Division Description Changes — Bills — Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013; Consideration in Detail — 6th Jun 2013

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:19:39	Title Description The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.(More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118 here]. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22 here]. ) The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley] and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes. Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill. (''Note: there is an error in Parliament's data that incorrectly shows this division as drawn. We're [https://github.com/openaustralia/publicwhip/issues/488 working to fix] this problem.'') ~~''Debate in Parliament''~~ The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions. Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives Bill Shorten], speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.(Read MP Shorten's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1 here]. ) Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.(Read MP Ley's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1 here].) ~~''Background to the bill''~~ This bill was partly made in response to a review of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the ''Fair Work Amendment Act 2012'' and this bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms. ~~References~~ The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.(More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118). The text of the proposed amendment can be found [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22). ) The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party MP [Sussan Ley](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives) and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes. Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill. (_Note: there is an error in Parliament's data that incorrectly shows this division as drawn. We're [working to fix](https://github.com/openaustralia/publicwhip/issues/488) this problem._) _Debate in Parliament_ The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions. Labor MP [Bill Shorten](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives), speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.(Read MP Shorten's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1). ) Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.(Read MP Ley's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1).) _Background to the bill_ This bill was partly made in response to a review of the _Fair Work Act 2009_ (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the _Fair Work Amendment Act 2012_ and this bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms. References
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:24	Title Description ~~The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.[1]~~ The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.(More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118 here]. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22 here]. ) The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley] and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes. Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill. (''Note: there is an error in Parliament's data that incorrectly shows this division as drawn. We're [https://github.com/openaustralia/publicwhip/issues/488 working to fix] this problem.'') ''Debate in Parliament'' The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions. Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives Bill Shorten], speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.[2] Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives Bill Shorten], speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.(Read MP Shorten's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1 here]. ) ~~Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.[3]~~ Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.(Read MP Ley's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1 here].) ''Background to the bill'' This bill was partly made in response to a review of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the ''Fair Work Amendment Act 2012'' and this bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms. References * [1] More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118 here]. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22 here]. * [2] Read MP Shorten's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1 here]. * [3] Read MP Ley's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1 here].
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by Henare Degan on 2014-09-18 12:54:18	Title Description The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.[1] The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley] and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes. Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill. (''Note'' there is an error in Parliament's data that incorrectly shows this division as drawn. We're [https://github.com/openaustralia/publicwhip/issues/488 working to fix] this problem.) Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill. (''Note: there is an error in Parliament's data that incorrectly shows this division as drawn. We're [https://github.com/openaustralia/publicwhip/issues/488 working to fix] this problem.'') ''Debate in Parliament'' The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions. Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives Bill Shorten], speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.[2] Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.[3] ''Background to the bill'' This bill was partly made in response to a review of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the ''Fair Work Amendment Act 2012'' and this bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms. References * [1] More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118 here]. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22 here]. * [2] Read MP Shorten's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1 here]. * [3] Read MP Ley's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1 here].
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by Henare Degan on 2014-09-18 12:53:47	Title ~~Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 - Consideration in Detail - Right of entry~~ Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 — Consideration in Detail — Right of entry Description The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.[1] The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley] and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes. Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill. Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill. (''Note'' there is an error in Parliament's data that incorrectly shows this division as drawn. We're [https://github.com/openaustralia/publicwhip/issues/488 working to fix] this problem.) ''Debate in Parliament'' The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions. Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives Bill Shorten], speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.[2] Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.[3] ''Background to the bill'' This bill was partly made in response to a review of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the ''Fair Work Amendment Act 2012'' and this bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms. References * [1] More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118 here]. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22 here]. * [2] Read MP Shorten's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1 here]. * [3] Read MP Ley's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1 here].
