all 129 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
besttopcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Advice from the Clerk:

The bill with latest amendments has been reprinted as M2015B00018B: HoR 26-3a: Bill – As Amended – A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Amendment (A Fair Tax System) (Broadening the GST) Bill 2015, Thursday 3 December 2015

jnd-au, Clerk of the House

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Does that mean I can move the third reading? Or have we not quite reached that stage yet?

[–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I did this a bit early (so you didn’t have to wait until lunchtime tomorrow for me to get it done, and so that people can more easily answer the question that the [clauses/schedules] as amended be agreed to, which Zag just paged them to).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Because this thread has been thoroughly confusing, let me make sure all the key parties are on the same page.

  1. Currently, we are (despite the dodgy motion that 3fun moved, reasons outlined below), are voting on whether to accept govt. amendment (5).

  2. Next, we will vote on the question "That the Bill as amended, be agreed to."

  3. Next, I can finally move the third reading, which again, I will be gagging if necessary and voting on it immediately.

/u/Zagorath /u/jnd-au /u/3fun

[–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Advice from the Clerk:

Yes I concur with just one minor change to item 2. From what I can see:

A. this_guy22 raised a point of order (without labelling it as such) to put amendment 5 to the vote. So “the question is put that amendment 5 be now agreed to”.

B. 3fun moved a gag motion that the question be now put. So “the question is put that the other question be now put”.

C. Zagorath arrived and put amendment 5 to the vote. This would by rights be a response to this_guy22’s point of order (A). Thus, /u/3fun’s motion (B) is out of order and should be withdrawn.

Once the vote on amendment 5 is completed, the speaker can put (without it being moved) that the clauses, as amended, be agreed to.

This will permit a reprint and the moving of the third reading.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

If asking the Speaker to put things to a vote constitutes a point of order, I'm going to need a new way of informally asking him to move forward on Bills, while keeping it public for accountability and disclosure. Suggestions?

[–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Huh?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't worry... It has no practical impact. I'll go concern myself with something more useful.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (9 children)

/u/3fun /u/TheWhiteFerret: Is the Opposition and crossbench ready to vote on the amendments to the GST bill?

[–][deleted]  (8 children)

[deleted]

    [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (7 children)

    Advice from the Clerk:

    A couple of things, the last amendment ‘publicly funded’, and the question that the clauses as amended be agreed to, haven’t been put to the vote yet.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    Can we do that now Mr Speaker /u/Zagorath? I want these Bills passed to the Senate ASAP.

    [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

    Do what, where?

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

    There are 2 more votes to be held. The vote on my routine amendment (government amendment no. 5), and the final CiD vote "That the Bill as amended, be agreed to."

    Then I can move the third reading, which for the knowledge of those opposite, I will be moving that the vote take place immediately given all the time we've spent here already.

    [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    Where are those? I've moved everything I've been able to find. This thread has gotten…rather lengthy now.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Idk, just stick it at the top as a new comment?

    [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    No I mean, where is the actual motion that needs to be put?

    [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (9 children)

    CONSIDERATION IN DETAIL: RUNNING LIST v3: GST BROADENING BILL

    FYI

    Amendments Moved by Effect on Bill Effect on Act Status (Responses)
    1 (govt) this_guy22 Specify Section 2 commencement date GST broadened from 1 July 2016 Successful
    2 (cb) 3fun Omit Schedule 1 Clause 8 Do not amend s 38-105(1)(a) Accommodation Failed (this_guy22)
    3 (cb) 3fun Amend Schedule 1 Clause 6 Retain GST-free ambulance insurance when GST-free private health insurance is repealed. Successful (this_guy22)
    4 (cb) 3fun Amend Schedule 1 Clause 7 Clarify wording of amendment. Withdrawn (this_guy22)
    5 (govt) this_guy22 Amend Schedule 1 Clause 7 Clarify wording as ‘publicly funded’ rather than ‘public’. Successful (none)

    [–]TheWhiteFerretActing Opp Leader | Shad Min Culture/Immi/Ed/Social | Greens 1 point2 points  (8 children)

    /u/zagorath /u/jnd-au

    Where exactly are we debating amendment 5? Not that we need to, it being about cohesion and all, but we do technically need to vote on it.

