Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-17.91.1) to 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. The amendment was introduced by Lyne MP [David Gillespie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/lyne/david_gillespie) (Nationals). ### Motion text > *That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:* > > *(1) is concerned that the legislation represents the worst solution on national water reform;* > > *(2) notes that the following is needed for national water reforms in the Basin to be successful:* > >> *(a) a cooperative and constructive approach with all Basin State Governments to assist water reform and investment in urban and rural water infrastructure;* >> >> *(b) bipartisan support;* >> >> *(c) proper face to face consultation with key stakeholders in the Murray Darling Basin, including all water users, farmers, water scientists, environment groups and the broader community to ensure the adoption of a Basin Plan which has at its heart a triple bottom line approach which optimises social, economic, and environmental outcomes.* > > *(3) criticises the Government for failing to consult the Basin Communities Committee which is the legislated voice for people living in the Murray Darling Basin, on the Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023".* ### What does this bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2324a/24bd18) (which is prepared by the non-partisan parliamentary library): > * *The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 seeks to amend the Water Act 2007 and the Basin Plan 2012 to implement legislative aspects of the Agreement of Murray-Darling Basin Ministers to deliver the Basin Plan in full agreed by th
House of Representatives, 2023-10-18. negative: ayes 50, noes 79.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-17.91.1) to 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. The amendment was introduced by Lyne MP [David Gillespie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/lyne/david_gillespie) (Nationals). ### Motion text > *That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:* > > *(1) is concerned that the legislation represents the worst solution on national water reform;* > > *(2) notes that the following is needed for national water reforms in the Basin to be successful:* > >> *(a) a cooperative and constructive approach with all Basin State Governments to assist water reform and investment in urban and rural water infrastructure;* >> >> *(b) bipartisan support;* >> >> *(c) proper face to face consultation with key stakeholders in the Murray Darling Basin, including all water users, farmers, water scientists, environment groups and the broader community to ensure the adoption of a Basin Plan which has at its heart a triple bottom line approach which optimises social, economic, and environmental outcomes.* > > *(3) criticises the Government for failing to consult the Basin Communities Committee which is the legislated voice for people living in the Murray Darling Basin, on the Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023".* ### What does this bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2324a/24bd18) (which is prepared by the non-partisan parliamentary library): > * *The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 seeks to amend the Water Act 2007 and the Basin Plan 2012 to implement legislative aspects of the Agreement of Murray-Darling Basin Ministers to deliver the Basin Plan in full agreed by th
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.