Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-17.191.1) moved by Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Greens), which means it failed. The amendment would have increased the minimum number of judges set out in the legislation from 25 to 40. Senator Thorpe [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-17.191.1): > *As at 17 February there are 32 judges currently listed on the Family Court's website, who would become Division 1 judges, not including the Family Court of Western Australia judges. The government's amendment requiring 25 judges doesn't make any sense. It's going backwards from the current number of 32 judges. It does not make any sense to go backwards at this time, particularly to a figure of 25 in view of the crippling backlogs and workloads facing the courts.* ### Amendment text > *That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:* > > *(1) Amendment (1), subclause (3), omit "25 Judges", substitute "40 Judges".* > > *(2) Amendment (1), subclause (4), omit "25 Judges", substitute "40 Judges".* > > *Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019* > > *Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000* > > *Amendments (1) and (2)* > > *Amendments (1) and (2) are framed as requests because they amend the government amendments to the bill to require that the minimum number of judges to hold office in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) is 40 rather than 25. As this will have the effect of increasing the number of judges to be remunerated, it will increase the expenditure under the appropriation proposed by clause 18 of theFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019.* > > *Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000* > > *Amendments (1) and (2)* > > *If the effect of the amendments is to incre
Senate, 2021-02-17. negative: ayes 28, noes 30.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-17.191.1) moved by Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Greens), which means it failed. The amendment would have increased the minimum number of judges set out in the legislation from 25 to 40. Senator Thorpe [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-17.191.1): > *As at 17 February there are 32 judges currently listed on the Family Court's website, who would become Division 1 judges, not including the Family Court of Western Australia judges. The government's amendment requiring 25 judges doesn't make any sense. It's going backwards from the current number of 32 judges. It does not make any sense to go backwards at this time, particularly to a figure of 25 in view of the crippling backlogs and workloads facing the courts.* ### Amendment text > *That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:* > > *(1) Amendment (1), subclause (3), omit "25 Judges", substitute "40 Judges".* > > *(2) Amendment (1), subclause (4), omit "25 Judges", substitute "40 Judges".* > > *Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019* > > *Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000* > > *Amendments (1) and (2)* > > *Amendments (1) and (2) are framed as requests because they amend the government amendments to the bill to require that the minimum number of judges to hold office in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) is 40 rather than 25. As this will have the effect of increasing the number of judges to be remunerated, it will increase the expenditure under the appropriation proposed by clause 18 of theFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019.* > > *Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000* > > *Amendments (1) and (2)* > > *If the effect of the amendments is to incre
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.