Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7158_amend_1f205ed9-76c9-48f0-85bf-f8054a3ec6c0%22;rec=0) 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 Maranoa MP [David Littleproud](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/maranoa/david_littleproud) (National). ### 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 as it :* > >> *(1) criticises the Government for attempting to impose this new tax on Australian farmers and the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector, right in the middle of a cost-of living and workforce shortage crisis;* >> >> *(2) notes its alarm that the proposed Biosecurity Protection Levy will push up the costs of fresh food for Australian families, at a time when they can afford it least;* >> >> *(3) expresses its profound concern that under the terms of the Biosecurity Protection Levy, Australian farmers will be forced to pay for the biosecurity risks of their international competitors to bring their products into this country;* >> >> *(4) criticises the Government for the ongoing mismanagement, confusion and lack of detail which has characterised the Biosecurity Protection Levy since its initial announcement in the May 2023 Budget, and the subsequent restructure that was announced in February 2024;* >> >> *(5) recognises that the proposed Biosecurity Protection Levy is widely and strongly opposed by farmers, producers, stakeholders, and industry groups across the agriculture sector; and* >> >> *(6) calls on the Government to ensure a sustainable funding model for biosecurity by progressing and establishing an importer container levy, as recommended by the independent Craik review ”.* D
House of Representatives, 2024-03-27. negative: ayes 63, noes 77.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7158_amend_1f205ed9-76c9-48f0-85bf-f8054a3ec6c0%22;rec=0) 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 Maranoa MP [David Littleproud](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/maranoa/david_littleproud) (National). ### 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 as it :* > >> *(1) criticises the Government for attempting to impose this new tax on Australian farmers and the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector, right in the middle of a cost-of living and workforce shortage crisis;* >> >> *(2) notes its alarm that the proposed Biosecurity Protection Levy will push up the costs of fresh food for Australian families, at a time when they can afford it least;* >> >> *(3) expresses its profound concern that under the terms of the Biosecurity Protection Levy, Australian farmers will be forced to pay for the biosecurity risks of their international competitors to bring their products into this country;* >> >> *(4) criticises the Government for the ongoing mismanagement, confusion and lack of detail which has characterised the Biosecurity Protection Levy since its initial announcement in the May 2023 Budget, and the subsequent restructure that was announced in February 2024;* >> >> *(5) recognises that the proposed Biosecurity Protection Levy is widely and strongly opposed by farmers, producers, stakeholders, and industry groups across the agriculture sector; and* >> >> *(6) calls on the Government to ensure a sustainable funding model for biosecurity by progressing and establishing an importer container levy, as recommended by the independent Craik review ”.* D
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.