Division
This division was for whether or not to accept [Nick Xenophon’s](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/nick_xenophon) motion to amend the [Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5375). [Xenophon summarised the amendment in Parliament](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-03-26.236.1): > This amendment addresses issues relating to disclosures of information by journalists, through amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the Crimes Act 1914 and the Criminal Code Act 1995. These amendments address changes to these acts made by the previous bills in this tranche of legislation, primarily the National Security Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2014. > > Make no mistake about it, these issues go to the heart of press freedom in this country in relation to the ability of investigative journalists to do their work. These bills insert into these acts new offences relating to the disclosure of information relating to a special intelligence operation, as well as for publishing advertisements or items of news that contain information about recruitment of people to armed forces in a foreign country. I want to make it clear that, in relation to any publication of information in respect of a special intelligence operation that could endanger the lives of those involved in the operation or other lives directly as a result of that disclosure of information, I do not oppose the imposition of a penalty. If we are talking about endangering lives—if, for instance, there is an ASIS or ASIO officer whose life is put in real danger by the disclosure of their identity—then that is a serious matter. But we are talking about a whole range of other circumstances where there can be no such consideration; where there is no question of any lives being endangered; and where, in fact, what is being endangered
Senate, 2015-03-26. negative: ayes 17, noes 42.
Question
This division was for whether or not to accept [Nick Xenophon’s](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/nick_xenophon) motion to amend the [Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5375). [Xenophon summarised the amendment in Parliament](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-03-26.236.1): > This amendment addresses issues relating to disclosures of information by journalists, through amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the Crimes Act 1914 and the Criminal Code Act 1995. These amendments address changes to these acts made by the previous bills in this tranche of legislation, primarily the National Security Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2014. > > Make no mistake about it, these issues go to the heart of press freedom in this country in relation to the ability of investigative journalists to do their work. These bills insert into these acts new offences relating to the disclosure of information relating to a special intelligence operation, as well as for publishing advertisements or items of news that contain information about recruitment of people to armed forces in a foreign country. I want to make it clear that, in relation to any publication of information in respect of a special intelligence operation that could endanger the lives of those involved in the operation or other lives directly as a result of that disclosure of information, I do not oppose the imposition of a penalty. If we are talking about endangering lives—if, for instance, there is an ASIS or ASIO officer whose life is put in real danger by the disclosure of their identity—then that is a serious matter. But we are talking about a whole range of other circumstances where there can be no such consideration; where there is no question of any lives being endangered; and where, in fact, what is being endangered
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.