|
representatives vote 2013-05-15#4
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:19:29
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-05-15.130.3 motion] introduced by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Anthony_Albanese&mpc=Grayndler&house=representatives Anthony Albanese]. The motion was: "''That in accordance with standing order 132, standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the House to divide again on the question viz.: That the Opposition amendments be agreed to.''"That earlier division took place when some members were not in the House.(The earlier division on Opposition amendments is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-05-15&number=1&house=representatives here].
) This meant that the Opposition was able to form a majority to pass their amendments. Mr Albanese brought this motion to take advantage of parliamentary reform that occurred as a result of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010 2010 election], when neither major party formed a clear majority. This reform introduced standing order 132, which allows a recommittal if a member inadvertently misses a division.(Read more about these reforms [http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/HungParliament here].
)Because an absolute majority agreed with this motion, a second division on whether to agree with the Opposition amendments will be made.(See the second division on Opposition amendments [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-05-15&number=5&house=representatives here].
)One member, Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives Luke Simpkins], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].
)''Background to the Bill''The Bill is the fourth and final legislative bundle implementing the [http://strongersuper.treasury.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=home.htm Stronger Super reforms] announced by the Labor Government in 2010.(More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4948%22#billsdgs here].) It introduces a number of corporate governance measures that arose out of the [http://www.supersystemreview.gov.au/ Review into the Governance, Efficiency, Structure and Operation of Australia’s Superannuation System] (known as the Cooper Review) and the Government’s own consultations with industry, employer and consumer groups.References- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-05-15.130.3) introduced by Labor MP [Anthony Albanese](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Anthony_Albanese&mpc=Grayndler&house=representatives). The motion was: "_That in accordance with standing order 132, standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the House to divide again on the question viz.: That the Opposition amendments be agreed to._"
- That earlier division took place when some members were not in the House.(The earlier division on Opposition amendments is available [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-05-15&number=1&house=representatives). ) This meant that the Opposition was able to form a majority to pass their amendments. Mr Albanese brought this motion to take advantage of parliamentary reform that occurred as a result of the [2010 election](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010), when neither major party formed a clear majority. This reform introduced standing order 132, which allows a recommittal if a member inadvertently misses a division.(Read more about these reforms [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/HungParliament). )
- Because an absolute majority agreed with this motion, a second division on whether to agree with the Opposition amendments will be made.(See the second division on Opposition amendments [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-05-15&number=5&house=representatives). )
- One member, Liberal MP [Luke Simpkins](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives), rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [FAQ Section](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree). )
- _Background to the Bill_
- The Bill is the fourth and final legislative bundle implementing the [Stronger Super reforms](http://strongersuper.treasury.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=home.htm) announced by the Labor Government in 2010.(More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4948%22#billsdgs).) It introduces a number of corporate governance measures that arose out of the [Review into the Governance, Efficiency, Structure and Operation of Australia’s Superannuation System](http://www.supersystemreview.gov.au/) (known as the Cooper Review) and the Government’s own consultations with industry, employer and consumer groups.
- References
|
|
representatives vote 2013-05-15#4
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:23
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-05-15.130.3 motion] introduced by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Anthony_Albanese&mpc=Grayndler&house=representatives Anthony Albanese]. The motion was: "''That in accordance with standing order 132, standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the House to divide again on the question viz.: That the Opposition amendments be agreed to.''"
That earlier division took place when some members were not in the House.[1] This meant that the Opposition was able to form a majority to pass their amendments. Mr Albanese brought this motion to take advantage of parliamentary reform that occurred as a result of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010 2010 election], when neither major party formed a clear majority. This reform introduced standing order 132, which allows a recommittal if a member inadvertently misses a division.[2]- That earlier division took place when some members were not in the House.(The earlier division on Opposition amendments is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-05-15&number=1&house=representatives here].
) This meant that the Opposition was able to form a majority to pass their amendments. Mr Albanese brought this motion to take advantage of parliamentary reform that occurred as a result of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010 2010 election], when neither major party formed a clear majority. This reform introduced standing order 132, which allows a recommittal if a member inadvertently misses a division.(Read more about these reforms [http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/HungParliament here].
