Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-11-27.31.1) to agree with proposed item 24C in amendment (9). This means that amendment will now be included in the bill. ### What does this proposed amendment do? Queensland Senator [Anthony Chisholm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/anthony_chisholm) (Labor) explained that: > *The amendments, which were developed through targeted, confidential consultation with government and non-government stakeholders, seek to address the recommendations of the committee and address stakeholder feedback raised in submissions.* However, NSW Senator [Perin Davey](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/perin_davey) (Nationals) explained her party's opposition to the the proposed item: > *Our concerns, as I mentioned, are technical but very important. They relate specifically to item 24C in amendment (9) and to amendment (14). Both of these amendments, as drafted by government, are essentially for the same thing. Relevantly, they remove the court's ability to admit evidence that is relevant and probative, unless the evidence is of a sexual activity that forms part of a connected set of circumstances or, in the case of a defendant, relates to sexual activity in the recent past. The concern is that there are types of evidence that the court could be prohibited from admitting—evidence of non-recent sexual activity or subsequent activity which is not otherwise connected but which could be used to prove sexual offences against children and vulnerable adults. It's technical, yes, but serious. Our concerns relate to context evidence, tendency evidence and the admissibility of evidence about non-recent or subsequent offending.* ### Amendment text > *(9) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 2), after item 24, insert:* > > *24C At the end of subsection 15YC(2)(b)* > >> *Add:* >> >> *; and (c) either:* >> >>> *(i) the evidence is of sexual activity that is alleged to form part o
Senate, 2024-11-27. affirmative: ayes 32, noes 24.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-11-27.31.1) to agree with proposed item 24C in amendment (9). This means that amendment will now be included in the bill. ### What does this proposed amendment do? Queensland Senator [Anthony Chisholm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/anthony_chisholm) (Labor) explained that: > *The amendments, which were developed through targeted, confidential consultation with government and non-government stakeholders, seek to address the recommendations of the committee and address stakeholder feedback raised in submissions.* However, NSW Senator [Perin Davey](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/perin_davey) (Nationals) explained her party's opposition to the the proposed item: > *Our concerns, as I mentioned, are technical but very important. They relate specifically to item 24C in amendment (9) and to amendment (14). Both of these amendments, as drafted by government, are essentially for the same thing. Relevantly, they remove the court's ability to admit evidence that is relevant and probative, unless the evidence is of a sexual activity that forms part of a connected set of circumstances or, in the case of a defendant, relates to sexual activity in the recent past. The concern is that there are types of evidence that the court could be prohibited from admitting—evidence of non-recent sexual activity or subsequent activity which is not otherwise connected but which could be used to prove sexual offences against children and vulnerable adults. It's technical, yes, but serious. Our concerns relate to context evidence, tendency evidence and the admissibility of evidence about non-recent or subsequent offending.* ### Amendment text > *(9) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 2), after item 24, insert:* > > *24C At the end of subsection 15YC(2)(b)* > >> *Add:* >> >> *; and (c) either:* >> >>> *(i) the evidence is of sexual activity that is alleged to form part o
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.