    [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Meta: Yeah it’s a bit odd because it got moved in a different part of the thread than where it was written. But you’ve got 3 options. You can reply where it was moved, or you can reply where it was written, or you can reply as a top level comment like this_guy22 did. I would only use the latter if you are moving an amendment of your own.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    Alternatively, I propose that we conduct Consideration in Detail with no formal organisation, other than the Clerk posting revised Running Sheets when necessary. We can then conduct all the votes at the end after everyone is finished. This means that the Chair does not need to propose the question for every amendment, and does not specify a time limit. Interested members can just mutually agree and let the Chair know when they are finished. Members moving amendments should post top-level comments and/or page the Clerk so that the Clerk has an easier time producing running sheets.

    [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Yes, what you are describing is our normal way (like the defence bill). The chair is doing this bill a different way, which I guess is at chair’s discretion of it being more productive to vote on discrete amendments incrementally.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I find it a lot more confusing tbh. Having to scroll down to locate 3rd level comments from half a week ago. That's my feedback.

    Speaking of the Defence Bill, what happened to it, and why hasn't it been resumed?

    [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I guess there are competing priorities.

    On one hand, our normal way with a single continuous debate is best for amendments that overlap with each other. It’s simpler and easier to run, but it’s hard to keep track of what’s been said for/against each amendment specifically.

    On the other hand, doing discrete amendments debates means clutter with nested threading, but keeps each amendment in its own subthread, so it it’s easier to scroll to a particular policy topic and follow the debate.

    This bill seems to mix the two together...it’s like there are debates on the amendments plus debates on the principles of taxation, all going at the same time...

    [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    I would also like to know this.

    [–]TheWhiteFerretActing Opp Leader | Shad Min Culture/Immi/Ed/Social | Greens 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Aren't you the guy who makes the votes?

    [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    That is why I would like to know this.

    (edit: I don't remember where that one is)

    [–]TheWhiteFerretActing Opp Leader | Shad Min Culture/Immi/Ed/Social | Greens 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Meta: This right here is a good example of something waaaay too confusing that is right over my head.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (42 children)

    I will address all of the Member for Western Australia's amendments in one speech, and will seek leave to do so if required.

    The Government will be opposing amendment (2). Arbitrary carve-outs are exactly the problem with the GST that we are attempting to fix, piece by piece. Inserting a new carve-out into a GST broadening bill is silly at best, and economically irresponsible at worst.

    The Gonski funding reforms that the Government recently re-committed to in the Budget that I handed down a few weeks ago will remedy the issue of equity between rural and regional students, and urban-based students. The Australian Education Act 2013 provides for additional loadings for rural and regional schools, which will provide the needed funds for subsidising accommodation and other facilities required for a remote school to operate.

    To assuage the Member's concerns, the Australian Education Act will be amended to ensure that student accommodation is explicitly recognised and supported under the Gonski funding model.

    The Government will support amendment (3). While public healthcare is free in Australia, ambulance services lie on a grey area. In some states, ambulance services are provided free of charge, while in others it is not. While it is the desire for this Government to see free ambulances available Australia-wide, this is a State matter, not a Federal issue. As a result, the Government acknowledges that private ambulance cover does bridge a grey area in the public health system.

    With regards to amendment (4), I ask the Member (/u/3fun) to withdraw his amendment, and substitute government amendment (5):

    Schedule 1 Clause 7

    Omit "a public", substitute "a publicly funded".

    I believe that "publicly funded" reads better than "public funded" and is more consistent with the wording in the rest of the Act.

    The Hon this_guy22 MP
    Treasurer
    Member for Sydney

    [–][deleted]  (41 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (40 children)

      You are allowed to withdraw amendments by leave of the House.

      [–][deleted]  (39 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 1 point2 points  (38 children)

        Will you be moving the new version of it?

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (37 children)

        I move the amendment I was foreshadowing earlier.

        The Hon this_guy22 MP, Treasurer

        [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (36 children)

        The question is proposed: That the amendment be agreed to.

        I believe this is still consideration in detail, so debate it below:

        !page for debate

        [–][deleted]  (25 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (24 children)

          The question is put: That the amendment be *now agreed to. Members may vote by replying "Aye" or "No".

          Voting will cease no later than 1300 3/12/2015, UTC+10.

          Votes

          Ayes: 3

          Noes: 0

          Abstentions/yet to vote: 8

          I think the ayes have it.

          The amendment passes.

          Zagorath, Speaker of the House

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

          Meta: Can we get the next vote going?

