How Mark Dreyfus voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should develop a specific Coronavirus (COVID-19) response package for the Arts and Entertainment sector as many workers in that sector are ineligible for the JobKeeper Payment

Division Mark Dreyfus Supporters vote Division outcome

8th Apr 2020, 3:41 PM – Representatives Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020 and related bills - Second Reading - Arts and entertainment sector

Show detail

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 Watson MP Tony Burke (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 Burke explained the rationale behind his amendment in his contribution to the debate.

Amendment text

That the following words be added after paragraph (4):

"(5) calls on the Government to recognise that the Australian arts and entertainment sector needs a specific, tailored, fiscal response package to ensure its ongoing viability, given the structure of the JobKeeper payment has been designed in a way that leaves many workers in the sector ineligible".

absent No Passed by a small majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Mark Dreyfus was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.