Stirling Griff has never voted on mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences

The same number of senators voted for and against a motion that schedule 6 stand as printed, which means the motion failed. In other words, schedule 6 - which dealt with mandatory minimum sentences - was not supported by the majority in the Senate.

This motion was put after Queensland Senator Murray Watt (Labor) introduced a motion to oppose the schedule.

What are mandatory minimum sentences?

The bills digest explains that "[m]andatory sentencing laws specify a minimum penalty or a fixed penalty that a judge must impose in relation to a particular offence or type of offender (for example a repeat offender)." There is a lot of debate about the effectiveness of mandatory sentences - see the bills digest for more discussion.

The same number of senators voted for and against amendments (2) and (5) to (7), which means they failed. They were introduced by Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim (Greens), who explained that:

The effect of those amendments would be that the mandatory sentencing provisions in this legislation would be deleted.

Motion text

(2) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3 (table items 7 to 9), omit the table items.

[minimum sentences]

(5) Schedule 7, item 4, page 34 (lines 9 and 10), omit "described in column 1 of an item in the table in section 16AAA", substitute "covered by subsection (9)".

[bail]

(6) Schedule 7, item 4, page 34 (lines 11 and 12), omit "described in column 1 of an item in the table in subsection 16AAB(2)", substitute "covered by subsection (10)".

[bail]

(7) Schedule 7, item 4, page 36 (after line 16), at the end of section 15AAA, add:

(9) This subsection covers offences against provisions of the Criminal Code listed in the following table: [see Hansard for the table]

(10) This subsection covers offences against provisions of the Criminal Code listed in the following table: [see Hansard for the table]