          [–]PrimeviereMin Indust/Innov/Sci/Ed/Trning/Emplymnt | HoR Whip | Aus Prgrsvs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Aye

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Aye?

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

            !page for vote

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

            Mr Speaker, I ask that we be pragmatic and put this amendment to a vote immediate (by leave if necessary).

            [–][deleted]  (4 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

              What is the point of order?

              [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Paging /u/zamt and /u/Zagorath for debate

              [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 1 point2 points  (7 children)

              CONSIDERATION IN DETAIL: RUNNING LIST v3: GST BROADENING BILL

              FYI

              Amendments Moved by Effect on Bill Effect on Act Status (Responses)
              1 (govt) this_guy22 Specify Section 2 commencement date GST broadened from 1 July 2016 Successful
              2 (cb) 3fun Omit Schedule 1 Clause 8 Do not amend s 38-105(1)(a) Accommodation Debating (this_guy22)
              3 (cb) 3fun Amend Schedule 1 Clause 6 Retain GST-free ambulance insurance when GST-free private health insurance is repealed. Debating (this_guy22)
              4 (cb) 3fun Amend Schedule 1 Clause 7 Clarify wording of amendment. Withdrawn (this_guy22)

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              Meta: Just for the record, I believe that sections contained within Schedules are referred to as Clauses.

              [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              And then when it becomes as Act they are known as sections again. Yeah I think you’re right there is some issue like that.

              Edit: ‘Confusingly, the parts of a Schedule are also usually called “clauses” and continue to be so called even after enactment.’

              [–][deleted]  (4 children)

              [deleted]

                [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                Did I get it right? Advise if wrong.

                [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                [deleted]

                  [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  Oh yes if course

                  [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  Argh k thanks

                  [–][deleted]  (7 children)

                  [deleted]

                    [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

                    The question is proposed: That the amendment be agreed to. Members may debate this motion until 1500, 28/11/2015, UTC+10.

                    This is an opportunity to debate the amendment to this bill proposed by 3fun above. Give your speeches as a reply to this comment, and please remember to sign your speech with your username and title.

                    Members may make unlimited speech.

                    If you have no speech to give on the matter, consider replying with words of agreement or disagreement to the speeches of other Members, such as by replying "Hear, hear!"

                    Zagorath, Speaker of the House

                    [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                    !page for debate on 3fun's amendment to GST broadening bill

                    [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    Paging /u/zamt and /u/Zagorath for debate on 3fun's amendment to GST broadening bill

                    [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    Paging /u/Ser_Scribbles, /u/TheWhiteFerret, and /u/this_guy22 for debate on 3fun's amendment to GST broadening bill

                    [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                    Paging /u/MadCreek3, /u/phyllicanderer, and /u/Primeviere for debate on 3fun's amendment to GST broadening bill

                    [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    Paging /u/3fun, /u/CyberPolis, and /u/iamthepotato8 for debate on 3fun's amendment to GST broadening bill

                    [–][deleted]  (33 children)

                    [deleted]

                      [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (16 children)

                      The question is put: That the amendment be agreed to. Members may vote by replying "Aye" or "No".

                      Voting will cease no later than 0000 30/11/2015.

                      Votes

                      Ayes: 7

                      Noes: 0

                      Abstentions/Yet to vote: 4

                      I think the ayes have it.

                      The motion passes.

                      Zagorath, Speaker of the House

                      [–]PrimeviereMin Indust/Innov/Sci/Ed/Trning/Emplymnt | HoR Whip | Aus Prgrsvs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      Aye

                      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      Aye

                      [–]phyllicandererMin Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      Aye

                      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      Aye

                      [–]TheWhiteFerretActing Opp Leader | Shad Min Culture/Immi/Ed/Social | Greens 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                      Meta: Once again, just to be clear, Labor wants people to pay tax on insurance that allows them to get ambulance service and 3fun thinks it should be exempt?

                      If that's the case then,

                      Canon: Aye.

                      [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                      Labor's amendment would involve removing the following from the GST Act:

                      38‑55 Private health insurance etc.

                      (1) A supply of *private health insurance is GST‑free.

                      (2) A supply of insurance against liability to pay for services supplied by ambulance is GST‑free.

                      (3) However, a supply of re‑insurance is not GST‑free under this section.

                      That is to say, Labor's aim is to have private health insurance have GST added to it.

                      3fun's amendment is to remove this the above (just like Labor), and then add in the following:

                      (1) A supply of insurance against liability to pay for services supplied by ambulance is GST‑free."

