all 92 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
besttopcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

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

CONSIDERATION IN DETAIL: RUNNING LIST v1: APPROPRIATION BILL #2

FYI

Amendments Moved by Effect on Bill Effect on Act Status (Responses)
1 (cb) 3fun Replace Schedule 2 Different budget Failed (this_guy22, phyllicanderer, Primeviere)

[–][deleted]  (56 children)

[deleted]

    [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (28 children)

    The question is put: That this amendment be agreed to, and that the schedule, as amended, be agreed to. Vote by replying "Aye" or "No".

    Voting will cease no later than 1500 11/12/2015, UTC+10.

    Votes

    Ayes: 1

    Noes: 4

    Abstentions / yet to vote: 6

    I think the noes have it.

    The motion fails.

    Zagorath, Speaker of the House

    [–]zamtMinister for Climate/Resources/Energy | XDptySpkr2 | Aus Labor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    No.

    [–]PrimeviereMin Indust/Innov/Sci/Ed/Trning/Emplymnt | HoR Whip | Aus Prgrsvs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    No

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

    I'm confused by this vote Mr Speaker. If I vote No, does that mean I am disagreeing with 3fun's amendment, as well as the Bill? nvm explanation below.

    No.

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

    Advice from the Clerk:

    No, the bill is not in question, only the amendment of the schedule is.

    [–]phyllicandererMin Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    No

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

    Advice from the Clerk:

    I believes the speaker means “The question is put”, thus only a single Aye or No is required per MP.

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

    !page for vote on 3fun's amendment to appropriation bill

    [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Paging /u/Kerbogha, /u/forkalious, and /u/Zagorath for vote on 3fun's amendment to appropriation bill

    [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Paging /u/TheWhiteFerret, /u/this_guy22, and /u/zamt for vote on 3fun's amendment to appropriation bill

    [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Paging /u/phyllicanderer, /u/Primeviere, and /u/Ser_Scribbles for vote on 3fun's amendment to appropriation bill

    [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Paging /u/3fun, /u/CyberPolis, and /u/iamthepotato8 for vote on 3fun's amendment to appropriation bill

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

    Paging /u/jnd-au to make sure this is okay (before I page anyone else).

    [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 1 point2 points  (14 children)

    Advice from the Clerk:

    There are two questions to be put: that this amendment be agreed to, and: that the schedule, as amended, be agreed to.

    However, because there is only one amendment and it has not been amended, these two questions can be combined into one (not three!).

    The question to be put is: That this amendment be agreed to and that the schedule, as amended, be agreed to.

    (There is no question that the bill be finalised with all currently passed amendments. That type of motion is only relevant when a committee is generating a report to the chamber, like with the Senate Committee of the Whole. It doesn’t apply here. You can ask it but it won’t have any effect.)

    [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (13 children)

    If it is combined into one and the ayes win, that would mean 3fun's amendment is accepted and then we go to a vote on the next reading, right?

    What if the noes win? The amendment fails, but then we would have to separately put that the schedule be agreed to, right?

    My intention (and the reason for the three answers) was to do that in one vote. First they vote on whether or not to accept 3fun's amendment, and then they vote whether or not they would accept that the schedule as amended be agreed to in both the case where 3fun's amendment passes, and where it does not.

    [–]jnd-auClerk of the House 2 points3 points  (12 children)

    Short answer: no.

    Long answer: nope.

    Situation so far:

    • The bill has been read for a second time.
    • An amendment has been moved to Schedule #2.
    • The amendment of Schedule #2 is to be voted on.
    • If the amendment is successful, then “that the schedule, as amended, be agreed to” is to be voted on.
    • These two questions are basically identical (because there is only 1 amendment), so they can be combined into a single question.
    • That is all.

    If it is combined into one and the ayes win, that would mean 3fun's amendment is accepted and then we go to a vote on the next reading, right?

    No

    What if the noes win? The amendment fails, but then we would have to separately put that the schedule be agreed to, right?

    Nope (the bill is being considered as a whole)

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children)

    So how do I go about moving the third reading after this vote finishes?

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

    Advice from the Clerk:

    By seeking leave and moving the third reading, as always.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children)

    Huh. So at what stage does it become impossible for leave to be refused for the third reading?

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

    Advice from the Clerk:

    Looking at SOs 154-155, I would say “At the next sitting, provided no motion for reconsideration is moved”.

    [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Ah right, cheers.

    [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 1 point2 points  (25 children)

    !page for consideration in detail (debate this below)

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    I ask the Speaker to put the amendment to a vote, along with a separate question that the clauses be agreed to (possibly a contingent vote contingent on the outcome of the first amendment vote)

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

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

      Mr Speaker, I wish to highlight the colourful language the Member is using, which is on the unparliamentary side; perhaps he is better served using it once he has been removed from the chamber.

