Alicia Payne has never voted on increasing access to the JobKeeper Payment

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with the opposition amendment that related to the rule making power that the bill gives the Treasurer. MP for Watson Tony Burke (Labor) explained the amendments in his contribution to the debate:

The way this bill has been structured is that all the power of eligibility lies outside of the parliament, and what we're effectively doing is giving the Treasurer extraordinary powers to be able to devise the scheme. This amendment accepts that that's the way that it's been structured, but the fact that it's been structured that way prevents us from going line by line and moving amendments to change the principles of eligibility. So what this amendment does to the sections of the bill that give the Treasurer the power to establish the rules is put in demands about what he must consider.

Opposition amendment text

(1) Clause 7, page 4 (after line 29), at the end of clause, add:

(3) Before making rules for the purposes of subsection (1) that provide for a payment or scheme to assist businesses to cover the costs of wages of their employees, the Treasurer must consider the following:

(a) the need to support essential workers and services in key sectors and regions;

(b) the need for all casual employees to access support;

(c) the consequences for employees who may be required to run down leave entitlements;

(d) the needs of charities that may experience a decline in donations but not in GST turnover;

(e) the recognition of the status of universities and schools that are ACNC-registered charities;

(f) the needs of registered NDIS providers and the disability workforce;

(g) the needs of active business participants;

(h) the need to support temporary visa holders who are unable to return home;

(i) the needs of local government employees.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to keep unchanged the usual second reading motion "that the bill be read for a second time" (which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This motion was put after Rankin MP Jim Chalmers (Labor) introduced an amendment to change the wording.

MP Chalmers explained the rationale behind his amendment in his contribution to the debate.

Amendment text

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give these bills a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that this legislation gives the Treasurer extraordinary powers to include those not currently eligible for the JobKeeper Payment; and

(2) calls on the Treasurer to use his power under this legislation to ensure more jobs are protected and that struggling, otherwise viable businesses and organisations are able to access the JobKeeper Payment".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with the amendment to the usual second reading motion "that the bill be read for a second time" (which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This mean that the amendment failed.

This amendment was introduced by Grayndler MP Anthony Albanese (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. Instead, it sought to use the political influence of the House to call on the Government to make the changes set out below.

MP Albanese explained the rationale behind his amendment in his contribution to the debate.

Amendment text

That the following words be added after paragraph (2):

"(3) notes that casual workers deserve to be treated with the same respect as every other worker who faces losing their job because of this pandemic; and

(4) calls on the Government to provide the JobKeeper payment to the 1.1 million casual workers who have worked for their employer for less than a year".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with the amendment to the usual second reading motion "that the bill be read for a second time" (which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This mean that the amendment failed.

This amendment was introduced by Corio MP Richard Marles (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 Marles explained the rationale behind his amendment in his contribution to the debate.

Amendment text

That the following words be added after paragraph (5):

"(6) calls on the Government to extend the JobKeeper payment to any working visa holder that is currently in Australia and unable to return to their country of origin".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with the amendment to the usual second reading motion "that the bill be read for a second time", which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. This mean that the amendment failed.

This amendment was introduced by Sydney MP Tanya Plibersek (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 Plibersek explained the rationale behind her amendment in her contribution to the debate.

Amendment text

That the following words be added after paragraph (7):

"(8) calls on the Government to provide much more support for staff in schools, TAFEs, and universities affected by this crisis, noting that:

(a) hundreds of thousands of school and university staff, including casual workers, are facing job losses, but will not be eligible for this JobKeeper payment; and

(b) the Government should be saving jobs and making sure Australia has a strong and sustainable education and training sector on the other side of this crisis".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with the amendment to the usual second reading motion "that the bill be read for a second time", which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. This mean that the amendment failed.

This amendment was introduced by Maribyrnong MP Bill Shorten (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. Instead, the purpose of the amendment was to encourage the Government to change their position in relation to the disability sector.

MP Shorten explained the rationale behind his amendment in his contribution to the debate.

Amendment text

That the following words be added after paragraph (8):

"(9) calls on the Government to extend the 15 per cent reduction in turnover threshold to all National Disability Insurance Scheme and Disability Employment Services providers, and deliver a retention and support package for the disability sector workforce".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with the amendment to the usual second reading motion "that the bill be read for a second time", which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. This mean that the amendment failed.

This amendment was introduced by Blaxland MP Jason Clare (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 Clare explained the rationale behind his amendment in his contribution to the debate.

Amendment text

That the following words be added after paragraph (9):

"(10) calls on the Government to:

(a) recognise the importance of local government;

(b) acknowledge that the closure of council facilities has resulted in significant revenue loss and workers being stood down;

(c) acknowledge that, without support, up to 45,000 local government workers could lose their jobs; and

(d) work together with state governments to address these important issues".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with the amendment to the usual second reading motion "that the bill be read for a second time", 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 (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 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".