Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2023-08-09.21.1) introduced by NSW Senator [David Shoebridge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_shoebridge) (Greens), which means they failed. ### What was the purpose of the amendments? Senator Shoebridge [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-08-09.21.2): > *These amendments, taken together, would amend the two substantive elements of this bill which currently provide a capacity for the Attorney-General to limit the sharing of the foreign intelligence information obtained under a warrant whereby the bill as drafted permits the Attorney-General to specify a purpose for which the information can be shared. But the drafting, very intentionally, in providing purpose, if any, identified by the Attorney-General, does not require the Attorney-General to so specify the purpose for which the information can be shared.* > > *Given the government's position that there are critical safeguards in the bill, it's our view that that should be more than verbiage, it should be included in the actual drafting of the bill. These amendments taken together require the Attorney-General to put a purpose in and, to avoid doubt, provide that foreign intelligence information cannot be communicated if the Attorney-General does not approve in writing any purposes. That's the ultimate safeguard.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9), omit "(if any)".* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 21), after subsection 65(1B), insert:* > >> *(1C) To avoid doubt, foreign intelligence information must not be communicated under subsection (1A) if the Attorney-General does not approve, in writing, any purposes for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(b).* > > *(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 29), omit "(if any)".* > > *(4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 4, insert:* > >> *4A After subsection 65(2)* >> >> *Insert:* >> >> *(2A) To
Senate, 2023-08-09. negative: ayes 9, noes 27.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2023-08-09.21.1) introduced by NSW Senator [David Shoebridge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_shoebridge) (Greens), which means they failed. ### What was the purpose of the amendments? Senator Shoebridge [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-08-09.21.2): > *These amendments, taken together, would amend the two substantive elements of this bill which currently provide a capacity for the Attorney-General to limit the sharing of the foreign intelligence information obtained under a warrant whereby the bill as drafted permits the Attorney-General to specify a purpose for which the information can be shared. But the drafting, very intentionally, in providing purpose, if any, identified by the Attorney-General, does not require the Attorney-General to so specify the purpose for which the information can be shared.* > > *Given the government's position that there are critical safeguards in the bill, it's our view that that should be more than verbiage, it should be included in the actual drafting of the bill. These amendments taken together require the Attorney-General to put a purpose in and, to avoid doubt, provide that foreign intelligence information cannot be communicated if the Attorney-General does not approve in writing any purposes. That's the ultimate safeguard.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9), omit "(if any)".* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 21), after subsection 65(1B), insert:* > >> *(1C) To avoid doubt, foreign intelligence information must not be communicated under subsection (1A) if the Attorney-General does not approve, in writing, any purposes for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(b).* > > *(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 29), omit "(if any)".* > > *(4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 4, insert:* > >> *4A After subsection 65(2)* >> >> *Insert:* >> >> *(2A) To
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.