Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2025-02-12.218.1) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Nick McKim](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/nick_mckim) (Greens), which means it failed. It would have added the text below to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time" (which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). ### Amendment text > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:* > > *(a) notes that:* > >> *(i) the Disability Support Pension (DSP) partner income test traps disabled people in abusive relationships by forcing people into a dynamic of financial dependency,* >> >> *(ii) the DSP partner income test also prevents members of the community from forming relationships and getting married, and genuine marriage and partner equality must include the abolition of the partner income test,* >> >> *(iii) the low rate of the DSP forces many disabled people in vicious cycles of poverty, fear and pain,* >> >> *(iv) the tightening of eligibility of the DSP forces many people living with disability to rely on the lower rate under JobSeeker, entrenching poverty and disadvantage,* >> >> *(v) poverty is a political choice; and* > > *(b) calls on the Government to:* > >> *(i) abolish the punitive partner income test for the DSP, and* >> >> *(ii) raise the rate of income support payments as a matter of urgency".*
Senate, 2025-02-12. negative: ayes 12, noes 27.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2025-02-12.218.1) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Nick McKim](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/nick_mckim) (Greens), which means it failed. It would have added the text below to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time" (which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). ### Amendment text > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:* > > *(a) notes that:* > >> *(i) the Disability Support Pension (DSP) partner income test traps disabled people in abusive relationships by forcing people into a dynamic of financial dependency,* >> >> *(ii) the DSP partner income test also prevents members of the community from forming relationships and getting married, and genuine marriage and partner equality must include the abolition of the partner income test,* >> >> *(iii) the low rate of the DSP forces many disabled people in vicious cycles of poverty, fear and pain,* >> >> *(iv) the tightening of eligibility of the DSP forces many people living with disability to rely on the lower rate under JobSeeker, entrenching poverty and disadvantage,* >> >> *(v) poverty is a political choice; and* > > *(b) calls on the Government to:* > >> *(i) abolish the punitive partner income test for the DSP, and* >> >> *(ii) raise the rate of income support payments as a matter of urgency".*
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.