Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-11-30.21.1) introduced by North Sydney [Kylea Tink](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/kylea_tink) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What did the amendments do? Ms Tink [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-11-30.21.1): > *the first amendment I am moving will require the committee to report on defined national poverty reduction targets. If the purpose of this committee is to help our government and this parliament shift the dial then we must know not just what we are currently dealing with but where we are trying to get to. Improving policy to eradicate poverty for all people in this country should be a central part of the committee's remit. As we are already seeing, growing inequality undermines social cohesion and is detrimental to economic growth. It is pivotal, therefore, that the very committee tasked with providing independent advice to the government on economic inclusion and how to tackle disadvantage put poverty reduction front and centre. My amendments task the committee with setting out the process and time line for the development of national poverty targets and measures and reporting on the progress made to achieve those targets.* > > *Secondly, these amendments require the committee's report to be released to the public at least two weeks before the budget. As we know, the interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee was established earlier this year pending this legislation being passed. Yet its primary recommendation—that 'the government, as a first priority, commit to a substantial increase in the base rates of the JobSeeker payment and related working age payments'—was not implemented in the most recent federal budget. Similarly, the interim committee's call for the scrapping of the activity test for child care subsidies went unheeded. This shows us there is a real risk that the Economic Incl
House of Representatives, 2023-11-30. negative: ayes 10, noes 54.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-11-30.21.1) introduced by North Sydney [Kylea Tink](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/kylea_tink) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What did the amendments do? Ms Tink [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-11-30.21.1): > *the first amendment I am moving will require the committee to report on defined national poverty reduction targets. If the purpose of this committee is to help our government and this parliament shift the dial then we must know not just what we are currently dealing with but where we are trying to get to. Improving policy to eradicate poverty for all people in this country should be a central part of the committee's remit. As we are already seeing, growing inequality undermines social cohesion and is detrimental to economic growth. It is pivotal, therefore, that the very committee tasked with providing independent advice to the government on economic inclusion and how to tackle disadvantage put poverty reduction front and centre. My amendments task the committee with setting out the process and time line for the development of national poverty targets and measures and reporting on the progress made to achieve those targets.* > > *Secondly, these amendments require the committee's report to be released to the public at least two weeks before the budget. As we know, the interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee was established earlier this year pending this legislation being passed. Yet its primary recommendation—that 'the government, as a first priority, commit to a substantial increase in the base rates of the JobSeeker payment and related working age payments'—was not implemented in the most recent federal budget. Similarly, the interim committee's call for the scrapping of the activity test for child care subsidies went unheeded. This shows us there is a real risk that the Economic Incl
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.