Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.34.1) moved by South Australian Senator [Nick Xenophon](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/nick_xenophon), which means they failed. ### What did these amendments do? Senator Xenophon [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.34.1): > *These are what would colloquially be known as the 'robocall amendments'. These amendments relate to bulk voice calls. What these amendments essentially do is the following. If a notifying entity communicates or approves the communication of an electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call—that is, a robocall—the notifying entity must ensure, essentially, that upfront you are told who is the body responsible for it, whether it is the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or a union. It is all about ensuring that upfront you know who is authorising the call. Secondly, the important safeguard is that you are then given an option to specifically opt in if you want to take that call. This amendment is technology-neutral in relation to that, but you can decide—it could be a voice command for yes or no, or 'Press 1 to hear the rest of the call.'* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 7), after subclause 321D(5), insert:* > >> *Bulk voice calls* >> >> *(5A) If a notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call, the notifying entity must ensure that:* >> >>> *(i) the particulars required to be given in respect of that communication by subsection (5), or any other particulars determined under subsection (7) for the purposes of subsection (5), are given at the beginning of the call; and* >>> >>> *(ii) immediately after those particulars are given, a statement is given that the call is an automated political call and the call will not proceed unless the recipient of the call takes the necessary steps to allow the call to proceed.* >>
Senate, 2017-09-11. negative: ayes 16, noes 27.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.34.1) moved by South Australian Senator [Nick Xenophon](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/nick_xenophon), which means they failed. ### What did these amendments do? Senator Xenophon [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.34.1): > *These are what would colloquially be known as the 'robocall amendments'. These amendments relate to bulk voice calls. What these amendments essentially do is the following. If a notifying entity communicates or approves the communication of an electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call—that is, a robocall—the notifying entity must ensure, essentially, that upfront you are told who is the body responsible for it, whether it is the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or a union. It is all about ensuring that upfront you know who is authorising the call. Secondly, the important safeguard is that you are then given an option to specifically opt in if you want to take that call. This amendment is technology-neutral in relation to that, but you can decide—it could be a voice command for yes or no, or 'Press 1 to hear the rest of the call.'* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 7), after subclause 321D(5), insert:* > >> *Bulk voice calls* >> >> *(5A) If a notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call, the notifying entity must ensure that:* >> >>> *(i) the particulars required to be given in respect of that communication by subsection (5), or any other particulars determined under subsection (7) for the purposes of subsection (5), are given at the beginning of the call; and* >>> >>> *(ii) immediately after those particulars are given, a statement is given that the call is an automated political call and the call will not proceed unless the recipient of the call takes the necessary steps to allow the call to proceed.* >>
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.