Division
The majority voted against [request (1) on sheet 2475](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-20.32.1), which means it failed. It was introduced by Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Independent). The request was to put an amendment to the bill, as set out below. It would have extended the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 to people who currently reside in Australia. As it stands, the Scheme only applies to Australian citizens and permanent residents. ### Request text > *That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:* > > *(1)—Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 17), after Part 4, insert:* > > *Part 4B — Expanded access to redress* > > *National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018* > > *19D Section 4 (paragraph (e) of the paragraph beginning "To be entitled to redress")* > >> *Omit "or a permanent resident", substitute ", a permanent resident or currently resides in Australia".* > > *19E Section 11 (paragraph beginning "Then the person must")* > >> *Omit "or a permanent resident", substitute ", a permanent resident or currently resides in Australia".* > > *19F Paragraph 13(1)(e)* > >> *Repeal the paragraph, substitute:* >> >>> *(e) the person is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident (within the meaning of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007), or a person who currently resides in Australia, at the time the person applies for redress.* > *Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000* > > *Amendment (1)* > >> *Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to expand the eligibility criteria for redress payable under the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018. The effect of the amendment is to extend eligibility to persons who currently reside in Australia at the time they apply for redress, even if they are not an Australian citiz
Senate, 2024-03-20. negative: ayes 15, noes 22.
Question
The majority voted against [request (1) on sheet 2475](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-20.32.1), which means it failed. It was introduced by Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Independent). The request was to put an amendment to the bill, as set out below. It would have extended the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 to people who currently reside in Australia. As it stands, the Scheme only applies to Australian citizens and permanent residents. ### Request text > *That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:* > > *(1)—Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 17), after Part 4, insert:* > > *Part 4B — Expanded access to redress* > > *National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018* > > *19D Section 4 (paragraph (e) of the paragraph beginning "To be entitled to redress")* > >> *Omit "or a permanent resident", substitute ", a permanent resident or currently resides in Australia".* > > *19E Section 11 (paragraph beginning "Then the person must")* > >> *Omit "or a permanent resident", substitute ", a permanent resident or currently resides in Australia".* > > *19F Paragraph 13(1)(e)* > >> *Repeal the paragraph, substitute:* >> >>> *(e) the person is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident (within the meaning of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007), or a person who currently resides in Australia, at the time the person applies for redress.* > *Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000* > > *Amendment (1)* > >> *Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to expand the eligibility criteria for redress payable under the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018. The effect of the amendment is to extend eligibility to persons who currently reside in Australia at the time they apply for redress, even if they are not an Australian citiz
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.