Division
The majority voted against Senate amendments, known as [amendment nos (7), (8), (13) and (14)](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fsched%2Fr5689_sched_35672e6a-5395-4e13-a7e9-28afb9c8286a%22;rec=0). This means that those amendments are rejected by the House of Representatives and that they'll now need to be sent back to the Senate, where the senators will need to decide whether or not they insist on them. If they do insist, then [the bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5689) won't pass. The bill relates to the ASIC And MSIC schemes. The [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd028) explains that: > *A security card, known as an Aviation Security Identification Card (**ASIC**) or a Maritime Security Identification Card (**MSIC**), is required by individuals in Australia if they require regular access to secure areas of Australia’s airports, seaports, Australian flagged ships, and offshore oil and gas facilities.* ### What were the Senate amendments about? These amendments related to two different issues. First, they would have required that that certain serious or organised crime offences only be relevant to the ASIC and MSIC schemes if the offences were connected to terrorism. Deputy Leader of the House [Darren Chester](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gippsland/darren_chester) explained that [the Government rejected this change](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-03-30.37.3) because: > *Limiting the application of criminal organisation legislation to a connection with terrorism will severely restrict the ability to exclude people convicted of serious offences related to criminal organisations from gaining an ASIC or a MSIC.* The second change made by the amendments is that they would have included the ASIC and MSIC appeals
House of Representatives, 2017-03-30. affirmative: ayes 76, noes 64.
Question
The majority voted against Senate amendments, known as [amendment nos (7), (8), (13) and (14)](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fsched%2Fr5689_sched_35672e6a-5395-4e13-a7e9-28afb9c8286a%22;rec=0). This means that those amendments are rejected by the House of Representatives and that they'll now need to be sent back to the Senate, where the senators will need to decide whether or not they insist on them. If they do insist, then [the bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5689) won't pass. The bill relates to the ASIC And MSIC schemes. The [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd028) explains that: > *A security card, known as an Aviation Security Identification Card (**ASIC**) or a Maritime Security Identification Card (**MSIC**), is required by individuals in Australia if they require regular access to secure areas of Australia’s airports, seaports, Australian flagged ships, and offshore oil and gas facilities.* ### What were the Senate amendments about? These amendments related to two different issues. First, they would have required that that certain serious or organised crime offences only be relevant to the ASIC and MSIC schemes if the offences were connected to terrorism. Deputy Leader of the House [Darren Chester](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gippsland/darren_chester) explained that [the Government rejected this change](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-03-30.37.3) because: > *Limiting the application of criminal organisation legislation to a connection with terrorism will severely restrict the ability to exclude people convicted of serious offences related to criminal organisations from gaining an ASIC or a MSIC.* The second change made by the amendments is that they would have included the ASIC and MSIC appeals
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.