Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-09-17.19.2) introduced by Greens Senator [Peter Whish-Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/peter_whish-wilson), which means the words below will be added to the usual [second reading motion](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html) "that the bill be read a second time" (which is parliamentary jargon for "that the main idea of the bill be agreed to"). ### Motion text > *At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate:* > *(a) notes that:* >> *(i) the explanatory memorandum to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006 forecast a second tranche of legislation that would regulate real estate agents, jewellers, and a range of non-financial transactions provided by accountants and lawyers,* >> *(ii) in April 2016, the Government released the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 that contained a recommendation for the Government to develop options for regulating lawyers, conveyancers, accountants, high-value dealers, real estate agents and trust and company service providers under the Act,* >> *(iii) the Government commenced consultation on the regulation of lawyers, conveyancers, accountants, high-value dealers, real estate agents and trust and company service providers under the Act, and submissions to this consultation closed in January 2017,* >> *(iv) the Financial Action Task Force's April 2015 Mutual Evaluation Report on Australia's measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing stated that Australia is an attractive destination for foreign proceeds of crime, particularly corruption-related proceeds flowing into real estate, and* >> *(v) the December 2017 OECD Phase 4 Report on Australia's implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention recommended that Australia address the risk that the real estate sector could be used to launder the proceed
Senate, 2018-09-17. affirmative: ayes 32, noes 29.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-09-17.19.2) introduced by Greens Senator [Peter Whish-Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/peter_whish-wilson), which means the words below will be added to the usual [second reading motion](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html) "that the bill be read a second time" (which is parliamentary jargon for "that the main idea of the bill be agreed to"). ### Motion text > *At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate:* > *(a) notes that:* >> *(i) the explanatory memorandum to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006 forecast a second tranche of legislation that would regulate real estate agents, jewellers, and a range of non-financial transactions provided by accountants and lawyers,* >> *(ii) in April 2016, the Government released the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 that contained a recommendation for the Government to develop options for regulating lawyers, conveyancers, accountants, high-value dealers, real estate agents and trust and company service providers under the Act,* >> *(iii) the Government commenced consultation on the regulation of lawyers, conveyancers, accountants, high-value dealers, real estate agents and trust and company service providers under the Act, and submissions to this consultation closed in January 2017,* >> *(iv) the Financial Action Task Force's April 2015 Mutual Evaluation Report on Australia's measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing stated that Australia is an attractive destination for foreign proceeds of crime, particularly corruption-related proceeds flowing into real estate, and* >> *(v) the December 2017 OECD Phase 4 Report on Australia's implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention recommended that Australia address the risk that the real estate sector could be used to launder the 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.