Division
The majority voted against [amendments (1) to (8) and (10) to (15)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-27.10.1), which were introduced by SA Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) (Greens). ### What do the amendments do? Senator Hanson-Young [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-27.10.1): > *These amendments relate to issues I've spoken about—as did Senator Whish-Wilson in his speech, and as was in much of the debate last night—in relation to the exemption given in this current legislation that still allows Foxtel subscription services to show gambling ads on their channels, based on audience numbers. We find this ridiculous. If we agree that gambling ads should not be shown during live sporting events, they shouldn't, full stop. That's it. It should be the end of the story. There should be no exemptions just because some of those shows or some of those events are shown on a pay TV subscription channel.* > > *The other part of the amendments deals with the issue of the cut-off time. This legislation provides for gambling ads not to be shown for five minutes before and after play starts. We believe that that is not sufficient to ensure that we protect children and minimise the harm done by these insidious gambling adverts ...* > > *So, in order to deal with that, we think that at the very least gambling ads should not be played within the period 30 minutes before the start of the actual match. That captures the pre-match programming, whether it's entertainment or commentary, as the kids are gathering around the television and families are getting together in the lounge room or wherever it is they're watching and getting ready for the game to start. Children should be protected from these gambling ads once and for all.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 16), at the end of subsection 4(3AB), add:* > >> *and; (e) does not take into account
Senate, 2018-03-27. negative: ayes 12, noes 32.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments (1) to (8) and (10) to (15)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-27.10.1), which were introduced by SA Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) (Greens). ### What do the amendments do? Senator Hanson-Young [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-27.10.1): > *These amendments relate to issues I've spoken about—as did Senator Whish-Wilson in his speech, and as was in much of the debate last night—in relation to the exemption given in this current legislation that still allows Foxtel subscription services to show gambling ads on their channels, based on audience numbers. We find this ridiculous. If we agree that gambling ads should not be shown during live sporting events, they shouldn't, full stop. That's it. It should be the end of the story. There should be no exemptions just because some of those shows or some of those events are shown on a pay TV subscription channel.* > > *The other part of the amendments deals with the issue of the cut-off time. This legislation provides for gambling ads not to be shown for five minutes before and after play starts. We believe that that is not sufficient to ensure that we protect children and minimise the harm done by these insidious gambling adverts ...* > > *So, in order to deal with that, we think that at the very least gambling ads should not be played within the period 30 minutes before the start of the actual match. That captures the pre-match programming, whether it's entertainment or commentary, as the kids are gathering around the television and families are getting together in the lounge room or wherever it is they're watching and getting ready for the game to start. Children should be protected from these gambling ads once and for all.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 16), at the end of subsection 4(3AB), add:* > >> *and; (e) does not take into account
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.