)
Because an absolute majority agreed with this motion, a second division on whether to agree with the Opposition amendments will be made.[3]- Because an absolute majority agreed with this motion, a second division on whether to agree with the Opposition amendments will be made.(See the second division on Opposition amendments [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-05-15&number=5&house=representatives here].
)
One member, Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives Luke Simpkins], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.[4]- One member, Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives Luke Simpkins], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].
)
- ''Background to the Bill''
The Bill is the fourth and final legislative bundle implementing the [http://strongersuper.treasury.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=home.htm Stronger Super reforms] announced by the Labor Government in 2010.[5] It introduces a number of corporate governance measures that arose out of the [http://www.supersystemreview.gov.au/ Review into the Governance, Efficiency, Structure and Operation of Australia’s Superannuation System] (known as the Cooper Review) and the Government’s own consultations with industry, employer and consumer groups.- The Bill is the fourth and final legislative bundle implementing the [http://strongersuper.treasury.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=home.htm Stronger Super reforms] announced by the Labor Government in 2010.(More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4948%22#billsdgs here].) It introduces a number of corporate governance measures that arose out of the [http://www.supersystemreview.gov.au/ Review into the Governance, Efficiency, Structure and Operation of Australia’s Superannuation System] (known as the Cooper Review) and the Government’s own consultations with industry, employer and consumer groups.
- References
* [1] The earlier division on Opposition amendments is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-05-15&number=1&house=representatives here].* [2] Read more about these reforms [http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/HungParliament here].* [3] See the second division on Opposition amendments [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-05-15&number=5&house=representatives here].* [4] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].* [5] More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4948%22#billsdgs here].
|
|
representatives vote 2013-05-15#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-04-29 15:52:53
|
Title
Committees — Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail- Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - Recommital on Opposition amendments
Description
<p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>I ask leave of the House to move a motion to suspend standing orders to enable the House to divide again on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That in accordance with standing order 132, standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the House to divide again on the question <i>viz</i>.: That the Opposition amendments be agreed to.</p><p>I move this motion consistent with the positions that were put in place as part of parliamentary reform in what is an unusual parliament in terms of Australia's historical position. Historically, of course, governments have had absolute majorities on the floor of the House of Representatives. When the Australian people made their determination in August 2010, they chose that that would not be the case. As a result, discussions took place in good faith between the government, the opposition and crossbench members—particularly the member for Lyne—about parliamentary reform ensuring that proper functioning could occur. Members would be aware that in the Senate, because of the nature of the Senate, where the government party has historically—with some brief exceptions, which is why we got Work Choices—not had a majority on the floor, an arrangement exists whereby, if someone inadvertently misses a division, there is a recommittal. It happens without fuss. It happens as a matter of course. In fact, it happens pretty regularly.</p><p>In this parliament we unanimously chose to alter the standing orders to allow, through standing order 132, for a recommittal to be put if a member is accidentally absent. There is a very sensible reason why this is the case. That is because, were it not to be, the views of this parliament—this House of Representatives—could be distorted by misadventure or someone simply missing a vote. Therefore it was determined that, if that occurred, the bill would be recommitted. It was stated very clearly in the parliamentary reform agreement. It was put in the standing orders and understood that this would be the case, in a similar way to the way in which the operation of pairs ensures the principle that a result should not be distorted because of a member's absence from parliament. Were this not to be implemented it would lead to an outcome whereby the proper determination of a majority of members of this House is not put into the law of the land. That is why I am moving this recommittal motion.</p><p>I am frankly surprised that the Manager of Opposition Business is not simply supporting this. We had very clear discussions, which included the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Lyne and others, about the circumstances in which this could occur. We explicitly discussed that an explanation should be given to the parliament of why people have missed a division. Today, as part of the budget process, the Treasurer addressed the National Press Club in the Great Hall of Parliament. This is a procedure that in the past has occurred at the National Press Club but in recent times has been moved to the Great Hall in order to accommodate the numbers of members of the community who want to participate. There were four government members—the member for Chifley, the member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Moreton and the member for Brand—who attended that function where the bells did not ring because they were turned off, one would assume as a result of the fact that it was broadcast live as a National Press Club activity. It was unfortunate—and I have communicated to the four members, very directly, that they were perhaps amiss in absenting themselves from that division—but it clearly falls within the parameters which were envisaged.