All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
representatives vote 2020-04-08#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-04-09 11:28:30
|
Title
Bills — Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020, Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Bill 2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2019-2020; Second Reading- Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020 and related bills - Second Reading - Major charity access to JobKeeper program
Description
<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>In accordance with the resolution agreed earlier, I will now put the questions on the bills. The original question was that these bills be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Rankin moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. As we've just foreshadowed and as the members participating in the debate would be aware, a number of subsequent amendments had been moved by honourable members to that second reading amendment. As I've just foreshadowed, I'll be putting the questions on those subsequent amendments in the form that the amendment be disagreed to. After this four-minute division, we'll be having one-minute divisions. The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fenner be disagreed to.</p> - The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with the [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-04-08.22.1) to the usual second reading motion "*that the bill be read [for a second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)*", which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. This mean that the amendment failed.
- This amendment was introduced by Fenner MP [Andrew Leigh](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fenner/andrew_leigh) (Labor) and, if it had been successful, its text would have been added to the usual second reading motion as a note. In other words, it didn't seek to change the actual text of the bills.
- MP Leigh explained [the rationale behind his amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-04-08.22.1) in his contribution to the debate.
- ### Amendment text
- > *"(11) notes that a number of major charities will be unable to access the JobKeeper program, and will have to shed staff and cease programs as a result".*
|