Division

The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-02-27.186.1) 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). The amendment was introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Nick McKim](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/nick_mckim) (Greens). ### Amendment text > At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: > > (a) notes that these revised tax cuts will still make economic inequality in Australia worse by: > >> (i) giving politicians and CEOs on incomes of more than $200,000 three times the value of tax cuts compared to the average worker, >> >> (ii) only providing the poorest 20 per cent of society with 0.4 per cent of the share of tax cuts next financial year, compared to the wealthiest 20 per cent of society who will enjoy 50 per cent of the total value of the tax cuts, >> >> (iii) exacerbating the gender pay gap, with 42 per cent of the tax cuts going to women and 58 per cent to men, and >> >> (iv) starving the budget by a jaw-dropping $318 billion over the decade, removing revenue that could support people who rely on aged care services, disability support, income support and families who depend on the public education and health systems; and > > (b) calls on the Government to redesign the tax cuts to not give the wealthiest in society $4,529 a year and instead redirect this largesse to expanding public services like more mental health and dental into Medicare and financial support for those earning below the tax-free threshold in this cost of living crisis".

Senate, 2024-02-27. negative: ayes 10, noes 29.

Question

The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-02-27.186.1) 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). The amendment was introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Nick McKim](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/nick_mckim) (Greens). ### Amendment text > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:* > > *(a) notes that these revised tax cuts will still make economic inequality in Australia worse by:* > >> *(i) giving politicians and CEOs on incomes of more than $200,000 three times the value of tax cuts compared to the average worker,* >> >> *(ii) only providing the poorest 20 per cent of society with 0.4 per cent of the share of tax cuts next financial year, compared to the wealthiest 20 per cent of society who will enjoy 50 per cent of the total value of the tax cuts,* >> >> *(iii) exacerbating the gender pay gap, with 42 per cent of the tax cuts going to women and 58 per cent to men, and* >> >> *(iv) starving the budget by a jaw-dropping $318 billion over the decade, removing revenue that could support people who rely on aged care services, disability support, income support and families who depend on the public education and health systems; and* > > *(b) calls on the Government to redesign the tax cuts to not give the wealthiest in society $4,529 a year and instead redirect this largesse to expanding public services like more mental health and dental into Medicare and financial support for those earning below the tax-free threshold in this cost of living crisis".*

View original

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.