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-17 11:21:58	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.</p> The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.[1] <p>The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.</p> The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley] and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes. <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the Bill.</p> Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill. <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> ''Debate in Parliament'' <p>The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions.</p> The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions. <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.</p> Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives Bill Shorten], speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.[2] <p>Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.</p> Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.[3] ~~<p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>~~ ''Background to the bill'' <p>This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the <i>Fair Work Amendment Act 2012</i> and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.</p> This bill was partly made in response to a review of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the ''Fair Work Amendment Act 2012'' and this bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms. <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.</p> <p>As a result of the Coalition’s election in 2013, it is likely that there will be changes made to the right of entry.</p> References * [1] More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118 here]. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22 here]. * [2] Read MP Shorten's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1 here]. * [3] Read MP Ley's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1 here].
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-27 10:35:45	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.</p> <p>The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the Bill.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions.</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.</p> <p>Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Opposition were concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.</p> <p>Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the <i>Fair Work Amendment Act 2012</i> and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.</p> <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.</p> <p>As a result of the Coalition’s election in 2013, it is likely that there will be changes made to the right of entry.</p>
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-27 10:34:11	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.</p> <p>The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the Bill.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to keep the provisions.</p> <p>The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions.</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.</p> <p>Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Opposition were concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the <i>Fair Work Amendment Act 2012</i> and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.</p> <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.</p> <p>As a result of the Coalition’s election in 2013, it is likely that there will be changes made to the right of entry.</p>
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-27 10:30:59	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.</p> <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions expand the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.</p> <p>The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the Bill.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to keep the provisions.</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.</p> <p>Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Opposition were concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the <i>Fair Work Amendment Act 2012</i> and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.</p> <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.</p> <p>As a result of the Coalition’s election in 2013, it is likely that there will be changes made to the right of entry.</p>
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-27 09:31:57	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions establish an expanded framework under which permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) may enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the amendments. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful.</p> <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions expand the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the Bill.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the expanded right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to retain the provisions.</p> <p>The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to keep the provisions.</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the <i>Fair Work Amendment Act 2012</i> and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.</p> <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.</p> <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-27 09:24:25	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions establish an expanded framework under which permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) may enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.</p> <p>Someone who voted aye supported the amendments. An equal number of members voted aye and no so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the amendments. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the expanded right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to retain the provisions.</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.</p> <p>The Coalition Opposition were particularly concerned with the new provisions which state that the default place where permit holders can conduct interviews and discussions on a work premises is the place where workers normally take a meal, such as the lunch room. Liberal MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> these provisions would allow union officials to undertake “lunchroom invasions”. Note that this Bill also contains provisions that allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with misuse of rights by permit holders.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the <i>Fair Work Amendment Act 2012</i> and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.</p> <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.</p> <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-27 09:18:35	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions establish an expanded framework under which permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) may enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.</p> <p>Someone who voted aye supported the amendments. An equal number of members voted aye and no so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the expanded right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to retain the provisions.</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.</p> <p>The Coalition Opposition were particularly concerned with the new provisions which state that the default place where permit holders can conduct interviews and discussions on a work premises is the place where workers normally take a meal, such as the lunch room. Liberal MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> these provisions would allow union officials to undertake “lunchroom invasions”. Note that the bill also contains provisions that allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with misuse of rights by permit holders.</p> <p>The Coalition Opposition were particularly concerned with the new provisions which state that the default place where permit holders can conduct interviews and discussions on a work premises is the place where workers normally take a meal, such as the lunch room. Liberal MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> these provisions would allow union officials to undertake “lunchroom invasions”. Note that this Bill also contains provisions that allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with misuse of rights by permit holders.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the <i>Fair Work Amendment Act 2012</i> and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.</p> <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href=“http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118”>here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href=“http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22”>here</a>.</p> <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-27 09:15:13	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions establish an expanded framework under which permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) may enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.</p> <p>Someone who voted aye supported the amendments. An equal number of members voted aye and no so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the expanded right of entry provisions from the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to retain the provisions.</p> <p>The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the expanded right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to retain the provisions.</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.