</p><p>In addition to this, the member for New England was in the Senate where he did not hear the bells. He also expected to vote in that division. I, of course, am not in a position to communicate in the same direct way with the member for New England as I do with my friends and colleagues on the Labor benches but in terms of—</p> <p class="speaker">Sophie Mirabella</p><p>You should be nicer to him!</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>You should try it sometime, I say to the member for Indi. She is on to us! I am nice to the member for New England because he is a good bloke.</p><p>We have circumstances here that are precisely those circumstances that were envisaged, covered and signed off in the agreement for parliamentary reform. They are covered by the standing orders before the parliament and, in terms of process, we should really not be wasting the parliament's time. There should be an automatic recommittal as long as people are prepared to put on the record the reason for their absence. I have done that in an appropriate way on behalf of the five members who were absent from the division. It is appropriate that that be done but these are circumstances which are clearly understandable given the fact that, if you are in this building, it is a normal expectation that you will hear the bells ring.</p><p>It is also the case, in terms of the procedure, that the standing order which is relevant—standing order 132—was unanimously adopted by this House. No-one has said that it should not be so. No-one has said that it is inappropriate. Indeed, I am somewhat surprised because I expected this would happen automatically. The Manager of Opposition Business knows that if you have a majority for a particular proposition you can achieve an outcome—so it can be done more quickly or it can be done more slowly, in terms of the process, if you have a majority.</p><p>In terms of this legislation the opposition amendment does not have a majority of members of the House of Representatives and the bill does have majority support of the House of Representatives. If those are the circumstances and you have support for that, then we can either do it the easier way or do it in a much more prolonged way to achieve the same outcome. That is why the standing orders reflect this change. I commend the motion to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>The relevant section of the standing order that deals with the recommittal of motions is section 132(b) of the standing orders, which states:</p><p class="italic">If a division has miscarried through misadventure caused by a Member being accidentally absent or some similar incident, any Member may move, without notice and without the need for a seconder, 'That standing orders be suspended to enable the House to divide again'.</p><p>That is what the Leader of the House has done. That standing order is designed to ensure that, if a member is unable to be present for a serious reason, the House will recommit in good faith a vote to reflect the wishes of the House. When this matter was debated in 2010 by me, the crossbenchers and the Leader of the House we envisaged that such occasions were when a member had a very unfortunate health incident that caused them not to be able to get here, when they might be locked inadvertently in a room in the building and not be able to escape, and when they might have had a family emergency which caused them to not be able to leave their office or attend the chamber. But it did not envisage, in this case, three members being in the Great Hall having lunch, listening to the Treasurer's National Press Club speech; not having taken their pagers with them, which all members are supposed to carry at all times; not keeping their eye on the coloured lights in the building that are designed to alert us when a division occurs; and a fourth member who was simply doing a radio interview and did not want to be interrupted. A cabinet minister, the Minister for Resources and Energy, did not want to interrupt a radio interview to vote in the House on behalf of his party.</p><p>The member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Chifley and the member for Moreton were just having lunch, on the people's time, at the National Press Club address in the Great Hall and they did not want to be interrupted. They wanted to hang around the Treasurer and listen to his speech. They did not want to come into the chamber and vote on a very important bill.</p><p>So the opposition is not of a mind to support the suspension of standing orders because we expect members of parliament, when they are in this building, to be aware of what is happening in the chamber. There may be only five weeks left of this parliament and members might be looking for another job if they are going to lose their seats or they might be planning what they will do in the 44th Parliament. But they are still required, five weeks from the end of this parliamentary sitting period, to keep an eye on what is going on in this chamber, especially on important bills. If any members had a health issue, a family emergency or been inadvertently imprisoned in the building, then of course the opposition would have been more than happy to recommit this motion. But none of those things occurred. Instead, three of the members were lunching in the Great Hall, a few hundred metres from where we stand today. Other members of parliament who were at the same luncheon had no difficulty in getting to the chamber. They were carrying their pagers, watching the lights. Many members of parliament even have their staff be aware of what is going on in the chamber so that if there is a division they can be alerted and make their way to the chamber.