Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2019-12-04.39.2) to the usual [second reading motion](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) "*that the bill be read a second time*", which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. It had been introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Peter Whish-Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/peter_whish-wilson) (Greens). ### 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 include real estate agents, accountants and lawyers as designated services under the Act,* >> >> *(ii) in April 2016, the Government released the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 which contained a recommendation that the Government develop options to regulate real estate agents, accountants and lawyers under the Act,* >> >> *(iii) the Government undertook consultation on the regulation of real estate agents, accountants and lawyers under the Act, which closed in January 2017,* >> >> *(iv) the Financial Action Task Force's April 2015 Mutual Evaluation Report on Australia's progress in combatting 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,* >> >> *(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 proceeds of foreign bribery,* >> >> *(vi) Australia is one of only six countries in the world not to have included real estate agents, accountants and
Senate, 2019-12-04. negative: ayes 11, noes 43.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2019-12-04.39.2) to the usual [second reading motion](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) "*that the bill be read a second time*", which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. It had been introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Peter Whish-Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/peter_whish-wilson) (Greens). ### 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 include real estate agents, accountants and lawyers as designated services under the Act,* >> >> *(ii) in April 2016, the Government released the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 which contained a recommendation that the Government develop options to regulate real estate agents, accountants and lawyers under the Act,* >> >> *(iii) the Government undertook consultation on the regulation of real estate agents, accountants and lawyers under the Act, which closed in January 2017,* >> >> *(iv) the Financial Action Task Force's April 2015 Mutual Evaluation Report on Australia's progress in combatting 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,* >> >> *(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 proceeds of foreign bribery,* >> >> *(vi) Australia is one of only six countries in the world not to have included real estate agents, accountants and
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.