Division
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-07.40.1) introduced by Berowra MP [Julian Leeser](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/berowra/julian_leeser) (Liberal), which means they failed. ### Amendment text > *(9) Schedule 4, page 22 (line 1) to page 25 (line 12), omit the Schedule.* > > *(10) Schedule 5, page 26 (line 1) to page 28 (line 28), omit the Schedule.* ### What did the amendments do? Regarding amendment (9), Mr Leeser [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-07.40.1): > *These amendments deal with representative actions and costs orders. Schedule 4 of the bill seeks to amend the Human Rights Commission Act to make it easier for unions and other representative groups to bring representative claims in the Federal Court. The amendments would allow bodies to commence legal proceedings on behalf of other parties rather than the aggrieved person taking the matter for themselves. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has explained why this provision is not necessary. The ACCI has argued that representative groups are not prohibited from providing financial or legal support to parties pursuing a representative proceeding in the courts. Rather, they're simply prevented from commencing the proceedings on their behalf. It's not clear how allowing trade unions to commence legal proceedings on behalf of aggrieved persons would lead to better outcomes for these persons, especially in light of support that representative groups can already provide.* > > *Fundamentally, litigants in representative actions need to be aggrieved persons, not bodies that represent or merely purport to represent their interest. This is how the existing avenue for class actions rightly operates. The interests of representative bodies do not always align with those they represent. Allowing these bodies to commence and run representative actions on their behalf could le
House of Representatives, 2022-11-07. affirmative: ayes 84, noes 55.
Question
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-07.40.1) introduced by Berowra MP [Julian Leeser](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/berowra/julian_leeser) (Liberal), which means they failed. ### Amendment text > *(9) Schedule 4, page 22 (line 1) to page 25 (line 12), omit the Schedule.* > > *(10) Schedule 5, page 26 (line 1) to page 28 (line 28), omit the Schedule.* ### What did the amendments do? Regarding amendment (9), Mr Leeser [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-07.40.1): > *These amendments deal with representative actions and costs orders. Schedule 4 of the bill seeks to amend the Human Rights Commission Act to make it easier for unions and other representative groups to bring representative claims in the Federal Court. The amendments would allow bodies to commence legal proceedings on behalf of other parties rather than the aggrieved person taking the matter for themselves. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has explained why this provision is not necessary. The ACCI has argued that representative groups are not prohibited from providing financial or legal support to parties pursuing a representative proceeding in the courts. Rather, they're simply prevented from commencing the proceedings on their behalf. It's not clear how allowing trade unions to commence legal proceedings on behalf of aggrieved persons would lead to better outcomes for these persons, especially in light of support that representative groups can already provide.* > > *Fundamentally, litigants in representative actions need to be aggrieved persons, not bodies that represent or merely purport to represent their interest. This is how the existing avenue for class actions rightly operates. The interests of representative bodies do not always align with those they represent. Allowing these bodies to commence and run representative actions on their behalf could le
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.