Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.44.1) introduced by Wentworth MP [Allegra Spender](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/allegra_spender) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What do the amendments do? Ms Spender [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.44.1): > *In the current legislation, the sector assessment process is essentially optional. This creates the potential for the framework to be bypassed by a future government and for taxpayer money to be invested in industries and pet projects without clear justification. This point has been highlighted by stakeholders as diverse as the BCA and the ACF—and by many parliamentarians during the second reading debate.* > > *My amendment will help close this loophole. It will require that the sector assessment is conducted and that the results are considered by the minister before support for the sector can be made available under the Future Made in Australia. This is a commonsense amendment which strengthens the guardrails around government spending under this bill and is aligned with how the Treasurer has said the process is meant to work. It does not unnecessarily constrain government investing. It does not prevent the government from acting quickly. It does not create an unrealistic expectation that every sector which is assessed will get government support. It simply seeks to legislation the guardrails the government has already told us they want to follow.* ### Amendment texts > *(3) Page 12 (before line 4), before clause 10, insert:* > >> *9A Requirements before providing Future Made in Australia support* >> >> *Future Made in Australia support must not be provided to a person in relation to a sector unless:* >> >>> *(a) a sector assessment for the sector is conducted in accordance with section 8; and* >>> >>> *(b) the Minister has considered the sector assessment report and has recommended
House of Representatives, 2024-09-09. negative: ayes 10, noes 47.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.44.1) introduced by Wentworth MP [Allegra Spender](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/allegra_spender) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What do the amendments do? Ms Spender [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.44.1): > *In the current legislation, the sector assessment process is essentially optional. This creates the potential for the framework to be bypassed by a future government and for taxpayer money to be invested in industries and pet projects without clear justification. This point has been highlighted by stakeholders as diverse as the BCA and the ACF—and by many parliamentarians during the second reading debate.* > > *My amendment will help close this loophole. It will require that the sector assessment is conducted and that the results are considered by the minister before support for the sector can be made available under the Future Made in Australia. This is a commonsense amendment which strengthens the guardrails around government spending under this bill and is aligned with how the Treasurer has said the process is meant to work. It does not unnecessarily constrain government investing. It does not prevent the government from acting quickly. It does not create an unrealistic expectation that every sector which is assessed will get government support. It simply seeks to legislation the guardrails the government has already told us they want to follow.* ### Amendment texts > *(3) Page 12 (before line 4), before clause 10, insert:* > >> *9A Requirements before providing Future Made in Australia support* >> >> *Future Made in Australia support must not be provided to a person in relation to a sector unless:* >> >>> *(a) a sector assessment for the sector is conducted in accordance with section 8; and* >>> >>> *(b) the Minister has considered the sector assessment report and has recommended
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.