Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-08-07.65.3) "*that part 4 of schedule 1 stand as printed.*" In other words, they voted to keep that part unchanged. This vote took place after NSW Senator [David Shoebridge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_shoebridge) (Greens) introduced a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-08-07.60.1) to oppose that part. ### Why did the Greens Party oppose this part? [Part 4 of Schedule 1](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7012_first-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7012_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0#7d5ac8eca0bb4a418288f90eeaee447e) relates to spent convictions. According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd074): > *Spent convictions are those criminal convictions which may no longer be disclosed on a person’s record because a period of time has elapsed (for example, 10 years) where no further reoffending has occurred. There are some exceptions to the ‘automatic spending of convictions’. For example, some sexual assault offences may never be spent and are thus always disclosable. Each state and territory (as well as the Commonwealth) has its own spent convictions legislation (or ‘scheme’) that defines a spent conviction and sets out the exemptions that apply.* Senator Shoebridge [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-08-07.60.1) the Greens seek: > *to remove from the bill the provisions that give expanded power to ASIO to use, record and disclose spent convictions information. ... The purpose of the spent convictions regime is to allow people to get on with their lives after they've been convicted of a more minor offence so that, after 10 years, that offence doesn't keep coming back and haunting them.*
Senate, 2023-08-07. affirmative: ayes 34, noes 9.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-08-07.65.3) "*that part 4 of schedule 1 stand as printed.*" In other words, they voted to keep that part unchanged. This vote took place after NSW Senator [David Shoebridge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_shoebridge) (Greens) introduced a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-08-07.60.1) to oppose that part. ### Why did the Greens Party oppose this part? [Part 4 of Schedule 1](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7012_first-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7012_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0#7d5ac8eca0bb4a418288f90eeaee447e) relates to spent convictions. According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd074): > *Spent convictions are those criminal convictions which may no longer be disclosed on a person’s record because a period of time has elapsed (for example, 10 years) where no further reoffending has occurred. There are some exceptions to the ‘automatic spending of convictions’. For example, some sexual assault offences may never be spent and are thus always disclosable. Each state and territory (as well as the Commonwealth) has its own spent convictions legislation (or ‘scheme’) that defines a spent conviction and sets out the exemptions that apply.* Senator Shoebridge [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-08-07.60.1) the Greens seek: > *to remove from the bill the provisions that give expanded power to ASIO to use, record and disclose spent convictions information. ... The purpose of the spent convictions regime is to allow people to get on with their lives after they've been convicted of a more minor offence so that, after 10 years, that offence doesn't keep coming back and haunting them.*
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.