Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2026-05-25.27.2) introduced by Page MP [Kevin Hogan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/page/kevin_hogan) (Nationals), which means it was unsuccessful. Had it been successful, the amendment would have changed the usual wording of the 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:* > > *"the bill be referred to the House Standing Committee on Economics for inquiry and report by 22 June 2026, with particular reference to whether:* > >> *(1) the existing ACCC powers are genuinely inadequate;* >> >> *(2) the Treasurer's declaration power is too broad;* >> >> *(3) in addition to class exemptions, ACCC authorisations should also be disallowable;* >> >> *(4) transparency requirements are strong enough;* >> >> *(5) the retrospective start date is justified;* >> >> *(6) the powers are properly limited in time and scope; and* >> >> *(7) there should be stronger sunset and review mechanisms".*
House of Representatives, 2026-05-25. negative: ayes 48, noes 94.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2026-05-25.27.2) introduced by Page MP [Kevin Hogan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/page/kevin_hogan) (Nationals), which means it was unsuccessful. Had it been successful, the amendment would have changed the usual wording of the 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:* > > *"the bill be referred to the House Standing Committee on Economics for inquiry and report by 22 June 2026, with particular reference to whether:* > >> *(1) the existing ACCC powers are genuinely inadequate;* >> >> *(2) the Treasurer's declaration power is too broad;* >> >> *(3) in addition to class exemptions, ACCC authorisations should also be disallowable;* >> >> *(4) transparency requirements are strong enough;* >> >> *(5) the retrospective start date is justified;* >> >> *(6) the powers are properly limited in time and scope; and* >> >> *(7) there should be stronger sunset and review mechanisms".*
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.