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_ce63a515-217b-450a-800f-231f6c648bac%22;rec=0) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (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 “notes that” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > >> *“(a) the bill enables the use of automated decision-making in determining a wide range of matters affecting NDIS participants;* >> >> *(b) it is reported that neither human decision-makers nor the Administrative Review Tribunal will be authorised to modify or override the automated decisions made about the support needs of NDIS participants;* >> >> *(c) when used well, automated decision-making can deliver faster, more consistent and more efficient government services, and that agencies like the NDIA need digital tools to operate at the scale required;* >> >> *(d) the Government has failed to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, handed down in July 2023, which called for the introduction of a consistent legal framework and oversight for automated decision-making in government services;* >> >> *(e) the consequences of poorly implemented automation for high-risk decisions are already being seen in widespread concern around automated aged care assessments and the unlawful cancellation of income supports for Australians under the Targeted Compliance Framework; and* > > *(2) calls on the Government to bring forward a legislative and mandatory framework for automated decision-making in government services, incorporating transparenc
House of Representatives, 2026-05-28. negative: ayes 11, noes 86.
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_ce63a515-217b-450a-800f-231f6c648bac%22;rec=0) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (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 “notes that” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > >> *“(a) the bill enables the use of automated decision-making in determining a wide range of matters affecting NDIS participants;* >> >> *(b) it is reported that neither human decision-makers nor the Administrative Review Tribunal will be authorised to modify or override the automated decisions made about the support needs of NDIS participants;* >> >> *(c) when used well, automated decision-making can deliver faster, more consistent and more efficient government services, and that agencies like the NDIA need digital tools to operate at the scale required;* >> >> *(d) the Government has failed to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, handed down in July 2023, which called for the introduction of a consistent legal framework and oversight for automated decision-making in government services;* >> >> *(e) the consequences of poorly implemented automation for high-risk decisions are already being seen in widespread concern around automated aged care assessments and the unlawful cancellation of income supports for Australians under the Targeted Compliance Framework; and* > > *(2) calls on the Government to bring forward a legislative and mandatory framework for automated decision-making in government services, incorporating transparenc
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.