Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-09-12.49.2) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means it failed. Senator Waters [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-09-12.49.2): > *As I mentioned in my earlier contribution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission are the ones who will have undertaken the investigation into a parliamentarian, found that they have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct and written a report. These amendments would require them to make a recommendation as to the sort of parliamentary sanction that the privileges committee should impose on that parliamentarian who's been found to have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (line 4), before "The", insert "(1)".* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (after line 30), at the end of section 24CU, add:* > >> *(2) If the decision-maker proposes to refer a preliminary serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(e), the draft report must set out proposed suggestions for the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.* > > *(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 47 (after line 20), after subsection 24CY(2), insert:* > >> *(2A) If the decision-maker decides to refer a serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(d), the decision-maker must make suggestions as to the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.* > > *(4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:* > >> *(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include any suggestions made by the decision-maker under su
Senate, 2024-09-12. negative: ayes 14, noes 20.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-09-12.49.2) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means it failed. Senator Waters [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-09-12.49.2): > *As I mentioned in my earlier contribution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission are the ones who will have undertaken the investigation into a parliamentarian, found that they have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct and written a report. These amendments would require them to make a recommendation as to the sort of parliamentary sanction that the privileges committee should impose on that parliamentarian who's been found to have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (line 4), before "The", insert "(1)".* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (after line 30), at the end of section 24CU, add:* > >> *(2) If the decision-maker proposes to refer a preliminary serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(e), the draft report must set out proposed suggestions for the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.* > > *(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 47 (after line 20), after subsection 24CY(2), insert:* > >> *(2A) If the decision-maker decides to refer a serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(d), the decision-maker must make suggestions as to the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.* > > *(4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:* > >> *(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include any suggestions made by the decision-maker under su
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.