Division Description Changes — Bills — Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020; Second Reading — 26th Feb 2020

Change	Division
representatives vote 2020-02-26#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2020-03-13 13:55:07	Title Bills — Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020; Second Reading Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020 - Second Reading - Criticism Description ~~<p class="speaker">Dan Tehan</p>~~ <p>This bill is the last instalment by the government to implement the recommendations made in the independent review Rebuilding the Farm Household Allowance: a better way forward for supporting farmers in financial hardship.</p> <p>The bill demonstrates the government's continued responsiveness to the needs of farm communities in rural Australia. Removing business income reconciliation means farmers and their partners will no longer be distracted due to predicting income, reducing anxiety and frustration felt by farmers during the period of financial hardship. Providing flexibility on the time frame to conduct farm financial assessments ensures our farmers and their partners can receive the best financial assessment possible to improve their financial situation.</p> The majority voted against an amendment introduced by member for Hunter [Joel Fitzgibbon](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hunter/joel_fitzgibbon) to the usual [second reading motion](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) that "the bill be read for a second time", which is 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 not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House criticises the Govern*ment on its failed record in assisting drought affected farmers" ~~<p>The bill benefits current and future Farm Household Allowance recipients and the communities they live in. I thank members for their contribution and commend the bill to the House.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ <p>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting words. So the question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Hunter be agreed to.</p>

~~Dan Tehan~~
This bill is the last instalment by the government to implement the recommendations made in the independent review Rebuilding the Farm Household Allowance: a better way forward for supporting farmers in financial hardship.
The bill demonstrates the government's continued responsiveness to the needs of farm communities in rural Australia. Removing business income reconciliation means farmers and their partners will no longer be distracted due to predicting income, reducing anxiety and frustration felt by farmers during the period of financial hardship. Providing flexibility on the time frame to conduct farm financial assessments ensures our farmers and their partners can receive the best financial assessment possible to improve their financial situation.
The majority voted against an amendment introduced by member for Hunter [Joel Fitzgibbon](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hunter/joel_fitzgibbon) to the usual [second reading motion](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) that "*the bill be read for a second time*", which is 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 not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House criticises the Government on its failed record in assisting drought affected farmers"*
~~The bill benefits current and future Farm Household Allowance recipients and the communities they live in. I thank members for their contribution and commend the bill to the House.~~
~~Tony Smith~~
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting words. So the question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Hunter be agreed to.