Division
The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-09.199.1) moved by WA Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert) (Greens), which means it failed. ### Motion text > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:* > > *(a) notes that:* > >> *(i) this bill will entrench the racist, discriminatory, paternalistic, ineffective, top-down, blanket approach of compulsory income management via the Cashless Debit Card,* >> >> *(ii) the Government did not consult with First Nations peoples in the Northern Territory about the introduction of the Cashless Debit Card or the continuation of compulsory income management, and* >> >> *(iii) the Government failed to consult with people currently on the Cashless Debit Card about making it permanent; and* > > *(b) calls on the Government to:* > >> *(i) abandon all forms of compulsory income management currently operating in Australia,* >> >> *(ii) carry out extensive consultation around Australia for any move to make income management voluntary and ensure that any new program is co-designed, and* >> >> *(iii) immediately release the second impact evaluation being undertaken by the University of Adelaide".* ### What does this bill do? The [bill was introduced](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd033) "*to establish the [Cashless Debit Card](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashless_Welfare_Card) (CDC) as an ongoing program rather than a time-limited trial*". The CDC program is controversial for many reasons, not least the [limited evidence](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-16/little-data-cashless-debit-card-effective-unisa-researcher-says/12887258) that it is benefiting the communities where it is currently in operation. Read more about the program and what the bill does in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd033).
Senate, 2020-12-09. negative: ayes 27, noes 31.
Question
The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-09.199.1) moved by WA Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert) (Greens), which means it failed. ### Motion text > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:* > > *(a) notes that:* > >> *(i) this bill will entrench the racist, discriminatory, paternalistic, ineffective, top-down, blanket approach of compulsory income management via the Cashless Debit Card,* >> >> *(ii) the Government did not consult with First Nations peoples in the Northern Territory about the introduction of the Cashless Debit Card or the continuation of compulsory income management, and* >> >> *(iii) the Government failed to consult with people currently on the Cashless Debit Card about making it permanent; and* > > *(b) calls on the Government to:* > >> *(i) abandon all forms of compulsory income management currently operating in Australia,* >> >> *(ii) carry out extensive consultation around Australia for any move to make income management voluntary and ensure that any new program is co-designed, and* >> >> *(iii) immediately release the second impact evaluation being undertaken by the University of Adelaide".* ### What does this bill do? The [bill was introduced](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd033) "*to establish the [Cashless Debit Card](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashless_Welfare_Card) (CDC) as an ongoing program rather than a time-limited trial*". The CDC program is controversial for many reasons, not least the [limited evidence](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-16/little-data-cashless-debit-card-effective-unisa-researcher-says/12887258) that it is benefiting the communities where it is currently in operation. Read more about the program and what the bill does in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd033).
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.