Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2024-09-11.15.1) introduced by Clark MP [Andrew Wilkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/clark/andrew_wilkie) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What do these amendments do? Mr Wilkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2024-09-11.15.1): > *I obviously welcome this reform. But, frankly, there is one glaring omission, which is what I aim to address with my amendments. Yes, the bill as currently drafted empowers the IPSC [Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission] to receive complaints, conduct investigations and make findings about whether a breach of the code of conduct has occurred. In less serious cases, the commission can determine and impose a non-parliamentary sanction, such as a written reprimand, a requirement to undertake training or a small fine. This all sounds good. The problem arises in more serious cases where a matter involves a serious offence and the power to impose sanctions is taken from the IPSC and given to the privileges committee. A 'serious offence' is defined as an offence involving assault or sexual assault or any other offence prescribed by the PWSS [Parliamentary Workplace Support Service] rules. In these cases, the IPSC would provide its findings to the privileges committee, but it would be up to the privileges committee to impose any sanction, which might include a fine, a suspension or even removal from the committee. This situation flies in the face of the Set the standard recommendation for a fair, independent, confidential and transparent complaints processing mechanism which holds parliamentarians to account for their poor behaviour.* > > *... my amendments would enable the IPSC to include recommendations for any sanctions in its report to the privileges committee. Moreover, should the privileges committee deviate from the recommendations of the IPSC, it must table its reasons for doing so
House of Representatives, 2024-09-11. negative: ayes 13, noes 48.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2024-09-11.15.1) introduced by Clark MP [Andrew Wilkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/clark/andrew_wilkie) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What do these amendments do? Mr Wilkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2024-09-11.15.1): > *I obviously welcome this reform. But, frankly, there is one glaring omission, which is what I aim to address with my amendments. Yes, the bill as currently drafted empowers the IPSC [Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission] to receive complaints, conduct investigations and make findings about whether a breach of the code of conduct has occurred. In less serious cases, the commission can determine and impose a non-parliamentary sanction, such as a written reprimand, a requirement to undertake training or a small fine. This all sounds good. The problem arises in more serious cases where a matter involves a serious offence and the power to impose sanctions is taken from the IPSC and given to the privileges committee. A 'serious offence' is defined as an offence involving assault or sexual assault or any other offence prescribed by the PWSS [Parliamentary Workplace Support Service] rules. In these cases, the IPSC would provide its findings to the privileges committee, but it would be up to the privileges committee to impose any sanction, which might include a fine, a suspension or even removal from the committee. This situation flies in the face of the Set the standard recommendation for a fair, independent, confidential and transparent complaints processing mechanism which holds parliamentarians to account for their poor behaviour.* > > *... my amendments would enable the IPSC to include recommendations for any sanctions in its report to the privileges committee. Moreover, should the privileges committee deviate from the recommendations of the IPSC, it must table its reasons for doing so
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.