All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
senate vote 2021-06-24#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-09-02 08:37:14
|
Title
Business — Consideration of Legislation- Business - Consideration of Legislation - Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020
Description
<p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>I move:</p>-
- The majority voted against an amendment to a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2021-06-24.28.2) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means it failed.
- The purpose of the original motion is to speed up consideration of the two bills mentioned. The amendment would have removed the Telecommunications bill from the original motion so that the usual rules would have applied to it.
- ### Amendment text
- > *Omit "Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020"*
- ### Original motion text
- > *That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of [standing order](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:*
- >
- >> *Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2021*
- >>
- >> *Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020.*
<p class="italic">That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:</p><p class="italic">Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2021</p><p class="italic">Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>by leave—I move an amendment to the motion:</p><p class="italic">omit "Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020"</p><p>I seek leave to make a brief statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>What's happened here is that last night a bill was rammed through the House, and the government, in the House, sought leave to move amendments (1) to (502) together and then forced the House to vote on it shortly thereafter. This is an unprecedented move to not only ram through a bill in breach of the cut-off order but also ram through a bill that has been so extensively amended without anyone having the time to properly read those amendments. There were 46 pages of amendments—502 amendments in total. This is an absolute farce. You cannot ram this bill through the Senate with such extensive amendments. That is why we are seeking to remove this bill from the motion, so that it can have the proper scrutiny and consideration that is warranted for a bill that vastly increases the state surveillance powers of this totalitarian government.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Actually, it's really more of a question. I wouldn't mind having the minister stand up and advise as to why the cut-off needs to be abandoned. That would be helpful for me in order to make a decision.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Before we get into an issue of debate, I will call the minister. A statement was tabled with respect to this with the motion yesterday. A statement of reasons was tabled pursuant to the standing orders. I will invite the minister. If anyone wishes to add to that, they need to seek leave to make a statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>The reason you've given would have been the same one I'd have given.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>The question is that the amendment moved to government business motion No. 3 moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.</p><p>The question now is that government business motion No. 3 be agreed to—sorry, Senator Waters?</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>I ask that a question be put separately on their telecoms bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I've just taken some advice from the Clerk. We have sought to separate it by excluding the second bills. That would, effectively, be the same question, on advice from the Clerk. So we've just determined that question, Senator Waters.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Thank you. It's just that we wish to vote differently on the bills.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>My advice from the Clerk is—we've just expressed that you have a different position on that bill in the debate just conducted and the vote. So that's already on the record, in the sense that the position of those who wish that bill to be treated differently is already expressed in the Senate record.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Thank you. Can I ask that <i>Hansard</i> record that, when we have this vote, we also don't want the telecoms bill to be rammed through today?</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Sure. The question is that government business motion No. 3 be agreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>I will note the request of the Australian Greens that they attempted to amend it, to exclude that and disagree with that bill, be included.</p> -
-
|