|
representatives vote 2022-11-10#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-11-16 15:13:24
|
Title
Bills — Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022; Consideration in Detail- Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Opposition amendments
Description
<p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (31) as circulated in my name together:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-10.20.1) introduced by Bradfield MP [Paul Fletcher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bradfield/paul_fletcher) (Liberal), which means they failed.
- ### What do these amendments do?
- Mr Fletcher [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-11-10.9.1):
- > *Amendments (1), (9) and (25) of those that I've moved would remove provisions in the bill which go to the abolition of the Registered Organisations Commission.*
- >
- > [...]
- >
- > *Amendments (2) and (10) of those I've circulated would remove the provisions in the bill which abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission.*
- >
- > [...]
- >
- > *Amendments (3) to (8), (11) to (15), (23) to (24), (26) to (28) and (30) would remove all of the provisions in the bill relating to changes in multi-employer bargaining.*
- >
- > [...]
- >
- > *Amendment (29) would provide for the minister to be required to conduct a review of the operation of the amended provisions of the act after they have operated for 12 months.*
- >
- > [...]
- >
- > *Business groups are united in their condemnation of the common interest provision being so broad as to be simply ridiculous. The mere fact of two businesses physically being located together would satisfy the very wide definition of 'common interest.' ... Amendments (16), (20) and (22) would implement this change.*
- >
- > [...]
- >
- > *We're opposed to the compulsion in the legislation of the single interest employer authorisation provisions. Amendments (17) and (19) give effect to our opposition to the government's compulsion provisions. We oppose the way the bill has dealt with the question of public interest; amendment (18) gives effect to our position there. 'Common interest' needs a clear definition; amendment (21) gives effect to that. Amendment (29) would provide for the minister to be required to conduct a review of the operation of the amended provisions of the act after they have operated for 12 months.*
<p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2, 3 and 4), omit the table items.</p><p class="italic">(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 6, 7 and 8), omit the table items.</p><p class="italic">(3) Clause 2, page 4 (table item 21), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(4) Clause 2, page 4 (table item 24), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(5) Clause 2, page 4 (table item 27), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(6) Clause 2, pages 4 and 5 (table item 28), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(7) Clause 2, page 5 (table item 29), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(8) Clause 2, page 5 (table item 30), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(9) Clause 2, page 5 (table item 34), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(10) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 6 (line 2) to page 32 (line 29), omit the Part.</p><p class="italic">(11) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 41 (line 1) to page 79 (line 22), omit the Part.</p><p class="italic">(12) Schedule 1, Part 15, page 162 (lines 1 to 27), omit the Part.</p><p class="italic">(13) Schedule 1, Part 18, page 173 (line 1) to page 178 (line 18), omit the Part.</p><p class="italic">(14) Schedule 1, Division 3 of Part 19, page 184 (lines 5 to 16), omit the Division.</p><p class="italic">(15) Schedule 1, Part 20, page 187 (line 1) to page 200 (line 25), omit the Part.</p><p class="italic">(16) Schedule 1, Part 21, page 201 (line 1) to page 213 (line 19), omit the Part.</p><p class="italic">(17) Schedule 1, item 629, page 204 (lines 29 and 30), omit "is not a small business employer", substitute "employs more than 200 employees who are full-time equivalent employees".</p><p class="italic">(18) Schedule 1, item 634, page 208 (lines 9 and 10), omit subparagraph 249(3)(a)(i), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(i) each employer has consented to the application; and</p><p class="italic">(19) Schedule 1, item 634, page 208 (line 23), omit "is not contrary to the public interest", substitute "is in the public interest".</p><p class="italic">(20) Schedule 1, item 634, page 208 (line 25) to page 209 (line 3), omit subsection 249(3A).</p><p class="italic">(21) Schedule 1, item 634, page 208 (line 27), omit "is not a small business employer", substitute "employs more than 200 employees who are full-time equivalent employees".</p><p class="italic">(22) Schedule 1, item 634, page 209 (lines 12 to 16), omit paragraphs 249(3C)(a) to (c), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(a) the history of bargaining of each of the relevant employers, including whether they have previously bargained together;</p><p class="italic">(b) the interests that the relevant employers have in common, and the extent to which those interests are relevant to whether they should be permitted to bargain together;</p><p class="italic">(c) whether the relevant employers are governed by a common regulatory regime;</p><p class="italic">(d) whether it would be more appropriate for each of the relevant employers to make a separate enterprise agreement with its employees;</p><p class="italic">(e) the extent to which the relevant employers operate collaboratively rather than competitively.</p><p class="italic">(23) Schedule 1, item 639, page 211 (line 32), omit "is not a small business employer", substitute "employs more than 200 employees who are full-time equivalent employees".</p><p class="italic">(24) Schedule 1, Part 22, page 214 (line 1) to page 217 (line 8), omit the Part.</p><p class="italic">(25) Schedule 1, Part 23, page 218 (line 1) to page 225 (line 30), omit the Part.</p><p class="italic">(26) Schedule 1, item 660, page 229 (line 19) to page 230 (line 7), omit Division 2.</p><p class="italic">(27) Schedule 1, item 660, page 235 (line 17) to page 236 (line 5), omit Division 14.</p><p class="italic">(28) Schedule 1, item 660, page 236 (lines 23 to 31), omit subclauses 72(4) and (5).</p><p class="italic">(29) Schedule 1, item 660, page 237 (line 9) to page 239 (line 26), omit Divisions 16 and 17.</p><p class="italic">(30) Schedule 1, item 660, page 240 (after line 24), at the end of Part 13, add:</p><p class="italic">Division 20 — Review of operation of amendments</p><p class="italic">85 Review of operation of amendments</p><p class="italic">(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 1 to the amending Act to be conducted by an independent expert as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 12 months starting on the day the amending Act receives the Royal Assent.</p><p class="italic">(2) The person who conducts the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.</p><p class="italic">(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister</p><p class="italic">(31) Schedule 1, Division 2 of Part 26, page 241 (line 1) to page 242 (line 19), omit the Division.