Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-12-01.415.1) introduced by Senator [Barbara Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/barbara_pocock) (Greens), which means they failed. ### What were the amendments? Senator Pocock [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-12-01.415.1): > *This amendment does two things. It widens the eligibility for the right to request flexibility, and it establishes a positive duty in favour of creating flexible workplace in Australia. It's 2022. Flexibility should be available to all employees, not just those with narrowly defined family responsibilities. It's only when seeking flexibility is something available to all that the stigma will be removed from asking for it, and we will see more men seeking flexibility and hopefully sharing domestic and care duties as a consequence. Wider eligibility for flexibility has been adopted in the UK, based on clear evidence about its value. Guess what? The sky has not fallen.* > > *The second part of this amendment establishes a positive duty to create flexible workplaces. A modern workplace should create an environment that actively anticipates and responds to the needs of its workers and doesn't require individuals to have to push for it one by one individually, too often at risk of job security. So many employers already do this, talking to employees. This amendment will encourage others to create that positive flexible environment.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, Divisions 1 and 2, page 130 (line 2) to page 131 (line 17), omit the Divisions, substitute:* > >> *Division 1 — Requests for flexible working arrangements* >> >> *Fair Work Act 2009* >> >> *446 Subsections 65(1), (1A) and (1B)* >> >> *Repeal the subsections, substitute:* >> >>> *(1) If an employee would like to change his or her working arrangements, the employee may request the employer for a change in working arrangements.* >>> >>> *Note: Exa
Senate, 2022-12-01. negative: ayes 13, noes 39.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-12-01.415.1) introduced by Senator [Barbara Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/barbara_pocock) (Greens), which means they failed. ### What were the amendments? Senator Pocock [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-12-01.415.1): > *This amendment does two things. It widens the eligibility for the right to request flexibility, and it establishes a positive duty in favour of creating flexible workplace in Australia. It's 2022. Flexibility should be available to all employees, not just those with narrowly defined family responsibilities. It's only when seeking flexibility is something available to all that the stigma will be removed from asking for it, and we will see more men seeking flexibility and hopefully sharing domestic and care duties as a consequence. Wider eligibility for flexibility has been adopted in the UK, based on clear evidence about its value. Guess what? The sky has not fallen.* > > *The second part of this amendment establishes a positive duty to create flexible workplaces. A modern workplace should create an environment that actively anticipates and responds to the needs of its workers and doesn't require individuals to have to push for it one by one individually, too often at risk of job security. So many employers already do this, talking to employees. This amendment will encourage others to create that positive flexible environment.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, Divisions 1 and 2, page 130 (line 2) to page 131 (line 17), omit the Divisions, substitute:* > >> *Division 1 — Requests for flexible working arrangements* >> >> *Fair Work Act 2009* >> >> *446 Subsections 65(1), (1A) and (1B)* >> >> *Repeal the subsections, substitute:* >> >>> *(1) If an employee would like to change his or her working arrangements, the employee may request the employer for a change in working arrangements.* >>> >>> *Note: Exa
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.