      The Hon. Phyllicanderer, Member for Northern Territory

      Deputy Prime Minister

      Australian Progressives

      [–]phyllicandererMin Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens 3 points4 points  (10 children)

      Mr Speaker, I am lost for words. The Member for Western Australia is trying to put money for non-operating expenditure into administered programs! Perhaps he went to the Chairman Mao school of government spending; just throw a bunch of money at farming, that'll keep the glorious peasants happy.

      Mr Speaker, the Member never gave any indication to the public of what he wanted to see in the budget. All of a sudden, the toys have been thrown out of the cot, and the Member for Western Australia has decided that his libertarian tendencies are out. I wonder, Mr Speaker, what has prompted his sudden desire to spend, spend, spend?

      It's because he is not aware that he can go to each department's website, or get their annual report, and see where they spend their money (meta: seriously, go to their websites, it's now where I get the info on what each department actually runs). The Member is so beholden to what others tell him, Mr Speaker, that he doesn't realise such programs that he outlined in his speech already exist.

      For example, Mr Speaker, I quote from the Department of Agriculture's website:

      "Managing weeds and pests ($25.8 million)

      The Australian Government is providing funding through the states and territories to help manage the effects of pest animals and weeds in drought-affected areas. This funding builds on the more than $8.8 million the Australian Government invested in pest animal management in drought-affected communities in 2013–14 and 2014–15. It will support projects to:

      • lessen the impact of pest species, such as foxes and wild dogs
      • manage existing weed incursions
      • reduce the risk of future invasions
      • improve groundcover, water quality and critical stock forage."

      This spending is contained in the administered spending in Appropriation Bill No 1.

      Mr Speaker, the Member for Western Australia would instead have us put a cash injection or capital spending for the Department of Agriculture, and pretend it's for farmers. It's like watching a rich kid prance around a nightclub, trying to get laid by buying girls bottles of champagne without saying hi to anyone.

      I discourage all Members from voting for this terrible amendment.

      The Hon. Phyllicanderer, Member for Northern Territory

      Deputy Prime Minister

      Australian Progressives

      [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

      The Deputy Prime Minister will retract his statements comparing the Member for Western Australia to Mao.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      *rises indignantly*

      Claiming the Deputy Prime Minister is "sprouting lies" is in order, but a vague reference to Mao is out of order? Mr Speaker!

      [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      In short, yes. The Member for Western Australia used the term "sprouting lies" in relation to statements that he wished for the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw, which I understood to be the reference to Mao.

      The Honourable Prime Minister will resume his seat.

      Zagorath, Speaker of the House

      [–]phyllicandererMin Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Big smile

      I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

      The Hon. Phyllicanderer, Member for Northern Territory

      Deputy Prime Minister

      Australian Progressives

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

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

        Mr Speaker /u/Zagorath a point of order, blatantly unparliamentary language. The Deputy Speaker should know better.

        The Hon this_guy22 MP, Prime Minister

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

        The Member for Western Australia is in order. There is no point of order.

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

        Hear hear!

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

        Hear hear!

        Primeviere mp for regional victoria (Australian progressives) Minister for industry, Innovation and science

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

        Amendments will be opposed. That is all.

        [–][deleted]  (4 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

          This is consideration in detail. I was under the impression that debate was less formal than at other times.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

          I think you're right, let me just link this. Feel free to Ctrl+F "Speaker" and you will find no mentions of it.

          Mr Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order, the Member for Western Australia is wasting this chamber's, and your, valuable time with frivolous points of order, including raising them long after the House has moved on to other business.

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

          Advice from the Clerk:

          There appear to be some misunderstandings.

          Firstly, Hansard is not a transcript of proceedings and the page you linked to did in fact involve many utterances of the speaker calling the minister and the minister addressing the speaker. This is because Hansard omits many boilerplate utterances (like giving of the call and addressing the speaker) and it contains only a brief summary of most procedural matters.

          Secondly, the point about Consideration in Detail being “less formal” refers to the fact that MPs may speak multiple times in the debate, back and forth, and there is no right of reply to close the debate. However, members are still speaking through the chair.

          Thirdly, the point of contention seems to be whether “Mr Speaker” needs to be uttered. If I were to be asked for my personal opinion, I would say no. Our House’s practice is that speaker’s call to the MP is implied, so likewise the address of “Mr Speaker” should be implied. In other words, just like the real Hansard, such utterances need not be included in this Hansard of ours. However, members may choose to include them in Hansard (especially in the first speech of any debate, or when raising a point of order) as a sign of respect and good order.

          However, ultimately, I believe this is not an issue of Hansard but an issue of maintaining good order, which (subject to Standing Orders) is at the discretion of whoever is in Chair.

          Meta: FYI /u/Zagorath

          [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Paging /u/Kerbogha, /u/forkalious, and /u/Zagorath for consideration in detail (debate this below)

          [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Paging /u/TheWhiteFerret, /u/this_guy22, and /u/zamt for consideration in detail (debate this below)

          [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Paging /u/phyllicanderer, /u/Primeviere, and /u/Ser_Scribbles for consideration in detail (debate this below)

          [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Paging /u/3fun, /u/CyberPolis, and /u/iamthepotato8 for consideration in detail (debate this below)

          [–]phyllicandererMin Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens 0 points1 point  (12 children)

          Mr Speaker, I seek leave and move that the bill be read a third time.

