutes.</p><p>No, after successive divisions—</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>It's a 'real'.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Cash, please stop being disorderly. Senator O'Sullivan?</p> <p class="speaker">Matt O'Sullivan</p><p>We have senators outside the chamber, so we will need four minutes.</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p><p>It was a 'mickey'.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Under standing order 101(3)—</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p><p>Order! If you raise a point of order, have the decency to listen without interrupting. It's a one-minute bell because we are using standing order 101(3), where there are successive divisions and where there's no debate. It will be a one-minute bell. Set the timer for one minute. Senator Canavan?</p> <p class="speaker">Matthew Canavan</p><p>To seek a point of clarification for the future, I thought the rule was that if a vote goes from a 'mickey' to a 'real', it's a four-minute bell. Is that not true?</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>No. I've given you the standing order. It's 101(3).</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|