Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7487_amend_17d2ad65-c142-4db3-a94a-5fd2bda39b70%22;rec=0) introduced by Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) (Independent), which means it failed. This amendment would have changed the words 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 “the bill” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > >> *“is being examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, with a submission closing date of 29 May 2026, giving just two weeks for contributions;* >> >> *(b) action 25.2 of the NDIS Independent Review called on the Department to undertake ‘deep public consultation on proposed legislative reforms’ including with people with disability, families, carers, Disability Representative Organisations, providers and workers;* >> >> *(c) the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability found that ‘people with disability are not sufficiently involved in government decision-making processes and developing laws and policies that may impact their human rights’;* >> >> *(d) Article 4(3) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities require the Government to ‘closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, through their representative organisations’ when developing legislation that affects them;* >> >> *(e) guidance from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet states that consultation on legislation ‘should not generally be less than a month’, and that where substantial feedback is expected, consultation should be even longer; and* >> >> *(f) short timeframes are inherently i
House of Representatives, 2026-05-28. negative: ayes 11, noes 85.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7487_amend_17d2ad65-c142-4db3-a94a-5fd2bda39b70%22;rec=0) introduced by Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) (Independent), which means it failed. This amendment would have changed the words 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 “the bill” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > >> *“is being examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, with a submission closing date of 29 May 2026, giving just two weeks for contributions;* >> >> *(b) action 25.2 of the NDIS Independent Review called on the Department to undertake ‘deep public consultation on proposed legislative reforms’ including with people with disability, families, carers, Disability Representative Organisations, providers and workers;* >> >> *(c) the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability found that ‘people with disability are not sufficiently involved in government decision-making processes and developing laws and policies that may impact their human rights’;* >> >> *(d) Article 4(3) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities require the Government to ‘closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, through their representative organisations’ when developing legislation that affects them;* >> >> *(e) guidance from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet states that consultation on legislation ‘should not generally be less than a month’, and that where substantial feedback is expected, consultation should be even longer; and* >> >> *(f) short timeframes are inherently i
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.