</p><p>You would think that the member for Brand, a cabinet minister, who is the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Small Business, and the member for Eden-Monaro, also a cabinet minister, who is the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, with their legions of staff, would have had at least one person in their office keeping an eye on the chamber so that their boss did not make a mistake and miss a vote.</p><p>Four members of the Labor Party could not be bothered turning up for a very important amendment, an amendment that requires three independent directors to be appointed to industry superannuation funds. The opposition likes this amendment. It is a good amendment and we are delighted that the parliament voted for it. It did not win by one vote; it won by four votes. It was a clear and emphatic victory: 72 to 68. This amendment improves the bill. Now that the amendment has been carried by a democratic vote of the House, it should be put to the parliament as the final bill and should be carried in the best interests of industry super funds.</p><p>The opposition will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. It is important for the House tonight that the parliament gets 76 votes for this amendment to be recommitted. One member of the government is not able to be here for very good reason. Of course, as you would expect, he has been paired by the opposition, in tragic circumstances. But one of our members on this side of the House, the member for Fairfax, went home this afternoon, in Canberra, because he is ill and the government has broken the pair.</p><p class="italic">Mr Albanese interjecting—</p><p>You should check with your chief whip, such as he is! He could not keep his own whip in the House. The member for Moreton is a recently appointed whip and he could not even be in the House for a vote. That is who the caucus voted for.</p> <p class="speaker">Steve Georganas</p><p>Order! Could I remind members that the discussion is through the chair, not between one another.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>The minister for tertiary education is paired with another member of the opposition and arrangements had been made for another member of the opposition well in advance of this vote. The government does not get to choose our pairs. The simple truth is: the minister for tertiary education is paired with another member of the opposition in a longstanding arrangement made today and we are not breaking that pair, because our view is that that would be the wrong thing to do. But the government is breaking the pair with this side of the House when one of our members, the member for Fairfax, is ill.</p><p class="italic">Mr Albanese interjecting—</p><p>Mr Deputy Speaker, should I respond to him or will you ask him to—</p> <p class="speaker">Steve Georganas</p><p>Order! The chamber is far too noisy.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>It is. You are in charge of it, Mr Deputy Speaker. You should get him back to order.</p> <p class="speaker">Steve Georganas</p><p>I ask members to resist from interjecting across the chamber. The member for Sturt has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>I would urge the Leader of the House to speak to his chief whip, who I think is the member for Werriwa, and ask him if it is true that the government intends to break the pair for the member for Fairfax in order to achieve 76 votes. The Independents need to think very carefully whether they are prepared to sign up to the government breaking the pair of the member for Fairfax, who is ill and has returned home, by all voting with the government to recommit this bill. The right thing to do if they had any integrity at all would be for one of them to absent themselves from that vote or vote with the opposition to ensure that the member for Fairfax is paired. If the crossbenchers were acting with integrity, one of them would pair themselves with Alex Somlyay, the member for Fairfax—</p> <p class="speaker">Robert Oakeshott</p><p>After three years of no pairs! That is golden!</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Labor MP Anthony Albanese. The motion was: "''That in accordance with standing order 132, standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the House to divide again on the question viz.: That the Opposition amendments be agreed to.''"
- That earlier division took place when some members were not in the House.[1] This meant that the Opposition was able to form a majority to pass their amendments. Mr Albanese brought this motion to take advantage of parliamentary reform that occurred as a result of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010 2010 election], when neither major party formed a clear majority. This reform introduced standing order 132, which allows a recommittal if someone inadvertently misses a division.[2]
- Because an absolute majority agreed with this motion, a second division on whether to agree with the Opposition amendments was made.[3]
- One member, Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives Luke Simpkins], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.[4]
- ''Background to the Bill''
- The Bill is the fourth and final legislative bundle implementing the [http://strongersuper.treasury.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=home.htm Stronger Super reforms] announced by the Labor Government in 2010.[5] It introduces a number of corporate governance measures that arose out of the [http://www.supersystemreview.gov.au/ Review into the Governance, Efficiency, Structure and Operation of Australia’s Superannuation System] (known as the Cooper Review) and the Government’s own consultations with industry, employer and consumer groups.
- References
- * [1] The earlier division on Opposition amendments is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-05-15&number=1&house=representatives here].
- * [2] Read more about these reforms [http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/HungParliament here].
- * [3] See the second division on Opposition amendments [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2013-05-15&number=5&house=representatives here].
- * [4] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].
- * [5] More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4948%22#billsdgs here].
|