Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-08-01.232.5) that [items (3) and (4)](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6875_first-reps%2F0009;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6875_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0) of schedule 9 stand as printed. In other words, they voted to keep those items unchanged. ### What are items (3) and (4) of schedule 9? Victorian Senator [Janet Rice](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/janet_rice) (Greens), who proposed to remove these items from the bill, [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-08-01.232.1): > *I didn't receive any good rationale as to why there should be immunity from prosecution for restrictive practices after they've gone through all of the various hoops. Yes, let's make sure that the provisions are appropriate, but at the end of the day there does not seem to be any justification for giving immunity from prosecution to providers for those circumstances. My amendment would remove the second half of schedule 9.* ### Text of items (3) and (4) of schedule 9 > *3 At the end of Division 54* > > *Add:* > >> *54-11 Immunity from civil or criminal liability in relation to the use of a restrictive practice in certain circumstances* >> >> *(1) This section applies if:* >> >>> *(a) an approved provider provides aged care of a kind specified in the Quality of Care Principles made for the purposes of paragraph 54-1(1)(f) to a care recipient; and* >>> >>> *(b) a restrictive practice is used in relation to the care recipient; and* >>> >>> *(c) the care recipient lacked capacity to give informed consent to the use of the restrictive practice.* >> >> *(2) A protected entity is not subject to any civil or criminal liability for, or in relation to, the use of the restrictive practice in relation to the care recipient if:* >> >>> *(a) informed consent to the use of the restrictive
Senate, 2022-08-01. affirmative: ayes 35, noes 15.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-08-01.232.5) that [items (3) and (4)](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6875_first-reps%2F0009;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6875_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0) of schedule 9 stand as printed. In other words, they voted to keep those items unchanged. ### What are items (3) and (4) of schedule 9? Victorian Senator [Janet Rice](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/janet_rice) (Greens), who proposed to remove these items from the bill, [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-08-01.232.1): > *I didn't receive any good rationale as to why there should be immunity from prosecution for restrictive practices after they've gone through all of the various hoops. Yes, let's make sure that the provisions are appropriate, but at the end of the day there does not seem to be any justification for giving immunity from prosecution to providers for those circumstances. My amendment would remove the second half of schedule 9.* ### Text of items (3) and (4) of schedule 9 > *3 At the end of Division 54* > > *Add:* > >> *54-11 Immunity from civil or criminal liability in relation to the use of a restrictive practice in certain circumstances* >> >> *(1) This section applies if:* >> >>> *(a) an approved provider provides aged care of a kind specified in the Quality of Care Principles made for the purposes of paragraph 54-1(1)(f) to a care recipient; and* >>> >>> *(b) a restrictive practice is used in relation to the care recipient; and* >>> >>> *(c) the care recipient lacked capacity to give informed consent to the use of the restrictive practice.* >> >> *(2) A protected entity is not subject to any civil or criminal liability for, or in relation to, the use of the restrictive practice in relation to the care recipient if:* >> >>> *(a) informed consent to the use of the restrictive
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.