Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7236_amend_2df1ea9a-b755-4da1-a2f5-3cbafa37b712%22;rec=0) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time"* (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means the usual second reading motion will remain unchanged. The amendments were introduced by North Sydney MP [Kylea Tink](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/kylea_tink) (Independent). ### Amendment text > *That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:* > > *(1) notes that:* > >> *(a) codes of conduct and their transparent enforcement are critical to the healthy functioning of democracy;* >> >> *(b) this bill does not guarantee findings of parliamentarian misconduct will be made public and leaves the recommendation and imposition of serious sanctions to the discretion of the relevant Privileges Committee rather than the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission;* >> >> *(c) this is a departure from the recommendations of Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces and the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards Final Report;* >> >> *(d) concerns have been raised by The Australian Democracy Network, Transparency International Australia and Fair Agenda that the bill contains inadequate transparency measures; and* > > *(2) calls on the Government to amend this legislation to:* > >> *(a) allow the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to make independent recommendations for serious sanctions;* >> >> *(b) require a comprehensive explanation of reasons if the privileges committee disagrees with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission’s recommendations,
House of Representatives, 2024-09-11. negative: ayes 13, noes 52.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7236_amend_2df1ea9a-b755-4da1-a2f5-3cbafa37b712%22;rec=0) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time"* (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means the usual second reading motion will remain unchanged. The amendments were introduced by North Sydney MP [Kylea Tink](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/kylea_tink) (Independent). ### Amendment text > *That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:* > > *(1) notes that:* > >> *(a) codes of conduct and their transparent enforcement are critical to the healthy functioning of democracy;* >> >> *(b) this bill does not guarantee findings of parliamentarian misconduct will be made public and leaves the recommendation and imposition of serious sanctions to the discretion of the relevant Privileges Committee rather than the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission;* >> >> *(c) this is a departure from the recommendations of Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces and the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards Final Report;* >> >> *(d) concerns have been raised by The Australian Democracy Network, Transparency International Australia and Fair Agenda that the bill contains inadequate transparency measures; and* > > *(2) calls on the Government to amend this legislation to:* > >> *(a) allow the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to make independent recommendations for serious sanctions;* >> >> *(b) require a comprehensive explanation of reasons if the privileges committee disagrees with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission’s recommendations,
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.