</p><p>These amendments relate to the very extensive sections of this bill that are, in the view of the opposition, entirely objectionable. The Registered Organisations Commission would be abolished by this bill. We are opposed to the abolition of the Registered Organisations Commission because it would effectively shield the government's union paymasters from the scrutiny that they ought to be subject to, as any other organisation in our community ought to be subject to. Registered organisations are afforded special privileges in the industrial relations system. They control assets worth millions of dollars and have a large amount of trust placed in them by their members. The Registered Organisations Commission, together with the Australian Building and Construction Commission, was critical in guarding against union misconduct—</p> <p class="speaker">Hon. Members</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The House will come to order. If members are engaging in conversations, can they cease or leave the House? The manager will be heard in silence, and I give him the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Registered Organisations Commission together with the Australian Building and Construction Commission did an effective job in guarding against union misconduct and lawlessness in the construction industry. Amendments (1), (9) and (25) of those that I've moved would remove provisions in the bill which go to the abolition of the Registered Organisations Commission.</p><p>The opposition is also completely opposed to the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We oppose this abolition because, effectively, it hands over control of the construction industry to the notoriously militant CFMMEU. The name of that union is a byword for bullying, intimidation, lawlessness, criminal conduct and thuggishness in the construction sector. When Labor last abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission—they have form in this—two-thirds of working days lost to industrial action were in the construction industry. The abolition at that time caused the rate of disputes in the construction sector to increase by 46 per cent at a time when disputes in other sectors declined by 31 per cent. It is not okay, for example, for women in the construction industry to be targeted with sexist slurs and physical threats and that, sadly, is what we have consistently seen with the CFMMEU, and the Australian Building and Construction Commission has been an effective means of protecting against some of the worst of those excesses. Amendments (2) and (10) of those I've circulated would remove the provisions in the bill which abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission.</p><p>The opposition is trenchantly opposed to the multi-employer bargaining provisions contained in this bill. They amount to Labor's intent to kill off enterprise bargaining and to replace it with a new centralised wage-fixing system and umpire. Amendments (3) to (8), (11) to (15), (23) to (24), (26) to (28) and (30) would remove all of the provisions in the bill relating to changes in multi-employer bargaining. We are opposed to the bill's expansion of the single interest stream that would allow the Fair Work Commission to authorise workers with common interests to bargain together. Business groups are united in their condemnation of the common interest provision being so broad as to be simply ridiculous. The mere fact of two businesses physically being located together would satisfy the very wide definition of 'common interest.' The ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said that this test exposes the Australian economy to sectorwide strike action, disrupting supply chains and key industries at a time of extraordinary global volatility. Amendments (16), (20) and (22) would implement this change.</p><p>We're opposed to the compulsion in the legislation of the single interest employer authorisation provisions. Amendments (17) and (19) give effect to our opposition to the government's compulsion provisions. We oppose the way the bill has dealt with the question of public interest; amendment (18) gives effect to our position there. 'Common interest' needs a clear definition; amendment (21) gives effect to that. Amendment (29) would provide for the minister to be required to conduct a review of the operation of the amended provisions of the act after they have operated for 12 months.</p><p>This is a truly dreadful bill which will take Australia back to the grim, dark days of the 1970s, with pattern bargaining, repeated strikes and a sluggish and unproductive economy. That is what we face, and our amendments seek to deal with the most egregious elements of this bill. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Before I call the Leader of the House, there is still far too much noise in the House. I give the call to the Leader of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Before I make my remarks, I need to ask a quick question of the mover, simply because I'm not sure if the version that's been circulated is the same as the one's that has been moved. It might have just been speaking notes or a late change, but the reference that was given to what's here as section 30 on the review was described in the speech as section 29. I don't know if that means the version that's circulated is different or if I've got the wrong one. I don't want to—</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I can tell you that, when a small business—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Paul, you don't have the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>is visited by the thugs of the CFMMEU carrying baseball bats, they're not going—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order! You don't have the call. Resume your seat.</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p><p>Order! Members on my right! The minister for skills! I didn't hear what the Manager of Opposition Business was saying. There was a question raised. I'll give the call to the Leader of the House. I'm not sure if clarification has been sought—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>No, it hasn't.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>but I'll give him the call, and he may continue with his speech.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>For the benefit of the House, the description that was given of what section 29 says was wrong, and the description of what section 21 says is wrong. I don't know if that means he's moving something different, or whether what's been circulated is right and he gave the wrong speech. I think we can work on the basis that this amendment is not ready. I think we can also work on the basis that—</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p><p>I'm sure there are going to be more contributions, particularly from the crossbench—and this debate will continue into the Senate—on how you reasonably define a 'small business', and there is a reasonable conversation to be had there. But this amendment says small business exemptions should be given to anyone with up to 200 employees. 'Up to 200 employees' should be the definition of a small business! They've also attempted to take out altogether the low-paid-stream access to bargaining. So everything that's been said about feminised industries, about child care, about aged care, about getting wages moving in these sectors—they're taking all of that out. They also want to define a small business as 200 employees. On top of that, they're not quite sure what they're moving. We'll be opposing this.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business—these are opposition amendments (1) to (31)—be disagreed to.</p> -
-
|