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%2Fr7280_amend_533c53a8-b747-41b2-80aa-c887bbd8cebd%22;rec=0) introduced by Warringah MP [Zali Steggall](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/warringah/zali_steggall) (Independent), which means it failed. This amendment would have added the text below to 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). ### Amendment text > *That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *“whilst declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:* > > *(1) is of the opinion that the bill:* > >> *(a) should not proceed further until referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, to inquire into the intended and unintended consequences, with a report due to the House by the first sitting day of 2025;* >> >> *(b) creates an unfair playing field, giving advantage to incumbents over new candidates by failing to give all candidates the same public funding for administrative support and failing to account for incumbent resources such as an office, staff, a vehicle and marketing budget whilst imposing a spending cap on candidates;* >> >> *(c) provides disproportionate yearly administrative assistance funding to major political parties, and fails to account for any economies of scale; and* >> >> *(d) entrenches political party advantage over independent candidates by imposing a spending cap on individual seats while still permitting additional party advertising under a party’s $90m national cap;* > > *(2) requests that:* > >> *(a) an assessment of realistic administrative compliance costs under the bill be undertaken; and* >> >> *(b) a cap be placed on administrative assistance funding to political parties to accurately reflect admini
House of Representatives, 2024-11-20. negative: ayes 14, noes 49.
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%2Fr7280_amend_533c53a8-b747-41b2-80aa-c887bbd8cebd%22;rec=0) introduced by Warringah MP [Zali Steggall](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/warringah/zali_steggall) (Independent), which means it failed. This amendment would have added the text below to 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). ### Amendment text > *That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *“whilst declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:* > > *(1) is of the opinion that the bill:* > >> *(a) should not proceed further until referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, to inquire into the intended and unintended consequences, with a report due to the House by the first sitting day of 2025;* >> >> *(b) creates an unfair playing field, giving advantage to incumbents over new candidates by failing to give all candidates the same public funding for administrative support and failing to account for incumbent resources such as an office, staff, a vehicle and marketing budget whilst imposing a spending cap on candidates;* >> >> *(c) provides disproportionate yearly administrative assistance funding to major political parties, and fails to account for any economies of scale; and* >> >> *(d) entrenches political party advantage over independent candidates by imposing a spending cap on individual seats while still permitting additional party advertising under a party’s $90m national cap;* > > *(2) requests that:* > >> *(a) an assessment of realistic administrative compliance costs under the bill be undertaken; and* >> >> *(b) a cap be placed on administrative assistance funding to political parties to accurately reflect admini
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.