Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2025-02-12.206.1) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Nick McKim](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/nick_mckim) (Greens), which means it failed. It would have added the text below to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). ### Amendment text **SHEET 3294** > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:* > > *(a) notes that:* > >> *(i) too many people and their families experience significant harm from scams each year,* >> >> *(ii) instead of implementing a best practice model to prevent scams, Labor has caved to the interests of the major banks and their multi-billion-dollar profits, and* >> >> *(iii) under Labor's bill, it would take a person impacted by a scam up to 30 steps and 2 years to seek redress, and at the end of the process there is no guarantee they will get any of their money back; and* > > *(b) calls on the Government to amend the bill to include a presumption of reimbursement, similar to the UK model, which would require banks to promptly reimburse people who have been scammed, and then recover costs from other businesses involved in the scam in proportion to their liability, including telcos and digital platforms".* **SHEET 3324** > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:* > > *(a) notes that:* > >> *(i) the bill fails to address the jurisdictional impediments to enforcement of laws against offshore social media companies,* >> >> *(ii) any measures or civil penalties the bill imposes on online platforms will be unenforceable and require voluntary compliance,* >> >> *(ii) the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society considered the impact of online scams and jurisdictional impediments and recommended that the Australian Government consider options for greater enforceability of Australian laws for soci
Senate, 2025-02-12. negative: ayes 14, noes 29.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2025-02-12.206.1) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Nick McKim](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/nick_mckim) (Greens), which means it failed. It would have added the text below to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). ### Amendment text **SHEET 3294** > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:* > > *(a) notes that:* > >> *(i) too many people and their families experience significant harm from scams each year,* >> >> *(ii) instead of implementing a best practice model to prevent scams, Labor has caved to the interests of the major banks and their multi-billion-dollar profits, and* >> >> *(iii) under Labor's bill, it would take a person impacted by a scam up to 30 steps and 2 years to seek redress, and at the end of the process there is no guarantee they will get any of their money back; and* > > *(b) calls on the Government to amend the bill to include a presumption of reimbursement, similar to the UK model, which would require banks to promptly reimburse people who have been scammed, and then recover costs from other businesses involved in the scam in proportion to their liability, including telcos and digital platforms".* **SHEET 3324** > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:* > > *(a) notes that:* > >> *(i) the bill fails to address the jurisdictional impediments to enforcement of laws against offshore social media companies,* >> >> *(ii) any measures or civil penalties the bill imposes on online platforms will be unenforceable and require voluntary compliance,* >> >> *(ii) the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society considered the impact of online scams and jurisdictional impediments and recommended that the Australian Government consider options for greater enforceability of Australian laws for soci
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.