Division
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2020-10-07.130.1) introduced by MP for Ballarat [Catherine King](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/ballarat/catherine_king) (Labor), which means they failed The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. MP King [explained the amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2020-10-07.130.1): > *...this bill fails to define 'serious crime' and instead relies on delegated legislation with minimal parliamentary oversight. Labor welcomes the government's indication that they plan to include in the regulations a tiered scheme of crimes in an attempt to get the balance right between protecting our national security and not wrongly excluding a worker from their work. Without having seen those regulations, it is very difficult to determine whether they do in fact do what we think they should do. Labor has repeatedly asked the government to define 'serious crime' and to introduce a definition into the legislation, but the government has consistently said that it won't do that.* ### What does the bill do? The bill was [introduced in order to](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6440): * *prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious crime;* * *establish a regulatory framework to implement harmonised eligibility criteria for the aviation security identification card (ASIC) and maritime security identification card (MSIC) schemes;* * *clarify and align the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of ASIC and MSIC applicants and holders;* * *provide for regulations to prescribe penalties for offences; and* * *insert an additional severability provision to provide guidance to a court as to Parliament’s intention.* Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd19
House of Representatives, 2020-10-07. affirmative: ayes 43, noes 32.
Question
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2020-10-07.130.1) introduced by MP for Ballarat [Catherine King](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/ballarat/catherine_king) (Labor), which means they failed The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. MP King [explained the amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2020-10-07.130.1): > *...this bill fails to define 'serious crime' and instead relies on delegated legislation with minimal parliamentary oversight. Labor welcomes the government's indication that they plan to include in the regulations a tiered scheme of crimes in an attempt to get the balance right between protecting our national security and not wrongly excluding a worker from their work. Without having seen those regulations, it is very difficult to determine whether they do in fact do what we think they should do. Labor has repeatedly asked the government to define 'serious crime' and to introduce a definition into the legislation, but the government has consistently said that it won't do that.* ### What does the bill do? The bill was [introduced in order to](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6440): * *prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious crime;* * *establish a regulatory framework to implement harmonised eligibility criteria for the aviation security identification card (ASIC) and maritime security identification card (MSIC) schemes;* * *clarify and align the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of ASIC and MSIC applicants and holders;* * *provide for regulations to prescribe penalties for offences; and* * *insert an additional severability provision to provide guidance to a court as to Parliament’s intention.* Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd19
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.