Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7181_amend_5dcdc309-8eb6-4abb-b043-eecd711cc589%22;rec=0) introduced by Deakin MP [Michael Sukkar](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/deakin/michael_sukkar) (Liberal), which means it failed. The amendments would have changed the text of 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). ### Motion 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) the NDIS is supporting the lives of more than 660,000 Australians;* >> >> *(b) the Coalition’s strong record of support for the NDIS;* >> >> *(c) the former Labor Government grossly mismanaged the establishment of the scheme, including the federal/state responsibilities;* >> >> *(d) the former Coalition Government recognised the financial pressures facing the NDIS and was committed to working with state and territory governments to address those pressures to ensure the future of the scheme;* >> >> *(e) ahead of the 2022 election, Labor claimed the scheme was sustainable and ran a shameful scaremongering campaign that the NDIS was at risk and plans were to be cut;* >> >> *(f) following the election, the Government finally acknowledged the scheme is unsustainable after opposing the Coalition’s attempts to put the scheme on a sustainable footing;* > > *(2) calls on the Government to:* > >> *(a) release the modelling that underpins the NDIS Financial Stability Framework and the cost savings to be made by this legislation; and* >> >> *(b) provide a detailed outline of the inevitable cuts that participants should expect as a result of these changes”.*
House of Representatives, 2024-06-05. negative: ayes 58, noes 82.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7181_amend_5dcdc309-8eb6-4abb-b043-eecd711cc589%22;rec=0) introduced by Deakin MP [Michael Sukkar](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/deakin/michael_sukkar) (Liberal), which means it failed. The amendments would have changed the text of 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). ### Motion 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) the NDIS is supporting the lives of more than 660,000 Australians;* >> >> *(b) the Coalition’s strong record of support for the NDIS;* >> >> *(c) the former Labor Government grossly mismanaged the establishment of the scheme, including the federal/state responsibilities;* >> >> *(d) the former Coalition Government recognised the financial pressures facing the NDIS and was committed to working with state and territory governments to address those pressures to ensure the future of the scheme;* >> >> *(e) ahead of the 2022 election, Labor claimed the scheme was sustainable and ran a shameful scaremongering campaign that the NDIS was at risk and plans were to be cut;* >> >> *(f) following the election, the Government finally acknowledged the scheme is unsustainable after opposing the Coalition’s attempts to put the scheme on a sustainable footing;* > > *(2) calls on the Government to:* > >> *(a) release the modelling that underpins the NDIS Financial Stability Framework and the cost savings to be made by this legislation; and* >> >> *(b) provide a detailed outline of the inevitable cuts that participants should expect as a result of these changes”.*
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.