</p> <p>The Coalition Opposition were particularly concerned with the new provisions which state that the default place where permit holders can conduct interviews and discussions on a work premises is the place where workers normally take a meal, such as the lunch room. Liberal MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> these provisions would allow union officials to undertake “lunchroom invasions”. Note that the bill also contains provisions that allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with misuse of rights by permit holders.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the <i>Fair Work Amendment Act 2012</i> and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.</p> <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href=“http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118”>here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href=“http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22”>here</a>.</p> <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href=“http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118”>here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href=“http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22”>here</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2013-06-06#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-27 09:13:59	Title Bills — Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013; Consideration in Detail Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 - Consideration in Detail - Right of entry Description ~~<p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Josh Frydenberg</p>~~ <p>After the debacle of the member for Throsby not being present, I wanted to debate the Scottish svengali, John McTiernan, on his 457. I wanted to debate that in the House and why the TWU has employed three people—</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>The member for Kooyong will get to the amendments or I will sit him down.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Josh Frydenberg</p>~~ <p>Here I am finding myself debating an important amendment that we put forward about the right of entry. The reason we have to debate this point is the Labor Party has done a backflip under the pressure of the unions—their paymasters in the unions. Shame on you, Labor Party! Shame on you! Not only is it good enough that 50 per cent of all votes at the federal Labor conferences go to the unions but 100 per cent of members of those opposite in the caucus are also members of the union. If you go to the number of members of unions across the private sector of Australia, only 13 per cent are members of the union. Here we have right-of-entry provisions that this government wants to introduce to allow union bosses to go into the lunchtime hours of private sector workers across the country. What about the 87 per cent of the workers who are not members of the union? They want to eat their burger and chips in quiet. They do not want to have the union bosses storm into their lunchtime hours and try to recruit them.</p> <p>If it was not good enough that the Labor Party, whether in the childcare sector or in the aged-care sector, made someone's payments to those sectors contingent upon them joining a union, now they have taken it to the workplaces of every private sector employer in the country. That is not good enough, because it was not a recommendation of the Fair Work review panel hand-picked by those on the other side. They hand-picked their own reviewers, led by Professor McCallum, and those reviewers did not even recommend this amendment before the House. That is why the pieman, Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, said he was going to remove this amendment. But now he has got the phone call from the TWU and the CFMEU and the AWU—they have all rung his office at once and said, 'Bring back that right-of-entry provision.'</p> <p>What is absolutely outrageous about this is that it is in breach of the Prime Minister's promise to the Australian people. We had a promise from the Prime Minister about the carbon tax. We had a promise from the Prime Minister about private health insurance. We had a promise from the Prime Minister about family tax benefit A. And we had a promise from the Prime Minister about right of entry. This is what the Prime Minister said about keeping the right-of-entry provisions as they were, in the National Press Club debate on 8 November 2007:</p> ~~<p class="italic">I'm happy to do whatever you would like. If you'd like me to pledge to resign—</p>~~ ~~<p>yes, we would—</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">sign a contract in blood—</p>~~ <p>yes, we would—</p> ~~<p class="italic">take a polygraph—</p>~~ ~~<p>yes, we would—</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">bet my house on it—</p>~~ ~~<p>yes, we would—</p>~~ <p class="italic">give you my mother as a hostage—</p> <p>yes, we would—</p> <p class="italic">whatever you'd like.</p> <p>She said they would keep the right-of-entry provisions as they are. How outrageous is that? I say to the Independents: how outrageous is it that the Prime Minister goes to the Australian National Press Club and tells the people across this country—all 23 million of them—'We are going to keep the right-of-entry provisions as they are'?</p> <p>Again, Julia Gillard in a media press release on 28 August 2007 said, 'As of today federal Labor will maintain existing right-of-entry rules without exception.' They have not. We know, through the economic reforms that we introduced, that we delivered a 22 per cent increase in real wages and two million new jobs, paid back $96 billion of debt, lifted the credit rating from AA to AAA and doubled the crane works on our waterfront. That was as a result of our workplace relations reforms and our prudent economic management. Those on the other side have broken promise after promise to the Australian people, have come into this House and done a backflip out of all proportion and now are saying to every employer of Australia, 'Your lunchrooms are not safe because we will be in there at the first opportunity.' Shame on you, Labor Party! Shame on you!</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Bill Shorten</p>~~ <p>I have to respond to that fairytale espoused by the member for Kooyong. First of all, what is most revealing is to hear the member for Kooyong enthusiastically embrace the workplace relations system of the Howard era. I know that he is waiting for some of his shadow front bench to move on so he can see his own ambitions fulfilled—it is an open secret. I read the Peter van Onselen columns as much as you guys leak to them.</p> <p>But in terms of the member for Kooyong's speech, such as it was, he ran with his usual anti-union bile and prejudice. The provisions currently in the bill reform the right-of-entry regime in response to the recommendation findings from the independent Fair Work review panel. The provisions better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively.</p> <p>As a government we believe in freedom of association. We reject the language of the opposition where freedom of association somehow means an invasion. We believe that people have the right to choose to belong or not to belong to a union. We believe this is a fundamental right. We reject the proposition of the opposition that this freedom should be accessed only with the permission of an employer. We understand that the vast majority of trade unions and employer organisations are accountable to their members. We also believe that anyone in a position of trust or responsibility in a registered organisation has to comply with the law. We believe in balancing the right of employers to go about their business without undue interference, with the democratic right of employees to be represented in the workplace and to participate in discussions with their union at appropriate times. We reject the exaggerated language about joy-rides. There is no evidence that has been offered for that, not a scintilla of proof. That, as ever, has hardly stopped some of the anti-union, bigoted baiters opposite from attacking us.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Opposition Members</p>~~ ~~<p>Opposition members interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Bill Shorten</p>~~ <p>Touched a sore nerve there, I think. We do not believe employers should be out of pocket. We do not believe in employees being forced to talk to people to whom they do not wish to talk, but that is why the bill as it currently stands does not provide for any of the fears, concerns, dogma, propaganda, prejudice, bile and ignorance that we hear from those opposite.