Division
The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-02-15.45.2) introduced by Labor Party MP [Jenny Macklin](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/jagajaga/jenny_macklin), which means it was unsuccessful. The motion called for the House of Representatives to not agree with the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, the motion asked for the House to not give the bill a [second reading](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). ### What is the bill's main idea? The bill creates a special account to fund the [National Disability Insurance Scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Disability_Insurance_Scheme) (NDIS). According to [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-03/disability-support-crackdown-to-help-fund-ndis/7380828), part of the $2.1 billion expected to fill the special account will come from a "*crack down on the Disability Support Pension and cut[ting] off carbon tax compensation for all new welfare recipients*". The Government argued that this special account is necessary because the NDIS is currently [only partially funded](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-15/ndis-funding-explainer/8271996). But the [Opposition disagrees](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-03-02.8.2), arguing that the NDIS is in fact fully funded and so this special account is unnecessary. They also questioned the Government's motivation for creating the account at all. Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd001) and on [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-03/budget-2016/7380832). ### Motion text > *That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > *"the House declines to give the bill a second reading because:* >> *(1) the National Disability Insurance Scheme was fully funded when Labor left office;* >> *(2) this bill is nothing more than an attempt b
House of Representatives, 2017-03-02. negative: ayes 64, noes 76.
Question
The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-02-15.45.2) introduced by Labor Party MP [Jenny Macklin](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/jagajaga/jenny_macklin), which means it was unsuccessful. The motion called for the House of Representatives to not agree with the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, the motion asked for the House to not give the bill a [second reading](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). ### What is the bill's main idea? The bill creates a special account to fund the [National Disability Insurance Scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Disability_Insurance_Scheme) (NDIS). According to [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-03/disability-support-crackdown-to-help-fund-ndis/7380828), part of the $2.1 billion expected to fill the special account will come from a "*crack down on the Disability Support Pension and cut[ting] off carbon tax compensation for all new welfare recipients*". The Government argued that this special account is necessary because the NDIS is currently [only partially funded](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-15/ndis-funding-explainer/8271996). But the [Opposition disagrees](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-03-02.8.2), arguing that the NDIS is in fact fully funded and so this special account is unnecessary. They also questioned the Government's motivation for creating the account at all. Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd001) and on [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-03/budget-2016/7380832). ### Motion text > *That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > *"the House declines to give the bill a second reading because:* >> *(1) the National Disability Insurance Scheme was fully funded when Labor left office;* >> *(2) this bill is nothing more than an attempt b
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.