Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-11.22.1) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps) (Independents), which means they failed. ### What do these amendments do? Dr Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-11.22.1): > *I also support this bill as it is long overdue and much needed in responding to the Jenkins review, which found that the workplace culture in this place was toxic and unsafe. The amendments I'm introducing today to this bill seek to do something specific and simple, something that I've been advocating for since I was elected to this place 2½ years ago. That's to ensure that significant public institutions are run by people who have been independently appointed to run them, not by people who have been appointed because they know someone who knows someone and not by people who will owe something to the minister who appointed them and who may therefore feel a sense of obligation to do that minister's bidding.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 13), at the end of paragraph 36E(2)(a), add:* > >> *(iii) included assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and* >> >> *(iv) included consideration by the panel of the need for diversity in the appointment of Commissioners of the IPSC; and* >> >> *(v) included shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 21), after subsection 36E(2), insert:* > >> *(2A) The Minister may only recommend a person for appointment if the person is shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with subparagraph (2)(a)(v).*
House of Representatives, 2024-09-11. negative: ayes 13, noes 50.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-11.22.1) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps) (Independents), which means they failed. ### What do these amendments do? Dr Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-11.22.1): > *I also support this bill as it is long overdue and much needed in responding to the Jenkins review, which found that the workplace culture in this place was toxic and unsafe. The amendments I'm introducing today to this bill seek to do something specific and simple, something that I've been advocating for since I was elected to this place 2½ years ago. That's to ensure that significant public institutions are run by people who have been independently appointed to run them, not by people who have been appointed because they know someone who knows someone and not by people who will owe something to the minister who appointed them and who may therefore feel a sense of obligation to do that minister's bidding.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 13), at the end of paragraph 36E(2)(a), add:* > >> *(iii) included assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and* >> >> *(iv) included consideration by the panel of the need for diversity in the appointment of Commissioners of the IPSC; and* >> >> *(v) included shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 45, page 83 (after line 21), after subsection 36E(2), insert:* > >> *(2A) The Minister may only recommend a person for appointment if the person is shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with subparagraph (2)(a)(v).*
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.