</p> <p>This debate proves yet again that you cannot trust conservatives on workplace relations. The contributions of those opposite yet again prove that the coalition are never straight with the Australian people on workplace relations. The bile, the prejudice and the anti-union hysteria of the far-right extremists which seem to be emerging in the ranks of the employee-hating conservatives prove yet again that the Liberal Party's policy position is anathema—</p> ~~<p>Opposition members interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Bruce Scott</p>~~ ~~<p>Order! Those on my left—</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">Mr Ciobo interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p>Member for Moncrieff! Those on my left will sit in silence. The minister has the call.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Bill Shorten</p>~~ ~~<p>The debate proves yet again that the conservatives' policy position is anathema to cooperative workplace relations. We oppose the amendments moved by the conservatives.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Sussan Ley</p>~~ <p>One question, Minister: why the backflip? I have here government amendments: 'Excise schedule 4'. The entire right-of-entry provisions were going to be taken out of this bill by you up until lunchtime today. So my short, sharp question—not debating the right of entry or the increased right of entry per se—is: why the backflip?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Bruce Billson</p>~~ <p>We had today an arrangement that had recognised clear deficiencies in these right-of-entry and joy-ride provisions—something even the government recognised—but then at the eleventh hour the provisions are back on the table. What happened? Was it the fully owned subsidiary of the union movement, being the Gillard Labor government, not having done enough to pay their dues to their sponsors? Is that what happened? It is not clear, because we have had no explanation.</p> <p>Bear a thought for the small businesses of Australia. It is bad enough that this government broke its promise not to disclose the addresses of home based businesses when it came to the Australian business name register. The small business community did not want their privacy breached by this national scheme that ignored the protections that were in the state based schemes, where home based businesses could provide another address as a point of contact and not have to tell the whole world where their home is. That promise was broken, and that broken promise on disclosure of people's home addresses for home based businesses is now matched by another one.</p> <p>You can imagine a union fronting up to someone's home based business, where there might be one or two people in there, and banging on the door—because of the broken promise about not having that privacy matter disclosed—and saying: 'I want to use your lunch room. Hang on; it's your home. I want to take over your dining room. I want to go into the family area. I want to go into the house.' Why? Because these laws have not been thought through.</p> <p>The only construct of economic contribution Labor understand is that of big organisations and big unions with big workforces where there are dozens of people who look after these tricky amendments and changes that this government is inflicting on people. Labor do not understand the nature of small business. Imagine if you were a corner store selling pies or something like that and someone came in wanting to talk to your staff—someone wanted to barge their way through the store area into what would be the family room of your home, if that business were attached to a home in a residential area.</p> <p>There has been no thought given to how these measures—which were supposed to be off the table last night but are now back on the table—will be yet another affront to the small business men and women of Australia. They have been let down time and time again. Their privacy has been breached. That was a broken promise. The Prime Minister provided all of these assurances and even said, 'I will bet my house on it.' Minister, small business men and women bet their house on their business every day and, if they are operating from home, they do not need someone coming in and demanding entry under your laws and then taking over their dining room. Why? Because not all workplaces are big unionised shops like you seem to think. There is a vast number—millions of people—contributing to the economy and the wellbeing of this nation who do not fit this construct that you have.</p> <p>The small business men and women of Australia have had a gutful of Labor, who have done nothing for them. Employment in that sector has gone down. The number of small businesses willing to employ is not even where it was back when this government was elected. We are seeing small business formation halved. Why? Because time and time again this Labor government has been completely insensitive and indifferent to the real-life challenges that small businesses face. Minister, this is an invitation for home based businesses to have their door knocked on—because you breached their privacy, in another broken promise—and to have someone demand access to their place. There is no lunch room; it is their lounge room; it is their dining room. It is their personal home. It is where their kids are.</p> <p>This is why you have not thought this through. This is why we thought you had actually been sensible in your assurance to the coalition that you would carve out these provisions. But something has happened. You got a knock on the door and someone said, 'Oh, Bill, Bill, as part of a labour movement, you are a fully owned subsidiary of the unions that are demanding this be put back in,' with no interest in its impact on the small business men and women who are creating opportunities across this continent. You have no idea about the pressures they face. These provisions should be carved out because you have not thought them through. These provisions are offensive. They are an affront to small business men and women. We say to all those tens of thousands of small business men and women who operate from their homes to create wealth and opportunity: you cannot count on Labor—they have never done anything for you—but you can count on the coalition, because we respect what you do, we recognise your contribution and we value the risk that you take, and you do not need a union person coming in and taking over your dining room as well.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Scott Buchholz</p>~~ <p>I will not detain the House for any longer than is absolutely necessary. I believe that, within the provisions of this bill, the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013—and my audience is the crossbenchers—there is a genuine unintended consequence for family business and for larger enterprises. The provision I speak of is linked to the right of entry—the lunch room invasion. In and around my electorate I have businesses that employ up to 800 people on site. As a show of good faith, these businesses forgo business space on their sites and give that free of charge to the union movement so that the union delegates on site, who are free to come and go as they wish, can meet with—</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Ed Husic</p>~~ ~~<p>No, they're not.</p>~~ <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p> <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions establish an expanded framework under which permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) may enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.</p> <p>Someone who voted aye supported the amendments. An equal number of members voted aye and no so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the expanded right of entry provisions from the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to retain the provisions.</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.</p> <p>The Coalition Opposition were particularly concerned with the new provisions which state that the default place where permit holders can conduct interviews and discussions on a work premises is the place where workers normally take a meal, such as the lunch room. Liberal MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> these provisions would allow union officials to undertake “lunchroom invasions”. Note that the bill also contains provisions that allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with misuse of rights by permit holders.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the <i>Fair Work Amendment Act 2012</i> and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.</p> <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href=“http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118”>here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href=“http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22”>here</a>.</p>

