Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.265.1) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means they failed. Senator Waters [explained her amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.265.1): > *These amendments put beyond doubt that voter ID should not be a slippery slope towards voter ID at the polls. In dissenting reports to the 2016 JSCEM election review, both my party and the Labor Party noted that the government's claims of double voting and voter irregularity were actually not substantiated and were unsupported by the evidence. In Australia and internationally, the evidence supports the view that voter ID in fact suppresses and hinders citizen participation. Requiring voters to show formal identification documents risks disenfranchising First Nations people, family violence victims, young people without a driver's licence or homeless and itinerant people. The Electoral Commission has said that up to 1.5 per cent of new enrolments could be people without formal ID.* > > *I note that my home state of Queensland introduced voter ID laws before the 2015 election and, after a low voter turnout, the laws were repealed.* However, South Australian Senator [Don Farrell](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/don_farrell) (Labor) disagreed with the amendments, [arguing that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.267.1): > *Labor shares the concerns regarding the implementation of so-called voter ID laws and any amendments which would discourage voting and undermine our system of compulsory voting. We are assured, however—and we will be seeking further assurance from the Electoral Commissioner—that the amendments contained in the bill will not result in a polling official demanding identification. We therefore do not believe the change proposed by the Greens is necessary and
Senate, 2020-09-02. negative: ayes 5, noes 25.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.265.1) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means they failed. Senator Waters [explained her amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.265.1): > *These amendments put beyond doubt that voter ID should not be a slippery slope towards voter ID at the polls. In dissenting reports to the 2016 JSCEM election review, both my party and the Labor Party noted that the government's claims of double voting and voter irregularity were actually not substantiated and were unsupported by the evidence. In Australia and internationally, the evidence supports the view that voter ID in fact suppresses and hinders citizen participation. Requiring voters to show formal identification documents risks disenfranchising First Nations people, family violence victims, young people without a driver's licence or homeless and itinerant people. The Electoral Commission has said that up to 1.5 per cent of new enrolments could be people without formal ID.* > > *I note that my home state of Queensland introduced voter ID laws before the 2015 election and, after a low voter turnout, the laws were repealed.* However, South Australian Senator [Don Farrell](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/don_farrell) (Labor) disagreed with the amendments, [arguing that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.267.1): > *Labor shares the concerns regarding the implementation of so-called voter ID laws and any amendments which would discourage voting and undermine our system of compulsory voting. We are assured, however—and we will be seeking further assurance from the Electoral Commissioner—that the amendments contained in the bill will not result in a polling official demanding identification. We therefore do not believe the change proposed by the Greens is necessary 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.