Division
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-09.15.1) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What did these amendments do? Dr Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-09.15.1): > *I bring forward these amendments today to inject into the bill a more robust and independent process for the appointment of members to the board of this corporation. After all, this board will be making investment decisions for a $15 billion fund.* > > *Over the last decade, the integrity of many institutions that underpin our democracy has taken a battering. In recent years, we've witnessed the 'jobs for mates' culture flourish here in Canberra, as rates of political friendly appointments to public boards and entities have soared. Last term, one of those entities, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, was so heavily stacked with political appointees—a rate of 40 per cent of those appointments—that the current Attorney-General has made the decision to abolish it. How can the Australian people trust the decisions that flow from institutions that have had their independence compromised in this way?* ### Amendment text > *(1) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 20), after the definition of financial accommodation, insert:* > >> *former judge means:* >> >> *(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or* >> >> *(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or* >> >> *(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.* > > *(2) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert:* > >> *(1A) A person must not be appointed as a Board member unless:* >> >>> *(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:* >>> >>>> *(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and* >>>> >>>> *(ii) asse
House of Representatives, 2023-03-09. affirmative: ayes 67, noes 15.
Question
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-09.15.1) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What did these amendments do? Dr Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-09.15.1): > *I bring forward these amendments today to inject into the bill a more robust and independent process for the appointment of members to the board of this corporation. After all, this board will be making investment decisions for a $15 billion fund.* > > *Over the last decade, the integrity of many institutions that underpin our democracy has taken a battering. In recent years, we've witnessed the 'jobs for mates' culture flourish here in Canberra, as rates of political friendly appointments to public boards and entities have soared. Last term, one of those entities, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, was so heavily stacked with political appointees—a rate of 40 per cent of those appointments—that the current Attorney-General has made the decision to abolish it. How can the Australian people trust the decisions that flow from institutions that have had their independence compromised in this way?* ### Amendment text > *(1) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 20), after the definition of financial accommodation, insert:* > >> *former judge means:* >> >> *(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or* >> >> *(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or* >> >> *(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.* > > *(2) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert:* > >> *(1A) A person must not be appointed as a Board member unless:* >> >>> *(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:* >>> >>>> *(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and* >>>> >>>> *(ii) asse
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.