Division
The majority voted to reject the [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-03-30.37.2) made in the Senate and replace them with other government amendments. This means that [the bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5689) will now have to go back to the Senate, where the senators will have to decide whether they agree with the new government amendments. If not, the bill won't be passed. The bill relates to the ASIC And MSIC schemes. The [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd028#_Toc464652435) 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? The Senate amendments (known as [amendments (1) to (6) and (9) to (12)](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)), would have replaced the words “serious **or** organised” with the words “serious **and** organised”. Deputy Leader of the House [Darren Chester](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gippsland/darren_chester) [explained that the Government rejected](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-03-30.41.1) this change: > *because it would only capture individuals who have been convicted of a serious and organised crime. Both elements would be required. Committing just a serious crime would not be captured in this case ... It would mean that someone who has a conviction for a serious crime but who acted alone in committing the crime would likely be able to successfully appeal a refusal of an
House of Representatives, 2017-03-30. affirmative: ayes 76, noes 63.
Question
The majority voted to reject the [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-03-30.37.2) made in the Senate and replace them with other government amendments. This means that [the bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5689) will now have to go back to the Senate, where the senators will have to decide whether they agree with the new government amendments. If not, the bill won't be passed. The bill relates to the ASIC And MSIC schemes. The [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd028#_Toc464652435) 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? The Senate amendments (known as [amendments (1) to (6) and (9) to (12)](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)), would have replaced the words “serious **or** organised” with the words “serious **and** organised”. Deputy Leader of the House [Darren Chester](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gippsland/darren_chester) [explained that the Government rejected](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-03-30.41.1) this change: > *because it would only capture individuals who have been convicted of a serious and organised crime. Both elements would be required. Committing just a serious crime would not be captured in this case ... It would mean that someone who has a conviction for a serious crime but who acted alone in committing the crime would likely be able to successfully appeal a refusal of an
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.