Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6165_amend_cfb330f7-2aba-4c8c-8add-68a02859706d%22;rec=0) introduced by Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young), which means it failed. Senator Hanson-Young [explained her amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-10-17.81.1): > *this amendment ensures that any need for funds to fight an [ISDS clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement) would have to come before the parliament. It also ensures that there is proper transparency around how taxpayer funds are being spent in defending our sovereignty and our laws and regulations against multinationals. Given we now have a TPP agreement with locked-in ISDS provisions, it is absolutely essential that the Australian people know what this is costing us and what the impact is, and that transparency prevails. This is about ensuring that the government can't paper over what they've just agreed to; that the Labor Party, either in opposition or in government, can't pretend that this isn't having a chilling effect; and that taxpayer money being spent on it is accounted for, and sunlight is shone in places where, we know, both sides of this place would prefer it not to be.* ### What do these bills do? The [bill](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6165) was introduced along with [another](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6166) to implement the [Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_and_Progressive_Agreement_for_Trans-Pacific_Partnership) (TPP-11). Their basic purpose is to implement the customs dimensions of the TPP-11 Agreement by making relevant amend
Senate, 2018-10-17. negative: ayes 13, noes 26.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6165_amend_cfb330f7-2aba-4c8c-8add-68a02859706d%22;rec=0) introduced by Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young), which means it failed. Senator Hanson-Young [explained her amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-10-17.81.1): > *this amendment ensures that any need for funds to fight an [ISDS clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement) would have to come before the parliament. It also ensures that there is proper transparency around how taxpayer funds are being spent in defending our sovereignty and our laws and regulations against multinationals. Given we now have a TPP agreement with locked-in ISDS provisions, it is absolutely essential that the Australian people know what this is costing us and what the impact is, and that transparency prevails. This is about ensuring that the government can't paper over what they've just agreed to; that the Labor Party, either in opposition or in government, can't pretend that this isn't having a chilling effect; and that taxpayer money being spent on it is accounted for, and sunlight is shone in places where, we know, both sides of this place would prefer it not to be.* ### What do these bills do? The [bill](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6165) was introduced along with [another](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6166) to implement the [Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_and_Progressive_Agreement_for_Trans-Pacific_Partnership) (TPP-11). Their basic purpose is to implement the customs dimensions of the TPP-11 Agreement by making relevant amend
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.