Division
The majority voted against a [request for an amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-11-10.20.1) introduced by South Australian Senator [Rex Patrick](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/rex_patrick) (Independent), which means it failed. ### What does the amendment do? Senator Patrick [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-11-10.20.1): > *For the benefit of the chamber, what this amendment seeks to do is to deal with a discriminatory aspect of the bill as it currently stands in conjunction with the rules. The JobMaker scheme will permit a payment of $200 for new employees that are within the age bracket 16 to 29, scaling down to $100 per week for employees that are in the age bracket of 30 to 35.* > > *Last week at the committee that was examining this bill, I tabled some Seek advertisements. Those advertisements were for jobs, and those advertisements had the words in them, 'In order to apply for this job you must be eligible for JobMaker.' In effect, what that was saying was if you are 36 or 37 or 38 or anywhere above 35 you need not apply for this job. That is discriminatory. We have a lot of mature workers in our community who add value and who are also struggling to get jobs as a result of what's happened with COVID-19. This bill offers no help to employers to employ them, so, by its very nature, it operates as an incentive to exclude them, to discriminate against them.* ### Amendment request text > *That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:* > > *(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 24), after item 3, insert:* > > *3A After section 7* > >> *Insert:* >> >> *7A Requirements for rules that provide for jobmaker hiring credit scheme* >> >> *(1) This section applies if rules are made for the purpose of subsection 7(1A) that provide for a kind of payment known as the jobmaker hiring credit.* >> >> *(2) The rules must not:* >> >>> *(a) include eligibility requirements that p
Senate, 2020-11-10. negative: ayes 11, noes 32.
Question
The majority voted against a [request for an amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-11-10.20.1) introduced by South Australian Senator [Rex Patrick](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/rex_patrick) (Independent), which means it failed. ### What does the amendment do? Senator Patrick [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-11-10.20.1): > *For the benefit of the chamber, what this amendment seeks to do is to deal with a discriminatory aspect of the bill as it currently stands in conjunction with the rules. The JobMaker scheme will permit a payment of $200 for new employees that are within the age bracket 16 to 29, scaling down to $100 per week for employees that are in the age bracket of 30 to 35.* > > *Last week at the committee that was examining this bill, I tabled some Seek advertisements. Those advertisements were for jobs, and those advertisements had the words in them, 'In order to apply for this job you must be eligible for JobMaker.' In effect, what that was saying was if you are 36 or 37 or 38 or anywhere above 35 you need not apply for this job. That is discriminatory. We have a lot of mature workers in our community who add value and who are also struggling to get jobs as a result of what's happened with COVID-19. This bill offers no help to employers to employ them, so, by its very nature, it operates as an incentive to exclude them, to discriminate against them.* ### Amendment request text > *That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:* > > *(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 24), after item 3, insert:* > > *3A After section 7* > >> *Insert:* >> >> *7A Requirements for rules that provide for jobmaker hiring credit scheme* >> >> *(1) This section applies if rules are made for the purpose of subsection 7(1A) that provide for a kind of payment known as the jobmaker hiring credit.* >> >> *(2) The rules must not:* >> >>> *(a) include eligibility requirements that p
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.