Division
The majority voted in favour of keeping the usual second reading motion unchanged. The usual second reading motion is "*that the bill be [read a second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)*," which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. This division took place after the MP for Barton [Linda Burney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/barton/linda_burney) (Labor) proposed an amendment to the usual second reading motion. ### Amendment text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and:* > > *(1) notes that:* > >> *(a) thirteen years after the Howard Government's so-called Intervention in the Northern Territory, there is no evidence that compulsory, broad-based income management works;* >> >> *(b) the Minister decided to make the Cashless Debit Card trial permanent before reading the independent review by Adelaide University; and* >> >> *(c) this proposal is racially discriminatory, as approximately 68 per cent of the people impacted are First Nations Australians; and* > > *(2) calls on the Government to:* > >> *(a) not roll out the Cashless Debit Card nationally; and* >> >> *(b) invest in evidence-based policies, job creation and services, rather than ideological policies like the Cashless Debit Card"* ### What does the bill do? The [bill was introduced](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd033) "*to establish the [Cashless Debit Card](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashless_Welfare_Card) (CDC) as an ongoing program rather than a time-limited trial*". The CDC program is controversial for many reasons, not least the [limited evidence](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-16/little-data-cashless-debit-card-effective-unisa-researcher-says/12887258) that it is benefiting the communities
House of Representatives, 2020-12-07. affirmative: ayes 65, noes 59.
Question
The majority voted in favour of keeping the usual second reading motion unchanged. The usual second reading motion is "*that the bill be [read a second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)*," which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. This division took place after the MP for Barton [Linda Burney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/barton/linda_burney) (Labor) proposed an amendment to the usual second reading motion. ### Amendment text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and:* > > *(1) notes that:* > >> *(a) thirteen years after the Howard Government's so-called Intervention in the Northern Territory, there is no evidence that compulsory, broad-based income management works;* >> >> *(b) the Minister decided to make the Cashless Debit Card trial permanent before reading the independent review by Adelaide University; and* >> >> *(c) this proposal is racially discriminatory, as approximately 68 per cent of the people impacted are First Nations Australians; and* > > *(2) calls on the Government to:* > >> *(a) not roll out the Cashless Debit Card nationally; and* >> >> *(b) invest in evidence-based policies, job creation and services, rather than ideological policies like the Cashless Debit Card"* ### What does the bill do? The [bill was introduced](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd033) "*to establish the [Cashless Debit Card](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashless_Welfare_Card) (CDC) as an ongoing program rather than a time-limited trial*". The CDC program is controversial for many reasons, not least the [limited evidence](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-16/little-data-cashless-debit-card-effective-unisa-researcher-says/12887258) that it is benefiting the communities
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.