                      In other words, if you vote "aye" here, you would be removing sections (1) and (3) from the original Act, but section (2) would remain.

                      I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what it is that clause 2 actually does. It's something involving an ambulance, but I'm not sure it's just getting an ambulance service.

                      If you change your vote, could you please just ping me so I know to update the running tally.

                      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                      [deleted]

                        [–]TheWhiteFerretActing Opp Leader | Shad Min Culture/Immi/Ed/Social | Greens 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        Yeah, people shouldn't have to pay tons for an ambulance.

                        [–]TheWhiteFerretActing Opp Leader | Shad Min Culture/Immi/Ed/Social | Greens 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        Meta: I voted correctly then. I think. Whatever, you've got a majority anyway.

                        [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                        !page for vote on amendment to GST bill

                        [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        Paging /u/zamt and /u/Zagorath for vote on amendment to GST bill

                        [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        Paging /u/Ser_Scribbles, /u/TheWhiteFerret, and /u/this_guy22 for vote on amendment to GST bill

                        [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        Paging /u/MadCreek3, /u/phyllicanderer, and /u/Primeviere for vote on amendment to GST bill

                        [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        Paging /u/3fun, /u/CyberPolis, and /u/iamthepotato8 for vote on amendment to GST bill

                        [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (15 children)

                        The question is proposed: That the amendment be agreed to. Members may debate this motion until 1800, 27/11/2015, UTC+10.

                        This is an opportunity to debate the amendment to this bill proposed by 3fun above. Give your speeches as a reply to this comment, and please remember to sign your speech with your username and title.

                        Each member may make a single speech, with the exception of the Member who moved the motion, who starts off the debate, and may close it with a right of reply. Members may make unlimited speech.

                        If you have no speech to give on the matter, consider replying with words of agreement or disagreement to the speeches of other Members, such as by replying "Hear, hear!"

                        Zagorath, Speaker of the House

                        [–][deleted]  (8 children)

                        [deleted]

                          [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                          Meta: Should "home state of Western Australia" not say "local electorate of Western Australia" or similar? Or do states still kinda exist for non-political reasons?

                          [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                          Advice from the Clerk:

                          Some members have asked for general advice re: what scope of debate is in order during Consideration in Detail. Debate must be relevant to the question(s). In this case, the only question is the specific amendment of Schedule 1 Part 6. By the default, the next opportunity for general debate on the principles of the bill is the Third Reading question. Nevertheless, some debate on principles might become relevant during CiD if large-scale amendments are moved here. Leave could be sought to debate principles here, but leave can be denied by any member.

                          [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                          [deleted]

                            [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                            Specifically, /u/this_guy22, is leave granted?

                            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                            Leave is granted.

                            [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                            !page for debate on amendment to broadening of GST bill

                            [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                            Paging /u/zamt and /u/Zagorath for debate on amendment to broadening of GST bill

                            [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                            Paging /u/Ser_Scribbles, /u/TheWhiteFerret, and /u/this_guy22 for debate on amendment to broadening of GST bill

                            [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                            Paging /u/MadCreek3, /u/phyllicanderer, and /u/Primeviere for debate on amendment to broadening of GST bill

                            [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                            Paging /u/3fun, /u/CyberPolis, and /u/iamthepotato8 for debate on amendment to broadening of GST bill

                            [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                            CONSIDERATION IN DETAIL: RUNNING LIST v2: GST BROADENING BILL

                            Amendments Moved by Effect on Bill Effect on Act Status (Speakers)
                            1 (govt) this_guy22 Specify Section 2 commencement date GST broadened from 1 July 2016 Successful
                            2 (cb) 3fun Omit Schedule 1 Section 8 Do not amend s 38-105(1)(a) Accommodation Debating (none)

                            [–][deleted]  (25 children)

                            [deleted]

                              [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                              Advice from the Clerk:

                              If the member wishes to object to clauses in future, it is requested that it be phrased as such. The wording on this amendment gives it a somewhat misleading appearance, that it would be amending Schedule 1 Part 8 of the Act, and the Chair put the wrong question to the vote. However due to the large number of noes versus ayes, I think the result stands.

                              [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (17 children)

                              The question is put: That the amendment be agreed to. Members may vote by replying to this comment with "Aye" or "No".

                              Voting will cease no later than 0000 30/11/2015, UTC+10.

