Division
The majority voted against an amendment to the usual [second reading motion](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). It would have added the words below to the usual second reading motion, which is "that [the bill](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6657) be read for a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). The amendment was introduced by Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Greens). ### Error in Hansard There appears to be a mix up in the Hansard record between this division and [the division](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2021-11-22/5) on the [Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2021](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6593). This amendment was about ESOs, which are part of that other bill. ### Amendment text > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:* > > *(a) this bill proposes to introduce an extended supervision order regime that would allow a Supreme Court of a state or territory to make orders in relation to a person who has completed a sentence of imprisonment;* > > *(b) the Criminal Code Act 1995 already contains provisions that permit a court to make a similar order in relation to the same category of offender;* > > *(c) the new extended supervision order regime proposed by this bill does not repeal the existing similar provisions;* > > *(d) the extended supervision order regime in this bill departs in very significant ways from the model proposed by the third Independent National Security Legislation Monitor; and* > > *(e) over 70 counter-terrorism laws have passed this Parliament in the last two decades, many of which have not been supported by human rights organisat
Senate, 2021-11-22. negative: ayes 7, noes 32.
Question
The majority voted against an amendment to the usual [second reading motion](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). It would have added the words below to the usual second reading motion, which is "that [the bill](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6657) be read for a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). The amendment was introduced by Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Greens). ### Error in Hansard There appears to be a mix up in the Hansard record between this division and [the division](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2021-11-22/5) on the [Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2021](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6593). This amendment was about ESOs, which are part of that other bill. ### Amendment text > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:* > > *(a) this bill proposes to introduce an extended supervision order regime that would allow a Supreme Court of a state or territory to make orders in relation to a person who has completed a sentence of imprisonment;* > > *(b) the Criminal Code Act 1995 already contains provisions that permit a court to make a similar order in relation to the same category of offender;* > > *(c) the new extended supervision order regime proposed by this bill does not repeal the existing similar provisions;* > > *(d) the extended supervision order regime in this bill departs in very significant ways from the model proposed by the third Independent National Security Legislation Monitor; and* > > *(e) over 70 counter-terrorism laws have passed this Parliament in the last two decades, many of which have not been supported by human rights organisat
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.