Change

Division

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:19:39

Title

Description

The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.(More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118 here]. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22 here]. )
The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley] and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill.
(''Note: there is an error in Parliament's data that incorrectly shows this division as drawn. We're [https://github.com/openaustralia/publicwhip/issues/488 working to fix] this problem.'')
~~''Debate in Parliament''~~
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions.
Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives Bill Shorten], speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.(Read MP Shorten's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1 here]. )
Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.(Read MP Ley's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1 here].)
~~''Background to the bill''~~
This bill was partly made in response to a review of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the ''Fair Work Amendment Act 2012'' and this bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
~~References~~
The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.(More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118). The text of the proposed amendment can be found [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22). )
The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party MP [Sussan Ley](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives) and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill.
(_Note: there is an error in Parliament's data that incorrectly shows this division as drawn. We're [working to fix](https://github.com/openaustralia/publicwhip/issues/488) this problem._)
_Debate in Parliament_
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions.
Labor MP [Bill Shorten](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives), speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.(Read MP Shorten's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1). )
Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.(Read MP Ley's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1).)
_Background to the bill_
This bill was partly made in response to a review of the _Fair Work Act 2009_ (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the _Fair Work Amendment Act 2012_ and this bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
References

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:24

Title

Description

~~The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.[1]~~
The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.(More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118 here]. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22 here]. )
The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley] and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill.
(''Note: there is an error in Parliament's data that incorrectly shows this division as drawn. We're [https://github.com/openaustralia/publicwhip/issues/488 working to fix] this problem.'')
''Debate in Parliament''
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions.
Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives Bill Shorten], speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.[2]
Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives Bill Shorten], speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.(Read MP Shorten's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1 here]. )
~~Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.[3]~~
Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.(Read MP Ley's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1 here].)
''Background to the bill''
This bill was partly made in response to a review of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the ''Fair Work Amendment Act 2012'' and this bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
References
* [1] More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118 here]. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22 here].
* [2] Read MP Shorten's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1 here].
* [3] Read MP Ley's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1 here].

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by Henare Degan

on 2014-09-18 12:54:18

Title

Description

The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.[1]
The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley] and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill. (''Note'' there is an error in Parliament's data that incorrectly shows this division as drawn. We're [https://github.com/openaustralia/publicwhip/issues/488 working to fix] this problem.)
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill.
(''Note: there is an error in Parliament's data that incorrectly shows this division as drawn. We're [https://github.com/openaustralia/publicwhip/issues/488 working to fix] this problem.'')
''Debate in Parliament''
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions.
Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives Bill Shorten], speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.[2]
Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.[3]
''Background to the bill''
This bill was partly made in response to a review of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the ''Fair Work Amendment Act 2012'' and this bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
References
* [1] More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118 here]. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22 here].
* [2] Read MP Shorten's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1 here].
* [3] Read MP Ley's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1 here].

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by Henare Degan

on 2014-09-18 12:53:47

Title

~~Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 - Consideration in Detail - Right of entry~~
Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 — Consideration in Detail — Right of entry

Description

The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.[1]
The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley] and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill. (''Note'' there is an error in Parliament's data that incorrectly shows this division as drawn. We're [https://github.com/openaustralia/publicwhip/issues/488 working to fix] this problem.)
''Debate in Parliament''
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions.
Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives Bill Shorten], speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.[2]
Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.[3]
''Background to the bill''
This bill was partly made in response to a review of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the ''Fair Work Amendment Act 2012'' and this bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
References
* [1] More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118 here]. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22 here].
* [2] Read MP Shorten's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1 here].
* [3] Read MP Ley's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1 here].

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-17 11:21:58

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.
The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.[1]
The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley] and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the Bill.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the bill.
Debate in Parliament
''Debate in Parliament''
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions.
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.
Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives Bill Shorten], speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.[2]
Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.
Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley said that the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.[3]
~~Background to the Bill~~
''Background to the bill''
This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
This bill was partly made in response to a review of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the ''Fair Work Amendment Act 2012'' and this bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.
As a result of the Coalition’s election in 2013, it is likely that there will be changes made to the right of entry.
References
* [1] More information about the bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118 here]. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0141;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22 here].
* [2] Read MP Shorten's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.112.1 here].
* [3] Read MP Ley's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-06-06.107.1 here].

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-27 10:35:45

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.
The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the Bill.
Debate in Parliament
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.
Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Opposition were concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.
Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Opposition was concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.
Background to the Bill
This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.
As a result of the Coalition’s election in 2013, it is likely that there will be changes made to the right of entry.

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-27 10:34:11

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.
The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the Bill.
Debate in Parliament
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to keep the provisions.
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently decided to keep the provisions.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.
Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Opposition were concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.
Background to the Bill
This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.
As a result of the Coalition’s election in 2013, it is likely that there will be changes made to the right of entry.

