Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-05-14.17.2) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (Independent), which means they failed. Ms Chaney [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2026-05-14.17.1): > *My amendments (1) and (2) will ... replace the 'improper' test with a harm based threshold. The offence would only be committed where the communication harms, or the person intends to harm or is reckless as to harming, an essential public interest. The amendments define essential public interests as national security and defence, criminal justice integrity, public health and safety, financial system stability and the privacy of personal information held by the Commonwealth, while making clear that courts may recognise others as well. Critically, the amendments also make clear that a communication does not harm an essential public interest merely because it exposes wrongdoing, maladministration or a failure of public accountability, protecting the space for whistleblowing and public interest journalism without creating an unlimited defence.* > > *Amendment (3) addresses the Attorney-General consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions. I support this mechanism, but not without reservation. Politicians should not, as a matter of principle, be final arbiters in the functions of our criminal justice system. But in the absence of stronger protections, including a general public interest defence or effective whistleblower laws, this mechanism is desirable in practice and may safeguard against prosecutions that would otherwise proceed contrary to the public interest. Well-balanced secrecy laws would negate any need for the Attorney-General to act as the final safeguard at all. Amendment (3), therefore, requires a mandatory independent review every five years to assess whether this mechanism is working as intended and whether it remai
House of Representatives, 2026-05-14. negative: ayes 10, noes 73.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-05-14.17.2) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (Independent), which means they failed. Ms Chaney [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2026-05-14.17.1): > *My amendments (1) and (2) will ... replace the 'improper' test with a harm based threshold. The offence would only be committed where the communication harms, or the person intends to harm or is reckless as to harming, an essential public interest. The amendments define essential public interests as national security and defence, criminal justice integrity, public health and safety, financial system stability and the privacy of personal information held by the Commonwealth, while making clear that courts may recognise others as well. Critically, the amendments also make clear that a communication does not harm an essential public interest merely because it exposes wrongdoing, maladministration or a failure of public accountability, protecting the space for whistleblowing and public interest journalism without creating an unlimited defence.* > > *Amendment (3) addresses the Attorney-General consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions. I support this mechanism, but not without reservation. Politicians should not, as a matter of principle, be final arbiters in the functions of our criminal justice system. But in the absence of stronger protections, including a general public interest defence or effective whistleblower laws, this mechanism is desirable in practice and may safeguard against prosecutions that would otherwise proceed contrary to the public interest. Well-balanced secrecy laws would negate any need for the Attorney-General to act as the final safeguard at all. Amendment (3), therefore, requires a mandatory independent review every five years to assess whether this mechanism is working as intended and whether it remai
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.