Division
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-02-04.39.2) introduced by Barton MP [Linda Burney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/barton/linda_burney) (Labor), which means it failed. MP Burney explained the [purpose of the amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-02-04.39.2): > *This amendment will introduce a requirement that the minister name any institution that refuses to join the Redress Scheme within six months of an application for redress being received. I acknowledge that this is the government's policy and that the government made a change late last year to allow for the removal of an institution's charitable status after six months if it does not join the scheme. It is a change that was made after significant pressure from survivors and from Labor. But this is not guaranteed; it requires proactive management by the government. I have no doubt that the minister will do the right thing here. However, the naming of redress dodgers should be something that is automatic and guaranteed.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 13), after Part 6, insert:* > > *Part 6A — Naming and shaming non - participating institutions* > > *National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018* > > *48A At the end of Division 3 of Part 5 - 1* > > *Add:* > >> *116A Naming and shaming non - participating institutions* >> >> *(1) This section applies to a non-government institution if:* >> >> *(a) either:* >> >>> *(i) an application made under section 19 identifies the institution as being involved in the abuse of a person; or* >>> >>> *(ii) information given in response to a request under section 24 or 25, in relation to an application made under section 19, identifies the institution as being involved in the abuse of a person; and* >> >> *(b) the application has not been withdrawn under section 22; and* >> >> *(c) the institution is not
House of Representatives, 2021-02-04. affirmative: ayes 63, noes 58.
Question
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-02-04.39.2) introduced by Barton MP [Linda Burney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/barton/linda_burney) (Labor), which means it failed. MP Burney explained the [purpose of the amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-02-04.39.2): > *This amendment will introduce a requirement that the minister name any institution that refuses to join the Redress Scheme within six months of an application for redress being received. I acknowledge that this is the government's policy and that the government made a change late last year to allow for the removal of an institution's charitable status after six months if it does not join the scheme. It is a change that was made after significant pressure from survivors and from Labor. But this is not guaranteed; it requires proactive management by the government. I have no doubt that the minister will do the right thing here. However, the naming of redress dodgers should be something that is automatic and guaranteed.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 13), after Part 6, insert:* > > *Part 6A — Naming and shaming non - participating institutions* > > *National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018* > > *48A At the end of Division 3 of Part 5 - 1* > > *Add:* > >> *116A Naming and shaming non - participating institutions* >> >> *(1) This section applies to a non-government institution if:* >> >> *(a) either:* >> >>> *(i) an application made under section 19 identifies the institution as being involved in the abuse of a person; or* >>> >>> *(ii) information given in response to a request under section 24 or 25, in relation to an application made under section 19, identifies the institution as being involved in the abuse of a person; and* >> >> *(b) the application has not been withdrawn under section 22; and* >> >> *(c) the institution is not
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.