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-27 10:30:59

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.
The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions expand the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the Bill.
Debate in Parliament
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to keep the provisions.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.
Liberal Party MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Opposition were concerned that union officials would take advantage of the provisions.
Background to the Bill
This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.
As a result of the Coalition’s election in 2013, it is likely that there will be changes made to the right of entry.

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-27 09:31:57

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions establish an expanded framework under which permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) may enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendments. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful.
The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions expand the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful and that the right of entry provisions remained in the Bill.
Debate in Parliament
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the expanded right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to retain the provisions.
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to keep the provisions.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.
Background to the Bill
This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-27 09:24:25

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions establish an expanded framework under which permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) may enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted aye supported the amendments. An equal number of members voted aye and no so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful.
Someone who voted Aye supported the amendments. An equal number of members voted Aye and No so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the Noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful.
Debate in Parliament
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the expanded right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to retain the provisions.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.
The Coalition Opposition were particularly concerned with the new provisions which state that the default place where permit holders can conduct interviews and discussions on a work premises is the place where workers normally take a meal, such as the lunch room. Liberal MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> these provisions would allow union officials to undertake “lunchroom invasions”. Note that this Bill also contains provisions that allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with misuse of rights by permit holders.
Background to the Bill
This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-27 09:18:35

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions establish an expanded framework under which permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) may enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted aye supported the amendments. An equal number of members voted aye and no so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful.
Debate in Parliament
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the expanded right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to retain the provisions.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.
The Coalition Opposition were particularly concerned with the new provisions which state that the default place where permit holders can conduct interviews and discussions on a work premises is the place where workers normally take a meal, such as the lunch room. Liberal MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> these provisions would allow union officials to undertake “lunchroom invasions”. Note that the bill also contains provisions that allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with misuse of rights by permit holders.
The Coalition Opposition were particularly concerned with the new provisions which state that the default place where permit holders can conduct interviews and discussions on a work premises is the place where workers normally take a meal, such as the lunch room. Liberal MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> these provisions would allow union officials to undertake “lunchroom invasions”. Note that this Bill also contains provisions that allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with misuse of rights by permit holders.
Background to the Bill
This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href=“http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118”>here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href=“http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22”>here</a>.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118">here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">here</a>.

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-27 09:15:13

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions establish an expanded framework under which permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) may enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted aye supported the amendments. An equal number of members voted aye and no so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful.
Debate in Parliament
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the expanded right of entry provisions from the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to retain the provisions.
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the expanded right of entry provisions from the Bill. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to retain the provisions.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.
The Coalition Opposition were particularly concerned with the new provisions which state that the default place where permit holders can conduct interviews and discussions on a work premises is the place where workers normally take a meal, such as the lunch room. Liberal MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> these provisions would allow union officials to undertake “lunchroom invasions”. Note that the bill also contains provisions that allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with misuse of rights by permit holders.
Background to the Bill
This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href=“http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118”>here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href=“http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22”>here</a>.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href=“http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118”>here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href=“http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22”>here</a>.

representatives vote 2013-06-06#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-27 09:13:59

Title

Bills — Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013; Consideration in Detail
Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 - Consideration in Detail - Right of entry

