Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-05-14.20.1) introduced by Wentworth MP [Allegra Spender](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/allegra_spender) (Independent), which means it failed. Ms Spender [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-05-14.20.1): > *My amendment creates that safety net. It inserts a new subsection, 122.5(4AA), which provides that, where a defendant cannot satisfy every technical requirement of the PID Act's external or emergency disclosure pathway, they may still access the defence if they can demonstrate that their disclosure was reasonable and genuinely in the public interest, having regard to all circumstances. If someone makes a disclosure and does not fulfil the technical requirements but it cannot be proven they were completing this disclosure for a reasonable public good, they will still be held liable under the secrecy provisions. This is seeking to protect those who are sharing for the genuine public interest.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 32), after item 8, insert:* > >> *8A After subsection 122.5(4) of the Criminal Code* >> >> *Insert:* >> >> *(4AA) Where a defendant seeks to rely on the defence at paragraph 122.5(4)(a), on the grounds that they have made an external or emergency disclosure in accordance with section 26 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, it is sufficient for the defendant to show:* >> >>> *(a) in the case of items 2 and 3 of the table in that section—all the further requirements set out in column 3 of the item are met; or* >>> >>> *(b) the disclosure is otherwise reasonable and in the public interest, having regard to all of the circumstances.*
House of Representatives, 2026-05-14. negative: ayes 9, noes 69.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-05-14.20.1) introduced by Wentworth MP [Allegra Spender](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/allegra_spender) (Independent), which means it failed. Ms Spender [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-05-14.20.1): > *My amendment creates that safety net. It inserts a new subsection, 122.5(4AA), which provides that, where a defendant cannot satisfy every technical requirement of the PID Act's external or emergency disclosure pathway, they may still access the defence if they can demonstrate that their disclosure was reasonable and genuinely in the public interest, having regard to all circumstances. If someone makes a disclosure and does not fulfil the technical requirements but it cannot be proven they were completing this disclosure for a reasonable public good, they will still be held liable under the secrecy provisions. This is seeking to protect those who are sharing for the genuine public interest.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 32), after item 8, insert:* > >> *8A After subsection 122.5(4) of the Criminal Code* >> >> *Insert:* >> >> *(4AA) Where a defendant seeks to rely on the defence at paragraph 122.5(4)(a), on the grounds that they have made an external or emergency disclosure in accordance with section 26 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, it is sufficient for the defendant to show:* >> >>> *(a) in the case of items 2 and 3 of the table in that section—all the further requirements set out in column 3 of the item are met; or* >>> >>> *(b) the disclosure is otherwise reasonable and in the public interest, having regard to all of the circumstances.*
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.