Division
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-07.120.1) introduced by Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) (Independent), which means they failed and won't be included in the bill. ### What did the amendments do? Dr Ryan [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-07.120.1): > *The Respect@Work report proposed that costs might be ordered against the applicant only where the court was satisfied that the party instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without cause. That model has not been adopted in this bill. Instead, this bill proposes a cost-neutrality approach in which litigants bear their own costs unless the court orders otherwise. The bill does set out various factors that the court must have regard to in making costs orders. Superficially, the cost-neutral arrangement represents an improvement on the status quo. In effect, however, its design and the uncertainty around its operation will serve to undermine access to justice by limiting the ability of applicants to secure legal representation. Taking a cost-neutrality approach to a relationship characterised by systemic inequality only serves to entrench that inequality.* > > *The amendment I have proposed offers an alternative: an equal-access approach. Under this proposal, each party will bear its own costs, except when the applicant is unsuccessful—that is, when the court has found that the respondent has engaged in discriminatory conduct, in which case the respondent will be liable to pay the applicant's costs, as they should. You should not be excused from bearing costs when you have broken the law. People and organisations found to have engaged in discrimination or harassment in breach of the law should have to pay the legal costs of the applicant. This will act as an incentive to change workplace cultures that permit discriminatory treatment. This
House of Representatives, 2022-11-07. affirmative: ayes 84, noes 9.
Question
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-07.120.1) introduced by Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) (Independent), which means they failed and won't be included in the bill. ### What did the amendments do? Dr Ryan [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-07.120.1): > *The Respect@Work report proposed that costs might be ordered against the applicant only where the court was satisfied that the party instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without cause. That model has not been adopted in this bill. Instead, this bill proposes a cost-neutrality approach in which litigants bear their own costs unless the court orders otherwise. The bill does set out various factors that the court must have regard to in making costs orders. Superficially, the cost-neutral arrangement represents an improvement on the status quo. In effect, however, its design and the uncertainty around its operation will serve to undermine access to justice by limiting the ability of applicants to secure legal representation. Taking a cost-neutrality approach to a relationship characterised by systemic inequality only serves to entrench that inequality.* > > *The amendment I have proposed offers an alternative: an equal-access approach. Under this proposal, each party will bear its own costs, except when the applicant is unsuccessful—that is, when the court has found that the respondent has engaged in discriminatory conduct, in which case the respondent will be liable to pay the applicant's costs, as they should. You should not be excused from bearing costs when you have broken the law. People and organisations found to have engaged in discrimination or harassment in breach of the law should have to pay the legal costs of the applicant. This will act as an incentive to change workplace cultures that permit discriminatory treatment. This
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.