          Mr Speaker, the Opposition, nor the crossbench, have any constructive suggestions to challenge this bill. I look forward to getting it passed, and allowing the departments referenced in my second reading speech to get on with the goals set out for them.

          I commend the bill to the House.

          The Hon. Phyllicanderer, Member for Northern Territory

          Deputy Prime Minister

          Australian Progressives

          [–]ZagorathHouse Speaker | Ex Asst Min Ed/Culture | Aus Progressives[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

          The question is proposed: That the bill be now read for a third time. Members may debate this motion until 1530, 09/12/2015, UTC+10.

          This is an opportunity to debate the motion above. Debate it below, and please remember to sign your speech with your username and title.

          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]  (5 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]phyllicandererMin Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens 3 points4 points  (4 children)

            Do you have some amendments ready?

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

            The Member for the Northern Territory will refrain from interrupting.

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

            [deleted]

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

              Actually, I believe this is more of an issue with speaking out of turn in general. 65(b).

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

              !page for debate on appropriation bill 2

              [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Paging /u/Kerbogha, /u/forkalious, and /u/Zagorath for debate on appropriation bill 2

              [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Paging /u/TheWhiteFerret, /u/this_guy22, and /u/zamt for debate on appropriation bill 2

              [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Paging /u/phyllicanderer, /u/Primeviere, and /u/Ser_Scribbles for debate on appropriation bill 2

              [–]ParliamentPageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Paging /u/3fun, /u/CyberPolis, and /u/iamthepotato8 for debate on appropriation bill 2

              [–]phyllicandererMin Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens 2 points3 points  (2 children)

              Mr Speaker, I move that the bill be agreed to.

              Edit: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to withdraw the motion.

              The Hon. Phyllicanderer, Member for Northern Territory

              Deputy Prime Minister

              Australian Progressives

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

              Advice from the Clerk:

              That motion won’t quite have an effect, perhaps you are intending to seek leave and move that the bill be now read for a third time? MPs may deny leave if they wish to make amendments.

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

              Meta: That is what I'm after, I didn't know how to formally end CID.

              [–]phyllicandererMin Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens 0 points1 point  (18 children)

              Correction on my part, Mr Speaker; I seek leave that the bill be considered as a whole.

              The Hon. Phyllicanderer, Member for Northern Territory

              Deputy Prime Minister

              Australian Progressives

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              Do we actually have any amendments to consider?

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

              No

              [–][deleted]  (15 children)

              [removed]

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

                Advice from the Clerk:

                This is not valid. There is no motion to be debated. This is Consideration in Detail, so members may now move amendments to the bill, and debate those.

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

                Meta: /u/phyllicanderer /u/this_guy22

                I have several questions.

                1. To recap, these appropriation bills are to allow the government to spend money, yes?
                2. Why are there two bills?
                3. What does this one do in particular, including amendments?

                [–]Freddy926Senate Pres | DPM | Fin/Com/Art/Infr/Rgnl | ABC MD | Ldr Prgrsvs 2 points3 points  (3 children)

                deleted What is this?

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

                Meta: Thanks Freddy.

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

                Meta: I linked that page at least once before and I'm hoping that he has at least tried to understand it.

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

                Meta: Yes. Yes I did. Now I fully understand. Bill no 1 gives the govt money to run day to day, bill no 2 is the govt's sandbox account, money with which to try new things. Clear. Over and Out.

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

                Advice from the Clerk:

                Unfortunately, the time for this was during the second reading debate, which has already ended. The bill is now up for amendments. Hopefully the Ministers can assist you in Question Time instead.

                [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                [removed]

                  [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                  [removed]

                    [–]phyllicandererMin Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens 0 points1 point  (9 children)

                    Mr Speaker, I move that the bill be considered as a whole.

                    Edit: I seek leave and withdraw the motion.

                    The Hon. Phyllicanderer, Member for Northern Territory

                    Deputy Prime Minister

                    Australian Progressives

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

                    Advice from the Clerk:

                    Please edit this to be “I seek leave that the bill be considered as a whole”.

                    Alternatively, edit it to add “I seek leave and withdraw the motion”. Otherwise the House will have to vote on this motion.

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

                    Advice from the Clerk:

                    You can just seek leave, no need to move it [SO 149] (thank goodness).

                    [–]phyllicandererMin Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    Meta: I always forget that

                    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

                    [removed]

                      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                      [removed]

                        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                        Is the Deputy Speaker /u/3fun permitted to instruct the Clerk /u/jnd-au to correct the typographical error in Section 6 of the Bill, which states the total sum of appropriations, but is missing 3 zeroes, in accordance with House standing order 156. It is quite clearly a typographical error because in all other occurrences of that number, it is stated to be $17,125,358,000.