Division
The majority voted against [amendments (2), (3), (6) to (10) and (12) to (14)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-06-15.29.1) introduced by NSW Senator [David Shoebridge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_shoebridge) (Greens), which means they did not succeed. ### What does this amendment do? Senator Shoebridge [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-06-15.29.1): > *One of the core recommendations of the Moss review was to expand the category of people to whom whistleblowers can go to seek professional assistance, to expand it unambiguously to the legal profession and appropriate legal advice and also to empower whistleblowers to make their disclosures appropriately and with the appropriate advice to comply with the PID Act [Public Interest Disclosure Act] and any other requirements. These amendments seek to expand the category of persons to whom whistleblowers can go to for professional assistance from not just lawyers, and in some cases government approved lawyers, to Australian legal practitioners or their relevant union representative.* > > *As we know, many public servants who are members of the CPSU or another union go to their union to seek advice on how they can step through a really hard workplace issue. You can't think of a harder workplace issue in many instances than trying to work out how to do a PID Act disclosure properly. The Greens firmly believe that appropriately skilled union officials should be available to whistleblowers to help them step through the complexity of making a PID Act disclosure.* ### Amendment text > *(2) Schedule 1, page 30 (before line 21), before item 51, insert:* > >> *50B Subsection 26(1) (table item 4, column 1)* >> >>> *Omit “Legal practitioner”, substitute “Professional assistance”.* >> >> *50C Subsection 26(1) (cell at table item 4, column 2)* >> >>> *Repeal the cell, substitute:* >>> >>> *(a) An Australian legal practitioner; or* >>> >>> *(b) a union represent
Senate, 2023-06-15. negative: ayes 11, noes 23.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments (2), (3), (6) to (10) and (12) to (14)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-06-15.29.1) introduced by NSW Senator [David Shoebridge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_shoebridge) (Greens), which means they did not succeed. ### What does this amendment do? Senator Shoebridge [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-06-15.29.1): > *One of the core recommendations of the Moss review was to expand the category of people to whom whistleblowers can go to seek professional assistance, to expand it unambiguously to the legal profession and appropriate legal advice and also to empower whistleblowers to make their disclosures appropriately and with the appropriate advice to comply with the PID Act [Public Interest Disclosure Act] and any other requirements. These amendments seek to expand the category of persons to whom whistleblowers can go to for professional assistance from not just lawyers, and in some cases government approved lawyers, to Australian legal practitioners or their relevant union representative.* > > *As we know, many public servants who are members of the CPSU or another union go to their union to seek advice on how they can step through a really hard workplace issue. You can't think of a harder workplace issue in many instances than trying to work out how to do a PID Act disclosure properly. The Greens firmly believe that appropriately skilled union officials should be available to whistleblowers to help them step through the complexity of making a PID Act disclosure.* ### Amendment text > *(2) Schedule 1, page 30 (before line 21), before item 51, insert:* > >> *50B Subsection 26(1) (table item 4, column 1)* >> >>> *Omit “Legal practitioner”, substitute “Professional assistance”.* >> >> *50C Subsection 26(1) (cell at table item 4, column 2)* >> >>> *Repeal the cell, substitute:* >>> >>> *(a) An Australian legal practitioner; or* >>> >>> *(b) a union represent
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.