Division
The majority voted in favour of agreeing with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time. This means they can now consider it in more detail. ### What does this bill do? According to the [explanatory memorandum](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr7310_ems_a1ff3b68-3970-4428-b42a-1461b5342516%22;rec=0) (which is a political documents prepared by the party that introduces the bill): > *The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes) Bill 2025 (the Bill) amends the Social Security Act 1991 to make provision for the payment of different rates for disability support pension recipients aged under 21, depending on their circumstances. This includes a lower single dependent living at home rate, and a higher independent rate, consisting with longstanding policy and service delivery arrangements.* The Minister for Social Security [Amanda Rishworth](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kingston/amanda_rishworth) (Kingston MP) [explained further](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/28686/&sid=0000) that: > *These technical amendments are necessary as a recent merits review decision highlighted an unintended consequence of the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Act 2005. Those changes introduced the partial-capacity-to-work rule to the independence criteria, which was intended to apply to youth allowance recipients only. It's now understood that a drafting error in the 2005 amendments means that certain DSP recipients under 21 are impacted. This in turn affected the rates of support those recipients were entitled to receive. Without this bill, it would mean that arrangements would be at odds with the objective of Australia's Disability Strategy, providing a perverse incentive for
House of Representatives, 2025-02-11. affirmative: ayes 81, noes 5.
Question
The majority voted in favour of agreeing with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time. This means they can now consider it in more detail. ### What does this bill do? According to the [explanatory memorandum](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr7310_ems_a1ff3b68-3970-4428-b42a-1461b5342516%22;rec=0) (which is a political documents prepared by the party that introduces the bill): > *The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes) Bill 2025 (the Bill) amends the Social Security Act 1991 to make provision for the payment of different rates for disability support pension recipients aged under 21, depending on their circumstances. This includes a lower single dependent living at home rate, and a higher independent rate, consisting with longstanding policy and service delivery arrangements.* The Minister for Social Security [Amanda Rishworth](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kingston/amanda_rishworth) (Kingston MP) [explained further](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/28686/&sid=0000) that: > *These technical amendments are necessary as a recent merits review decision highlighted an unintended consequence of the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Act 2005. Those changes introduced the partial-capacity-to-work rule to the independence criteria, which was intended to apply to youth allowance recipients only. It's now understood that a drafting error in the 2005 amendments means that certain DSP recipients under 21 are impacted. This in turn affected the rates of support those recipients were entitled to receive. Without this bill, it would mean that arrangements would be at odds with the objective of Australia's Disability Strategy, providing a perverse incentive for
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.