Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2025-02-06.87.1) that schedule 1, items 10, 18 and 21 stand as printed. In other words, they wanted to keep these items unchanged. This vote took place after Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Independent) introduced an amendment to oppose them. ### Item text > *10 Subsection 80.2A(5) of the Criminal Code (note)* > >> *Repeal the note.* > > *18 Subsection 80.2B(6) of the Criminal Code (note)* > >> *Repeal the note.* > > *21 Subsection 80.3(1) of the Criminal Code* > >> *After “and C”, insert “(other than sections 80.2A, 80.2B, 80.2BA, 80.2BB, 80.2BC and 80.2BD and 80.2BE)”.* ### What do items 10, 18 and 21 in Schedule 1 do? These items are all related to removing the good faith defence to certain offences. According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2425/25bd021) (a document prepared by the parliamentary library): > *Exclusion from good faith defence* > > *Item 21 would amend subsection 80.3(1) of the Criminal Code to exclude the existing urging force or violence offences (sections 80.2A and 80.2B) and the proposed threatening force or violence offences (proposed sections 80.2BA and 80.2BB) from the existing good faith defences provided in section 80.3.* > > *At present, section 80.3 provides that the offences in ‘Subdivision C—Urging violence and advocating terrorism or genocide’ do not apply to a person who has done so in certain listed ways or for certain listed aims, where those are considered to be done ‘in good faith’.* > > *The Explanatory Memorandum (at page 39) notes that the good faith defence had carried over from an earlier sedition offence, and claims that, in a 2006 Report the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC):* > >> *recommended that section 80.3 of the Criminal Code be amended so that the good faith defences do not apply to the offences
Senate, 2025-02-06. affirmative: ayes 28, noes 16.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2025-02-06.87.1) that schedule 1, items 10, 18 and 21 stand as printed. In other words, they wanted to keep these items unchanged. This vote took place after Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Independent) introduced an amendment to oppose them. ### Item text > *10 Subsection 80.2A(5) of the Criminal Code (note)* > >> *Repeal the note.* > > *18 Subsection 80.2B(6) of the Criminal Code (note)* > >> *Repeal the note.* > > *21 Subsection 80.3(1) of the Criminal Code* > >> *After “and C”, insert “(other than sections 80.2A, 80.2B, 80.2BA, 80.2BB, 80.2BC and 80.2BD and 80.2BE)”.* ### What do items 10, 18 and 21 in Schedule 1 do? These items are all related to removing the good faith defence to certain offences. According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2425/25bd021) (a document prepared by the parliamentary library): > *Exclusion from good faith defence* > > *Item 21 would amend subsection 80.3(1) of the Criminal Code to exclude the existing urging force or violence offences (sections 80.2A and 80.2B) and the proposed threatening force or violence offences (proposed sections 80.2BA and 80.2BB) from the existing good faith defences provided in section 80.3.* > > *At present, section 80.3 provides that the offences in ‘Subdivision C—Urging violence and advocating terrorism or genocide’ do not apply to a person who has done so in certain listed ways or for certain listed aims, where those are considered to be done ‘in good faith’.* > > *The Explanatory Memorandum (at page 39) notes that the good faith defence had carried over from an earlier sedition offence, and claims that, in a 2006 Report the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC):* > >> *recommended that section 80.3 of the Criminal Code be amended so that the good faith defences do not apply to the offences
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.