Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-05-12.8.2) introduced by Page MP [Kevin Hogan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/page/kevin_hogan) (Nationals), which means it failed. The amendment would have changed the wording of the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). ### Amendment text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:* > > *(1) the Opposition supports strong consumer protections and believes Australians should be protected from being misled, pressured, exploited or trapped by unfair business practices;* > > *(2) Australia already has a comprehensive consumer law framework, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms;* > > *(3) the Government has failed to clearly identify the gap in existing law that the bill is intended to address;* > > *(4) the bill's broad new prohibition on 'unfair trading practices' risks creating significant legal uncertainty for businesses, with key concepts likely to be tested through costly litigation over many years;* > > *(5) despite the Government's promises to cut red tape and lift productivity, the bill is expected to impose regulatory costs of more than $124 million per year, including more than $100 million per year on small businesses;* > > *(6) these additional compliance burdens will fall on small businesses already under pressure from high inflation, rising energy costs, higher rents, higher insurance premiums, the Government's new taxes, and a slowing economy;* > > *(7) these costs will be passed on to everyday Australian consumers; and* > > *(8) the bill should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to ensure proper scrutiny, stakehol
House of Representatives, 2026-05-14. negative: ayes 40, noes 95.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-05-12.8.2) introduced by Page MP [Kevin Hogan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/page/kevin_hogan) (Nationals), which means it failed. The amendment would have changed the wording of the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). ### Amendment text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:* > > *(1) the Opposition supports strong consumer protections and believes Australians should be protected from being misled, pressured, exploited or trapped by unfair business practices;* > > *(2) Australia already has a comprehensive consumer law framework, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms;* > > *(3) the Government has failed to clearly identify the gap in existing law that the bill is intended to address;* > > *(4) the bill's broad new prohibition on 'unfair trading practices' risks creating significant legal uncertainty for businesses, with key concepts likely to be tested through costly litigation over many years;* > > *(5) despite the Government's promises to cut red tape and lift productivity, the bill is expected to impose regulatory costs of more than $124 million per year, including more than $100 million per year on small businesses;* > > *(6) these additional compliance burdens will fall on small businesses already under pressure from high inflation, rising energy costs, higher rents, higher insurance premiums, the Government's new taxes, and a slowing economy;* > > *(7) these costs will be passed on to everyday Australian consumers; and* > > *(8) the bill should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to ensure proper scrutiny, stakehol
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.