Menu

Division

The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-03-25.31.1) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps) (Independent), which means they were not successful. Dr Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-03-25.31.1): > *While I strongly support this bill, I will be moving two amendments to strengthen it. These amendments respond to concerns raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding sections 33E(2) and 33F(5) of the bill. As currently drafted, these sections allow regulations to override the definitions of key terms, such as 'genetic testing' and 'protected genetic information'. Specifically, the provisions state that the regulations 'have effect despite anything else in this section'. This means that regulations could, in effect, redefine what constitutes protected genetic information, even if that contradicts the definitions set out in the legislation itself. This creates a risk that the scope of protections could be narrowed in the future. In doing so, it dilutes the strength and certainty of the ban. It is not appropriate for regulations to have the power to limit or expand the meaning of terms that are so central to the operation of the legislation.* ### Amendment texts > *(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 22 and 23), omit "Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.".* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (lines 26 to 28), omit "Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.".*

House of Representatives, 2026-03-25. negative: ayes 9, noes 64.

Question

The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-03-25.31.1) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps) (Independent), which means they were not successful. Dr Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-03-25.31.1): > *While I strongly support this bill, I will be moving two amendments to strengthen it. These amendments respond to concerns raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding sections 33E(2) and 33F(5) of the bill. As currently drafted, these sections allow regulations to override the definitions of key terms, such as 'genetic testing' and 'protected genetic information'. Specifically, the provisions state that the regulations 'have effect despite anything else in this section'. This means that regulations could, in effect, redefine what constitutes protected genetic information, even if that contradicts the definitions set out in the legislation itself. This creates a risk that the scope of protections could be narrowed in the future. In doing so, it dilutes the strength and certainty of the ban. It is not appropriate for regulations to have the power to limit or expand the meaning of terms that are so central to the operation of the legislation.* ### Amendment texts > *(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 22 and 23), omit "Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.".* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (lines 26 to 28), omit "Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.".*

View original

How each member voted

Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.

Related bills

Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.