Description

~~Anna Burke~~
~~The question is that the amendments be agreed to.~~
~~Josh Frydenberg~~
After the debacle of the member for Throsby not being present, I wanted to debate the Scottish svengali, John McTiernan, on his 457. I wanted to debate that in the House and why the TWU has employed three people—
~~Anna Burke~~
~~The member for Kooyong will get to the amendments or I will sit him down.~~
~~Josh Frydenberg~~
Here I am finding myself debating an important amendment that we put forward about the right of entry. The reason we have to debate this point is the Labor Party has done a backflip under the pressure of the unions—their paymasters in the unions. Shame on you, Labor Party! Shame on you! Not only is it good enough that 50 per cent of all votes at the federal Labor conferences go to the unions but 100 per cent of members of those opposite in the caucus are also members of the union. If you go to the number of members of unions across the private sector of Australia, only 13 per cent are members of the union. Here we have right-of-entry provisions that this government wants to introduce to allow union bosses to go into the lunchtime hours of private sector workers across the country. What about the 87 per cent of the workers who are not members of the union? They want to eat their burger and chips in quiet. They do not want to have the union bosses storm into their lunchtime hours and try to recruit them.
If it was not good enough that the Labor Party, whether in the childcare sector or in the aged-care sector, made someone's payments to those sectors contingent upon them joining a union, now they have taken it to the workplaces of every private sector employer in the country. That is not good enough, because it was not a recommendation of the Fair Work review panel hand-picked by those on the other side. They hand-picked their own reviewers, led by Professor McCallum, and those reviewers did not even recommend this amendment before the House. That is why the pieman, Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, said he was going to remove this amendment. But now he has got the phone call from the TWU and the CFMEU and the AWU—they have all rung his office at once and said, 'Bring back that right-of-entry provision.'
What is absolutely outrageous about this is that it is in breach of the Prime Minister's promise to the Australian people. We had a promise from the Prime Minister about the carbon tax. We had a promise from the Prime Minister about private health insurance. We had a promise from the Prime Minister about family tax benefit A. And we had a promise from the Prime Minister about right of entry. This is what the Prime Minister said about keeping the right-of-entry provisions as they were, in the National Press Club debate on 8 November 2007:
~~I'm happy to do whatever you would like. If you'd like me to pledge to resign—~~
~~yes, we would—~~
~~sign a contract in blood—~~
yes, we would—
~~take a polygraph—~~
~~yes, we would—~~
~~bet my house on it—~~
~~yes, we would—~~
give you my mother as a hostage—
yes, we would—
whatever you'd like.
She said they would keep the right-of-entry provisions as they are. How outrageous is that? I say to the Independents: how outrageous is it that the Prime Minister goes to the Australian National Press Club and tells the people across this country—all 23 million of them—'We are going to keep the right-of-entry provisions as they are'?
Again, Julia Gillard in a media press release on 28 August 2007 said, 'As of today federal Labor will maintain existing right-of-entry rules without exception.' They have not. We know, through the economic reforms that we introduced, that we delivered a 22 per cent increase in real wages and two million new jobs, paid back $96 billion of debt, lifted the credit rating from AA to AAA and doubled the crane works on our waterfront. That was as a result of our workplace relations reforms and our prudent economic management. Those on the other side have broken promise after promise to the Australian people, have come into this House and done a backflip out of all proportion and now are saying to every employer of Australia, 'Your lunchrooms are not safe because we will be in there at the first opportunity.' Shame on you, Labor Party! Shame on you!
~~Bill Shorten~~
I have to respond to that fairytale espoused by the member for Kooyong. First of all, what is most revealing is to hear the member for Kooyong enthusiastically embrace the workplace relations system of the Howard era. I know that he is waiting for some of his shadow front bench to move on so he can see his own ambitions fulfilled—it is an open secret. I read the Peter van Onselen columns as much as you guys leak to them.
But in terms of the member for Kooyong's speech, such as it was, he ran with his usual anti-union bile and prejudice. The provisions currently in the bill reform the right-of-entry regime in response to the recommendation findings from the independent Fair Work review panel. The provisions better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively.
As a government we believe in freedom of association. We reject the language of the opposition where freedom of association somehow means an invasion. We believe that people have the right to choose to belong or not to belong to a union. We believe this is a fundamental right. We reject the proposition of the opposition that this freedom should be accessed only with the permission of an employer. We understand that the vast majority of trade unions and employer organisations are accountable to their members. We also believe that anyone in a position of trust or responsibility in a registered organisation has to comply with the law. We believe in balancing the right of employers to go about their business without undue interference, with the democratic right of employees to be represented in the workplace and to participate in discussions with their union at appropriate times. We reject the exaggerated language about joy-rides. There is no evidence that has been offered for that, not a scintilla of proof. That, as ever, has hardly stopped some of the anti-union, bigoted baiters opposite from attacking us.
~~Opposition Members~~
~~Opposition members interjecting—~~
~~Bill Shorten~~
Touched a sore nerve there, I think. We do not believe employers should be out of pocket. We do not believe in employees being forced to talk to people to whom they do not wish to talk, but that is why the bill as it currently stands does not provide for any of the fears, concerns, dogma, propaganda, prejudice, bile and ignorance that we hear from those opposite.
This debate proves yet again that you cannot trust conservatives on workplace relations. The contributions of those opposite yet again prove that the coalition are never straight with the Australian people on workplace relations. The bile, the prejudice and the anti-union hysteria of the far-right extremists which seem to be emerging in the ranks of the employee-hating conservatives prove yet again that the Liberal Party's policy position is anathema—
~~Opposition members interjecting—~~
~~Bruce Scott~~
~~Order! Those on my left—~~
~~Mr Ciobo interjecting—~~
~~Member for Moncrieff! Those on my left will sit in silence. The minister has the call.~~
~~Bill Shorten~~
~~The debate proves yet again that the conservatives' policy position is anathema to cooperative workplace relations. We oppose the amendments moved by the conservatives.~~
~~Sussan Ley~~
One question, Minister: why the backflip? I have here government amendments: 'Excise schedule 4'. The entire right-of-entry provisions were going to be taken out of this bill by you up until lunchtime today. So my short, sharp question—not debating the right of entry or the increased right of entry per se—is: why the backflip?
~~Bruce Billson~~
We had today an arrangement that had recognised clear deficiencies in these right-of-entry and joy-ride provisions—something even the government recognised—but then at the eleventh hour the provisions are back on the table. What happened? Was it the fully owned subsidiary of the union movement, being the Gillard Labor government, not having done enough to pay their dues to their sponsors? Is that what happened? It is not clear, because we have had no explanation.
