Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-08-21.48.1) introduced by West Australian Senator [Michaelia Cash](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/michaelia_cash) (Liberal), which means it failed. ### What did this amendment do? Senator Cash [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-08-21.48.1): > *I'm offering in terms of the amendment—I understand it won't be supported, but by way of explanation—a way forward that avoids the drafting problems, risks and unintended consequences associated with the government's unusual drafting choices in this bill. It is an amendment that means simply clarifying that the existing aggravated offence—that means the definition of consent remains; we don't have the issues arising in terms of cross-examination—applies to deepfakes, as it was always intended to. This is an approach that preserves the advantages the Law Council spoke about but, as I said, also addresses the potential concerns that have been raised in relation to the Attorney-General's unusual drafting choices. It preserves the definition of consent but reduces the risk that a prosecution will fall over—this is always a risk when you're actually prosecuting something and you now need to prove the consent, because consent is an element of the offence—because a victim is reluctant to be cross-examined in a court. It is a better way to arrive at the destination that the government is aiming for. As I said, we get to the same destination. We would argue it is a better way to do it, and it addresses the unusual drafting choices but also the unintended consequences in terms of the risks that prosecutions will fall over because a victim is reluctant to be cross-examined in court.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 9 (line 5), omit Schedule 1, substitute:* > > *Schedule 1 — Amendments* > > *Criminal Code Act 1995* > > *1 Section 473.1 of the Criminal Code (at the end of
Senate, 2024-08-21. negative: ayes 30, noes 31.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-08-21.48.1) introduced by West Australian Senator [Michaelia Cash](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/michaelia_cash) (Liberal), which means it failed. ### What did this amendment do? Senator Cash [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-08-21.48.1): > *I'm offering in terms of the amendment—I understand it won't be supported, but by way of explanation—a way forward that avoids the drafting problems, risks and unintended consequences associated with the government's unusual drafting choices in this bill. It is an amendment that means simply clarifying that the existing aggravated offence—that means the definition of consent remains; we don't have the issues arising in terms of cross-examination—applies to deepfakes, as it was always intended to. This is an approach that preserves the advantages the Law Council spoke about but, as I said, also addresses the potential concerns that have been raised in relation to the Attorney-General's unusual drafting choices. It preserves the definition of consent but reduces the risk that a prosecution will fall over—this is always a risk when you're actually prosecuting something and you now need to prove the consent, because consent is an element of the offence—because a victim is reluctant to be cross-examined in a court. It is a better way to arrive at the destination that the government is aiming for. As I said, we get to the same destination. We would argue it is a better way to do it, and it addresses the unusual drafting choices but also the unintended consequences in terms of the risks that prosecutions will fall over because a victim is reluctant to be cross-examined in court.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 9 (line 5), omit Schedule 1, substitute:* > > *Schedule 1 — Amendments* > > *Criminal Code Act 1995* > > *1 Section 473.1 of the Criminal Code (at the end of
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.