Division
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2023-05-31.22.1) to the usual second reading motion "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means the usual motion will remain as it is. ### Rebellion Bass MP [Bridget Archer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bass/bridget_archer) (Liberal) rebelled against the Coalition by voting "No" and [explained her reasons](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-05-31.119.1): > *While I do support the coalition's policy to increase the earning threshold to $300 a fortnight before the rate of income support is impacted, I will not be supporting the second reading amendment put forward by the member for Deakin, as it calls for the scrapping of the $40 increase. Yes, a job is the best way to improve the living standards of individuals and their families, but I'd say it's a little hard to look for a job if you're starving, cold or can't afford transport. In my view, $40 a fortnight, while a step in the right direction, is not enough and falls short of the coalition's increase of $50 a fortnight in 2021. Whilst I note the government has a fine line to walk between addressing the cost-of-living challenges and addressing inflation, I don't believe that providing this minimal increase to income support, which still falls chronically below the poverty line, is the right approach, nor is it living Labor's own values, particularly as they've promised time and again not to leave any Australian behind.* ### Amendment text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:* > > *(1) notes:* > >> *(a) while in Government, the Coalition through disciplined economic management was able to deliver the largest permanent increase to the JobSeeker income support payment;* >> >
House of Representatives, 2023-05-31. affirmative: ayes 90, noes 50.
Question
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2023-05-31.22.1) to the usual second reading motion "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means the usual motion will remain as it is. ### Rebellion Bass MP [Bridget Archer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bass/bridget_archer) (Liberal) rebelled against the Coalition by voting "No" and [explained her reasons](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-05-31.119.1): > *While I do support the coalition's policy to increase the earning threshold to $300 a fortnight before the rate of income support is impacted, I will not be supporting the second reading amendment put forward by the member for Deakin, as it calls for the scrapping of the $40 increase. Yes, a job is the best way to improve the living standards of individuals and their families, but I'd say it's a little hard to look for a job if you're starving, cold or can't afford transport. In my view, $40 a fortnight, while a step in the right direction, is not enough and falls short of the coalition's increase of $50 a fortnight in 2021. Whilst I note the government has a fine line to walk between addressing the cost-of-living challenges and addressing inflation, I don't believe that providing this minimal increase to income support, which still falls chronically below the poverty line, is the right approach, nor is it living Labor's own values, particularly as they've promised time and again not to leave any Australian behind.* ### Amendment text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:* > > *(1) notes:* > >> *(a) while in Government, the Coalition through disciplined economic management was able to deliver the largest permanent increase to the JobSeeker income support payment;* >> >
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.