Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.38.1) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What do these amendments do? Ms Chaney [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.38.1): > *One of the amendments I'm proposing makes it clear that, if support is labelled as being part of the government's Future Made in Australia package, it must be linked to a sector that has actually been assessed as part of the National Interest Framework. In other words, the government can't say, 'We've got this great rigorous sector assessment process, but we don't have to use it.' Currently the bill requires the government to identify sectors that align with the National Interest Framework and would benefit from government investment to address barriers to private investment, but there's no requirement for the government to only provide support in sectors that have been identified in this way. So the government can stick a Future Made in Australia label on anything it wants, even if it's not in a sector that's been assessed as being worthy of government investment.* > > *Allowing government to use taxpayer funds for industry policy requires a leap of faith that the government will make good investment decisions. Unfortunately, governments don't have a great track record of making good investment decisions in situations of uncertainty. I recognise that, with the way other countries are responding to rapid economic transition towards decarbonisation, we do have to take some risks, but this amendment is designed to reduce that risk and prevent stupid things from getting through. If the government backs the process it has designed for sector assessments, it should be willing to commit to using it.* > > *My other amendment recognises that this is a rapidly changing space. In setting industry policy, w
House of Representatives, 2024-09-09. negative: ayes 10, noes 52.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.38.1) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What do these amendments do? Ms Chaney [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.38.1): > *One of the amendments I'm proposing makes it clear that, if support is labelled as being part of the government's Future Made in Australia package, it must be linked to a sector that has actually been assessed as part of the National Interest Framework. In other words, the government can't say, 'We've got this great rigorous sector assessment process, but we don't have to use it.' Currently the bill requires the government to identify sectors that align with the National Interest Framework and would benefit from government investment to address barriers to private investment, but there's no requirement for the government to only provide support in sectors that have been identified in this way. So the government can stick a Future Made in Australia label on anything it wants, even if it's not in a sector that's been assessed as being worthy of government investment.* > > *Allowing government to use taxpayer funds for industry policy requires a leap of faith that the government will make good investment decisions. Unfortunately, governments don't have a great track record of making good investment decisions in situations of uncertainty. I recognise that, with the way other countries are responding to rapid economic transition towards decarbonisation, we do have to take some risks, but this amendment is designed to reduce that risk and prevent stupid things from getting through. If the government backs the process it has designed for sector assessments, it should be willing to commit to using it.* > > *My other amendment recognises that this is a rapidly changing space. In setting industry policy, w
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.