Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.71.1) to *disagree* with [amendments (1) to (8), (10) to (17) and (19) to (34)]() introduced by Berowra MP [Julian Leeser](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/berowra/julian_leeser) (Liberal), which means they failed. ### What did the amendment do? Mr Leeser [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.71.1): > *The coalition amendments are designed to improve the integrity, safeguards and operation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The National Anti-Corruption Commission has a very broad scope. It applies to parliamentarians and their staff, every Canberra public servant, our Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police, our diplomats and embassies around the world, and every contractor and every subcontractor who engages with the Commonwealth. It applies to almost every person exercising power under a law of the Commonwealth: pharmacists, NDIS workers, aged-care workers and Indigenous rangers.* > > *... Our amendments also seek to further clarify the definition of corruption by amending section 8(1)(a) to remove the vague and superfluous phrase 'or that could adversely affect', consistent with the Law Council's submission, given that 'conspiracy' is included in section 8(10). We also seek to delete section 9(1)(c), which defines a corruption issue in relation to something that someone will do in the future. A person cannot be investigated and punished for actions they have not taken.* > > *... Our amendments also adopt provisions from the coalition's Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill to make it an offence to make vexatious referrals or to disclose that a person has been referred to the NACC.* > > *On the issue of privileges, our amendments seek to give effect to the Law Council's recommendation. Because the privilege against self-incrimination is waived, material that is elicited by the Anti-Corruption Commiss
House of Representatives, 2022-11-24. affirmative: ayes 83, noes 54.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.71.1) to *disagree* with [amendments (1) to (8), (10) to (17) and (19) to (34)]() introduced by Berowra MP [Julian Leeser](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/berowra/julian_leeser) (Liberal), which means they failed. ### What did the amendment do? Mr Leeser [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.71.1): > *The coalition amendments are designed to improve the integrity, safeguards and operation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The National Anti-Corruption Commission has a very broad scope. It applies to parliamentarians and their staff, every Canberra public servant, our Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police, our diplomats and embassies around the world, and every contractor and every subcontractor who engages with the Commonwealth. It applies to almost every person exercising power under a law of the Commonwealth: pharmacists, NDIS workers, aged-care workers and Indigenous rangers.* > > *... Our amendments also seek to further clarify the definition of corruption by amending section 8(1)(a) to remove the vague and superfluous phrase 'or that could adversely affect', consistent with the Law Council's submission, given that 'conspiracy' is included in section 8(10). We also seek to delete section 9(1)(c), which defines a corruption issue in relation to something that someone will do in the future. A person cannot be investigated and punished for actions they have not taken.* > > *... Our amendments also adopt provisions from the coalition's Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill to make it an offence to make vexatious referrals or to disclose that a person has been referred to the NACC.* > > *On the issue of privileges, our amendments seek to give effect to the Law Council's recommendation. Because the privilege against self-incrimination is waived, material that is elicited by the Anti-Corruption Commiss
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.