Division Description Changes — Bills — Future Made in Australia Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail — 9th Sep 2024

Change	Division
representatives vote 2024-09-09#11 Edited by mackay staff on 2024-10-05 18:04:20	Title Bills — Future Made in Australia Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 - Consideration in Detail - Put the question Description ~~<p class="speaker">Aaron Violi</p>~~ <p>Proposed section 10(3) of the bill establishes so-called community benefit principles which a person or body deciding whether Future Made in Australia support should be provided must have regard to. Will the person or body be required to evidence how they have had regard to the principles? If yes, how will this be documented? If no, why not? Further, one of the so-called principles established in subclause (3) is:</p> ~~<p class="italic">(v) demonstrating transparency and compliance in relation to the management of tax affairs …</p>~~ <p>How exactly will the government demonstrate transparency, and how will this be measured? Will applicable metrics be established in the annual report? How will these metrics be decided? Will the minister have to report on the performance of the person or body against the metrics?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p>~~ <p>The member for Lyons is not in his seat, first of all. Just to assist the member for Casey: we have moved past the detailed amendment stage, the time for back-and-forth questions. The question before the House is that the bill as amended be agreed to. Whilst there is no standing order preventing a member debating—</p> <p>Order! We don't need commentary. We have gone through a series of detailed amendments, one by one, through the crossbench and now through the government. We've finished the detailed amendment stage. We just voted on the final stage of detailed amendments from the government. If there are extra detailed amendments, have they been circulated and have they been—</p> <p>Member for Petrie, I understand where you're coming from. Just so you're clear: with consideration in detail, when the Treasurer is going back and forth and answering questions regarding detailed amendments, that is detailed amendments before the House. We've finished the detailed amendments. I don't think the member for Casey has detailed amendments; he has questions. Those are two different things, detailed amendments and questions. Where we're at in the stage of dealing with the bill is that we've agreed with all of the amendments. So the question now is that this bill as amended be agreed to.</p> ~~<p>Under the standing orders that can occur. There is no prohibition on that.</p>~~ ~~<p>Member for Petrie, we're just going to handle this in a systematic way.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Mark Butler</p>~~ ~~<p>I move:</p>~~ <p class="italic">That the question be now put.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p>~~ ~~<p>The question before the House is that the question be put.</p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.130.1): *> That [*the question](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2024-09-09/12) be now put.

~~Aaron Violi~~
Proposed section 10(3) of the bill establishes so-called community benefit principles which a person or body deciding whether Future Made in Australia support should be provided must have regard to. Will the person or body be required to evidence how they have had regard to the principles? If yes, how will this be documented? If no, why not? Further, one of the so-called principles established in subclause (3) is:
~~(v) demonstrating transparency and compliance in relation to the management of tax affairs …~~
How exactly will the government demonstrate transparency, and how will this be measured? Will applicable metrics be established in the annual report? How will these metrics be decided? Will the minister have to report on the performance of the person or body against the metrics?
~~Milton Dick~~
The member for Lyons is not in his seat, first of all. Just to assist the member for Casey: we have moved past the detailed amendment stage, the time for back-and-forth questions. The question before the House is that the bill as amended be agreed to. Whilst there is no standing order preventing a member debating—
Order! We don't need commentary. We have gone through a series of detailed amendments, one by one, through the crossbench and now through the government. We've finished the detailed amendment stage. We just voted on the final stage of detailed amendments from the government. If there are extra detailed amendments, have they been circulated and have they been—
Member for Petrie, I understand where you're coming from. Just so you're clear: with consideration in detail, when the Treasurer is going back and forth and answering questions regarding detailed amendments, that is detailed amendments before the House. We've finished the detailed amendments. I don't think the member for Casey has detailed amendments; he has questions. Those are two different things, detailed amendments and questions. Where we're at in the stage of dealing with the bill is that we've agreed with all of the amendments. So the question now is that this bill as amended be agreed to.
~~Under the standing orders that can occur. There is no prohibition on that.~~
~~Member for Petrie, we're just going to handle this in a systematic way.~~
~~Mark Butler~~
~~I move:~~
That the question be now put.
~~Milton Dick~~
~~The question before the House is that the question be put.~~
~~~~
~~~~
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.130.1):
> *That [the question](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2024-09-09/12) be now put.*