Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6917_amend_e3890526-cfb6-4c45-91d6-6d6215214722%22;rec=0) introduced by ACT Senator [David Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/david_pocock) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What did these amendments do? Regarding amendments (1) to (4), Senator Pocock [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-11-29.55.1): > *These amendments were [moved by the member for Indi](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-11-24/3), [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines), in the lower house. Again, I would like to thank her for her work on this issue over many years.* > > *These amendments make clear that pork-barrelling is corruption. We've seen concerns in communities across the country with the way that public funds have been allocated for political gain. This makes it clear that that can be investigated. I'm also concerned that this bill falls short when it comes to conduct by third parties that could impair public confidence in public administration—in particular, practices of collusive tendering, dishonestly obtaining benefit from public funding decisions and defrauding public revenue. This makes it clear that those are included.* Regarding amendments (5) and (6), [he explained](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-11-29.61.1): > *This amendment will require the minister to table a statement of reasons if they deviate from the recommendations of the NACC joint select oversight committee in relation to the budget. This does not bind the government to giving them that money; it simply provides an extra piece of transparency so that Australians know if we are short-changing the body that is going to be tasked with holding people in these places, public servants and others
Senate, 2022-11-29. negative: ayes 16, noes 30.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6917_amend_e3890526-cfb6-4c45-91d6-6d6215214722%22;rec=0) introduced by ACT Senator [David Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/david_pocock) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What did these amendments do? Regarding amendments (1) to (4), Senator Pocock [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-11-29.55.1): > *These amendments were [moved by the member for Indi](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-11-24/3), [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines), in the lower house. Again, I would like to thank her for her work on this issue over many years.* > > *These amendments make clear that pork-barrelling is corruption. We've seen concerns in communities across the country with the way that public funds have been allocated for political gain. This makes it clear that that can be investigated. I'm also concerned that this bill falls short when it comes to conduct by third parties that could impair public confidence in public administration—in particular, practices of collusive tendering, dishonestly obtaining benefit from public funding decisions and defrauding public revenue. This makes it clear that those are included.* Regarding amendments (5) and (6), [he explained](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-11-29.61.1): > *This amendment will require the minister to table a statement of reasons if they deviate from the recommendations of the NACC joint select oversight committee in relation to the budget. This does not bind the government to giving them that money; it simply provides an extra piece of transparency so that Australians know if we are short-changing the body that is going to be tasked with holding people in these places, public servants and others
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.