Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-06-05.26.1) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (Independent) at the request of Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) (Independent). This means they were unsuccessful. ### What do these amendments do? On behalf of Dr Ryan, Ms Chaney [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-06-05.26.1): > *To run through those: in amendment (2), the proposed section 32H creates additional requirements for accessing support, which may include requiring supports provided by a specific person or specific conditions are satisfied. The advocacy groups are concerned that this wording could place an inappropriately broad range of potential constraints on participants' choice and control over their funding and supports, particularly where the discretion to impose those constraints would lie with the NDIA alone. Amendment (2) makes it clear that additional requirements could only be specified where necessary to achieve a specific purpose consistent with the objects of the scheme and where the imposition of that requirement would not be unduly burdensome for a participant.* > > *Amendment (4) relates to consultation on delegated legislation. Under the proposed amendments put by the government, the minister has addressed this. Additional delegated legislation for needs assessment and budget-setting can be created, and this amendment (4) provides greater comfort about to consultation process by requiring the tabling of a consultation statement, which seems reasonable given the level of concern in the sector about the lack of consultation and co-design and the consequences of that. The government must develop the delegated legislation—the NDIS rules—via consultation, co-design and testing, which must include First Nations people with disability; peo
House of Representatives, 2024-06-05. negative: ayes 14, noes 34.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-06-05.26.1) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (Independent) at the request of Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) (Independent). This means they were unsuccessful. ### What do these amendments do? On behalf of Dr Ryan, Ms Chaney [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-06-05.26.1): > *To run through those: in amendment (2), the proposed section 32H creates additional requirements for accessing support, which may include requiring supports provided by a specific person or specific conditions are satisfied. The advocacy groups are concerned that this wording could place an inappropriately broad range of potential constraints on participants' choice and control over their funding and supports, particularly where the discretion to impose those constraints would lie with the NDIA alone. Amendment (2) makes it clear that additional requirements could only be specified where necessary to achieve a specific purpose consistent with the objects of the scheme and where the imposition of that requirement would not be unduly burdensome for a participant.* > > *Amendment (4) relates to consultation on delegated legislation. Under the proposed amendments put by the government, the minister has addressed this. Additional delegated legislation for needs assessment and budget-setting can be created, and this amendment (4) provides greater comfort about to consultation process by requiring the tabling of a consultation statement, which seems reasonable given the level of concern in the sector about the lack of consultation and co-design and the consequences of that. The government must develop the delegated legislation—the NDIS rules—via consultation, co-design and testing, which must include First Nations people with disability; peo
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.