Division Description Changes — Motions — Minister for Home Affairs — 15th Feb 2021

Change	Division
representatives vote 2021-02-15#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2022-10-07 13:06:59	Title ~~Motions — Minister for Home Affairs~~ Motions - Minister for Home Affairs - Don't let a vote happen Description ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ ~~<p>The question is that the motion be disagreed to.</p>~~ The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2021-02-15.31.2) to disagree with a motion to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as [standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) - in order to let another vote happen. This means that other vote won't take place. ### Motion text > That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Shortland from moving the following motion forthwith: > > That the House: > > (1) notes: > >> (a) the Minister for Home Affairs arbitrarily rejected merit-based recommendations made by his Department for the distribution of Safer Communities Fund grants; >> >> (b) the Minister for Home Affairs cut funding to a number of projects recommended by his Department in order to fund projects in marginal and Government-held electorates; >> *>> (c) the Minister for Home Affairs announced funding for two projects during the Braddon by-elec*tion before grant guidelines were written, spent more than $36,000 on Royal Australian Air Force jet flights for associated travel, and went ahead and funded those projects even though his own Department advised him that they were "unsuitable and ineligible" for funding; >> *>> (d) the Minister for Home Affairs also fast-tracked an $880,000 grant to the National Retail Association one week after a $1,500 dona*tion was made to the Liberal National Party to support the Minister's election campaign; >> >> (e) this Government has a proven history of rorting taxpayer-funded grant schemes for its own political benefit, including sports rorts; and >> >> (f) the Minister for Home Affairs has prioritised his political fortunes over his responsibility to keep Australian communities safe; and > > (2) calls on the Minister for Home Affairs to attend the Chamber immediately to explain his actions.

~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~
~~<p>The question is that the motion be disagreed to.</p>~~
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2021-02-15.31.2) to *disagree* with a motion to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as [standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) - in order to let another vote happen. This means that other vote won't take place.
### Motion text
> *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Shortland from moving the following motion forthwith:*
>
> *That the House:*
>
> *(1) notes:*
>
>> *(a) the Minister for Home Affairs arbitrarily rejected merit-based recommendations made by his Department for the distribution of Safer Communities Fund grants;*
>>
>> *(b) the Minister for Home Affairs cut funding to a number of projects recommended by his Department in order to fund projects in marginal and Government-held electorates;*
>>
>> *(c) the Minister for Home Affairs announced funding for two projects during the Braddon by-election before grant guidelines were written, spent more than $36,000 on Royal Australian Air Force jet flights for associated travel, and went ahead and funded those projects even though his own Department advised him that they were "unsuitable and ineligible" for funding;*
>>
>> *(d) the Minister for Home Affairs also fast-tracked an $880,000 grant to the National Retail Association one week after a $1,500 donation was made to the Liberal National Party to support the Minister's election campaign;*
>>
>> *(e) this Government has a proven history of rorting taxpayer-funded grant schemes for its own political benefit, including sports rorts; and*
>>
>> *(f) the Minister for Home Affairs has prioritised his political fortunes over his responsibility to keep Australian communities safe; and*
>
> *(2) calls on the Minister for Home Affairs to attend the Chamber immediately to explain his actions.*