Division
The majority voted in favour of [amendment (1) on sheet 8642](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2019-02-14.22.1), which was introduced by NSW Senate [Jenny McAllister](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/jenny_mcallister) (ALP). ### What does this amendment do? [Senator McAllister said](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2019-02-14.22.1) that the amendment related to the definitions of 'systemic weakness' and 'systemic vulnerability' and explained that: > *... stakeholders were concerned that the protection in the bill which prohibits an agency from forcing a provider to implement any kind of systemic weakness or systemic vulnerability is inadequate because those terms are not defined.* > *The government sought to address that in their amendments to their own bill in December last year, but the government's amendments have been condemned as difficult to understand, ambiguous and significantly too narrow. ...* > *The amendments before us now would repeal the systemic weakness definitions that were introduced by the government and give clear legislative effect to the advice provided publicly by the Director-General of ASIO. Our amendments are supported by the main industry groups ...* > *The critical paragraph on sheet 8642 is to amend 317ZG(4) to include this phrase:* >> *(4) The reference in paragraph (1)(a) to implement or build a systemic weakness, or a systemic vulnerability, includes a reference to any act or thing that would or may create a material risk that otherwise secure information would or may in the future be collected, accessed, used, manipulated, disclosed or otherwise compromised by an unauthorised third party.* > *These changes seek to protect the information of innocent people ...* ### What does this bill do? The [bill](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/s1178) was introduced to: * *speed up the mandated review of the operation, effectiveness and implications
Senate, 2019-02-14. affirmative: ayes 37, noes 28.
Question
The majority voted in favour of [amendment (1) on sheet 8642](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2019-02-14.22.1), which was introduced by NSW Senate [Jenny McAllister](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/jenny_mcallister) (ALP). ### What does this amendment do? [Senator McAllister said](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2019-02-14.22.1) that the amendment related to the definitions of 'systemic weakness' and 'systemic vulnerability' and explained that: > *... stakeholders were concerned that the protection in the bill which prohibits an agency from forcing a provider to implement any kind of systemic weakness or systemic vulnerability is inadequate because those terms are not defined.* > *The government sought to address that in their amendments to their own bill in December last year, but the government's amendments have been condemned as difficult to understand, ambiguous and significantly too narrow. ...* > *The amendments before us now would repeal the systemic weakness definitions that were introduced by the government and give clear legislative effect to the advice provided publicly by the Director-General of ASIO. Our amendments are supported by the main industry groups ...* > *The critical paragraph on sheet 8642 is to amend 317ZG(4) to include this phrase:* >> *(4) The reference in paragraph (1)(a) to implement or build a systemic weakness, or a systemic vulnerability, includes a reference to any act or thing that would or may create a material risk that otherwise secure information would or may in the future be collected, accessed, used, manipulated, disclosed or otherwise compromised by an unauthorised third party.* > *These changes seek to protect the information of innocent people ...* ### What does this bill do? The [bill](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/s1178) was introduced to: * *speed up the mandated review of the operation, effectiveness and implications
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.