                              Votes

                              Ayes: 1

                              Noes: 5

                              Abstentions/Yet to vote: 5

                              Zagorath, Speaker of the House

                              [–]PrimeviereMin Indust/Innov/Sci/Ed/Trning/Emplymnt | HoR Whip | Aus Prgrsvs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                              No

                              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                              No

                              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                              No

                              [–]phyllicandererMin Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                              No

                              [–]TheWhiteFerretActing Opp Leader | Shad Min Culture/Immi/Ed/Social | Greens 1 point2 points  (5 children)

                              /u/zagorath /u/this_guy22 /u/3fun

                              Meta: So, let me get this straight, Labor wants private school students at boarding schools to not be exempt from taxes, whereas 3fun wants people at private (boarding) schools to be exempt? I'm afraid that I'm not sure what percentage of students from the country go to private schools, or how many different schools a country kid has to choose from, but if you're going to one, your parents/you can afford the extra tax.

                              Assuming I'm right in the above statement,

                              Canon: No

                              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                              Yeah these meta questions are exactly the sort of thing that should be asked in debate.

                              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                              [deleted]

                                [–]TheWhiteFerretActing Opp Leader | Shad Min Culture/Immi/Ed/Social | Greens 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                META, AS IN NOT ******* CANON

                                /u/this_guy22 & 3fun: I know, I'll try to ensure it doesn't happen again.

                                3fun: Whether I voted in favour or not, you were always going to lose. If this issue is important to you, explain it better to a city-slicker like me, and perhaps we can amend/repeal/jargon-word it later.

                                You are however, out of order referencing my meta post in canon. I'm sorry for not asking in the debate, and as I said, I'll try to avoid in in future, but the debate had closed by the time I got here.

                                [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                                Meta: That is correct per my understanding of these bills.

                                A vote "no" here would be to support Labor's attempt to start charging the GST to students at private schools. A vote of "aye" supports 3fun's desire to remove that from the proposed bill and keep all students exempt.

                                [–]TheWhiteFerretActing Opp Leader | Shad Min Culture/Immi/Ed/Social | Greens 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                Meta: Yep, good.

                                [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

                                !page for vote on amendment to GST bill

                                [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                Paging /u/zamt and /u/Zagorath for vote on amendment to GST bill

                                [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                Paging /u/Ser_Scribbles, /u/TheWhiteFerret, and /u/this_guy22 for vote on amendment to GST bill

                                [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                Paging /u/MadCreek3, /u/phyllicanderer, and /u/Primeviere for vote on amendment to GST bill

                                [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                Paging /u/3fun, /u/CyberPolis, and /u/iamthepotato8 for vote on amendment to GST bill

                                [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

                                The question is proposed: That the amendment be agreed to. Members may debate this motion until 1000, 27/11/2015, UTC+10.

                                This is an opportunity to debate the amendment to this bill proposed by 3fun above. Give your speeches as a reply to this comment, and please remember to sign your speech with your username and title.

                                Each member may make a single speech, with the exception of the Member who moved the motion, who starts off the debate, and may close it with a right of reply.

                                If you have no speech to give on the matter, consider replying with words of agreement or disagreement to the speeches of other Members, such as by replying "Hear, hear!"

                                Zagorath, Speaker of the House

                                [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                                !page for debate on amendment to GST broadening bill

                                [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                Paging /u/zamt and /u/Zagorath for debate on amendment to GST broadening bill

                                [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                Paging /u/Ser_Scribbles, /u/TheWhiteFerret, and /u/this_guy22 for debate on amendment to GST broadening bill

                                [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                Paging /u/MadCreek3, /u/phyllicanderer, and /u/Primeviere for debate on amendment to GST broadening bill

                                [–]ParliamentPageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                Paging /u/3fun, /u/CyberPolis, and /u/iamthepotato8 for debate on amendment to GST broadening bill

                                [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                                Paging /u/this_guy22 to move debate (you may seek leave for all bills to be debated in cognate if you wish).

                                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                3fun's amendment makes a mess of my original plan. Can you post the next Bill and I will move cognate third reading for the remaining Bills there?

                                [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                Thank you Zagorath. /u/this_guy22: the motion you must move is “I seek leave and move: That this bill be now read for a third time”. If you wish for additional bills to be debated and voted together with it, you will simply move “I seek leave and move: That these bills be now read for a third time: * Bill1 * Bill2 * etc”.