Bear a thought for the small businesses of Australia. It is bad enough that this government broke its promise not to disclose the addresses of home based businesses when it came to the Australian business name register. The small business community did not want their privacy breached by this national scheme that ignored the protections that were in the state based schemes, where home based businesses could provide another address as a point of contact and not have to tell the whole world where their home is. That promise was broken, and that broken promise on disclosure of people's home addresses for home based businesses is now matched by another one.
You can imagine a union fronting up to someone's home based business, where there might be one or two people in there, and banging on the door—because of the broken promise about not having that privacy matter disclosed—and saying: 'I want to use your lunch room. Hang on; it's your home. I want to take over your dining room. I want to go into the family area. I want to go into the house.' Why? Because these laws have not been thought through.
The only construct of economic contribution Labor understand is that of big organisations and big unions with big workforces where there are dozens of people who look after these tricky amendments and changes that this government is inflicting on people. Labor do not understand the nature of small business. Imagine if you were a corner store selling pies or something like that and someone came in wanting to talk to your staff—someone wanted to barge their way through the store area into what would be the family room of your home, if that business were attached to a home in a residential area.
There has been no thought given to how these measures—which were supposed to be off the table last night but are now back on the table—will be yet another affront to the small business men and women of Australia. They have been let down time and time again. Their privacy has been breached. That was a broken promise. The Prime Minister provided all of these assurances and even said, 'I will bet my house on it.' Minister, small business men and women bet their house on their business every day and, if they are operating from home, they do not need someone coming in and demanding entry under your laws and then taking over their dining room. Why? Because not all workplaces are big unionised shops like you seem to think. There is a vast number—millions of people—contributing to the economy and the wellbeing of this nation who do not fit this construct that you have.
The small business men and women of Australia have had a gutful of Labor, who have done nothing for them. Employment in that sector has gone down. The number of small businesses willing to employ is not even where it was back when this government was elected. We are seeing small business formation halved. Why? Because time and time again this Labor government has been completely insensitive and indifferent to the real-life challenges that small businesses face. Minister, this is an invitation for home based businesses to have their door knocked on—because you breached their privacy, in another broken promise—and to have someone demand access to their place. There is no lunch room; it is their lounge room; it is their dining room. It is their personal home. It is where their kids are.
This is why you have not thought this through. This is why we thought you had actually been sensible in your assurance to the coalition that you would carve out these provisions. But something has happened. You got a knock on the door and someone said, 'Oh, Bill, Bill, as part of a labour movement, you are a fully owned subsidiary of the unions that are demanding this be put back in,' with no interest in its impact on the small business men and women who are creating opportunities across this continent. You have no idea about the pressures they face. These provisions should be carved out because you have not thought them through. These provisions are offensive. They are an affront to small business men and women. We say to all those tens of thousands of small business men and women who operate from their homes to create wealth and opportunity: you cannot count on Labor—they have never done anything for you—but you can count on the coalition, because we respect what you do, we recognise your contribution and we value the risk that you take, and you do not need a union person coming in and taking over your dining room as well.
~~Scott Buchholz~~
I will not detain the House for any longer than is absolutely necessary. I believe that, within the provisions of this bill, the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013—and my audience is the crossbenchers—there is a genuine unintended consequence for family business and for larger enterprises. The provision I speak of is linked to the right of entry—the lunch room invasion. In and around my electorate I have businesses that employ up to 800 people on site. As a show of good faith, these businesses forgo business space on their sites and give that free of charge to the union movement so that the union delegates on site, who are free to come and go as they wish, can meet with—
~~Ed Husic~~
~~No, they're not.~~
Long debate text truncated.
The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment was introduced by the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives">Sussan Ley MP</a> and would have removed the right of entry provisions from the Bill. These provisions establish an expanded framework under which permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) may enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes.
Someone who voted aye supported the amendments. An equal number of members voted aye and no so the Speaker had to give a casting vote to break the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Speaker voted with the noes. This means that the amendment was unsuccessful.
Debate in Parliament
The day before this amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition had reached an agreement to remove the expanded right of entry provisions from the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. However, the Government subsequently changed its position and decided to retain the provisions.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bill_Shorten&mpc=Maribyrnong&house=representatives">Bill Shorten MP</a>, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0154;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">speaking on behalf of the Government</a>, said that the right of entry provisions were based on recommendations made by the independent Fair Work Act Review Panel and that the provisions “better balance the right of unions representing employees to be able to represent their members professionally, with the need for their employers to go about their business productively”.
The Coalition Opposition were particularly concerned with the new provisions which state that the default place where permit holders can conduct interviews and discussions on a work premises is the place where workers normally take a meal, such as the lunch room. Liberal MP Sussan Ley <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22">said that</a> these provisions would allow union officials to undertake “lunchroom invasions”. Note that the bill also contains provisions that allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with misuse of rights by permit holders.
Background to the Bill
This Bill was partly made in response to a review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href=“http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd118”>here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href=“http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0145;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2e1f246a-60ce-487a-a9a5-0ecd042901f7%2F0000%22”>here</a>.