|
representatives vote 2012-03-22#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:19:28
|
Title
Description
The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley]. This means that the amendments were unsuccessful.Ms Ley explained that the first amendment ensures that no worker be worse off, which she said addresses the concerns of many outworkers that this bill will be detrimental towards them. The second amendment concerned delaying the commencement of the bill to allow for the completion of the review into the Fair Work Act.(Read the amendments and Ms Ley's full explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2 here].
)One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section].
)''Background to the bill''The bill was introduced to address the poor working conditions facing vulnerable workers in the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry.(More information about this bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s861 here]. The text of the bill as passed by both houses can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs861_aspassed%2F0000%22;rec=0 here].) Controversially, it extends most of the provisions of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' to outworkers by deeming them to be employees. It also extends specific right of entry rules to sweatshop premises. This allows a permit holder (such as a union official) to enter such premises without giving 24 hours notice under certain circumstances.References- The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2) introduced by Liberal MP [Sussan Ley](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives). This means that the amendments were unsuccessful.
- Ms Ley explained that the first amendment ensures that no worker be worse off, which she said addresses the concerns of many outworkers that this bill will be detrimental towards them. The second amendment concerned delaying the commencement of the bill to allow for the completion of the review into the Fair Work Act.(Read the amendments and Ms Ley's full explanation [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2). )
- One member, Nationals MP [Tony Crook](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives), rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [FAQ section](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree). )
- _Background to the bill_
- The bill was introduced to address the poor working conditions facing vulnerable workers in the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry.(More information about this bill and the context surrounding it can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s861). The text of the bill as passed by both houses can be found [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs861_aspassed%2F0000%22;rec=0).) Controversially, it extends most of the provisions of the _Fair Work Act 2009_ to outworkers by deeming them to be employees. It also extends specific right of entry rules to sweatshop premises. This allows a permit holder (such as a union official) to enter such premises without giving 24 hours notice under certain circumstances.
- References
|
|
representatives vote 2012-03-22#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:23
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley]. This means that the amendments were unsuccessful.
Ms Ley explained that the first amendment ensures that no worker be worse off, which she said addresses the concerns of many outworkers that this bill will be detrimental towards them. The second amendment concerned delaying the commencement of the bill to allow for the completion of the review into the Fair Work Act.[1]- Ms Ley explained that the first amendment ensures that no worker be worse off, which she said addresses the concerns of many outworkers that this bill will be detrimental towards them. The second amendment concerned delaying the commencement of the bill to allow for the completion of the review into the Fair Work Act.(Read the amendments and Ms Ley's full explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2 here].
)
One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2]- One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section].
)
- ''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to address the poor working conditions facing vulnerable workers in the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry.[3] Controversially, it extends most of the provisions of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' to outworkers by deeming them to be employees. It also extends specific right of entry rules to sweatshop premises. This allows a permit holder (such as a union official) to enter such premises without giving 24 hours notice under certain circumstances.- The bill was introduced to address the poor working conditions facing vulnerable workers in the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry.(More information about this bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s861 here]. The text of the bill as passed by both houses can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs861_aspassed%2F0000%22;rec=0 here].) Controversially, it extends most of the provisions of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' to outworkers by deeming them to be employees. It also extends specific right of entry rules to sweatshop premises. This allows a permit holder (such as a union official) to enter such premises without giving 24 hours notice under certain circumstances.
- References
* [1] Read the amendments and Ms Ley's full explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2 here].* [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section].* [3] More information about this bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s861 here]. The text of the bill as passed by both houses can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs861_aspassed%2F0000%22;rec=0 here].
|
|
representatives vote 2012-03-22#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-04-30 12:08:14
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley]. This means that the amendments were unsuccessful.
- Ms Ley explained that the first amendment ensures that no worker be worse off, which she said addresses the concerns of many outworkers that this bill will be detrimental towards them. The second amendment concerned delaying the commencement of the bill to allow for the completion of the review into the Fair Work Act.[1]
- One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2]
- ''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to address the poor working conditions facing vulnerable workers in the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry.[2] Controversially, it extends most of the provisions of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' to outworkers by deeming them to be employees. It also extends specific right of entry rules to sweatshop premises. This allows a permit holder (such as a union official) to enter such premises without giving 24 hours notice under certain circumstances.- The bill was introduced to address the poor working conditions facing vulnerable workers in the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry.[3] Controversially, it extends most of the provisions of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' to outworkers by deeming them to be employees. It also extends specific right of entry rules to sweatshop premises. This allows a permit holder (such as a union official) to enter such premises without giving 24 hours notice under certain circumstances.
- References
- * [1] Read the amendments and Ms Ley's full explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2 here].
* [2] More information about this bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s861 here]. The text of the bill as passed by both houses can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs861_aspassed%2F0000%22;rec=0 here].- * [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section].
- * [3] More information about this bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s861 here]. The text of the bill as passed by both houses can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs861_aspassed%2F0000%22;rec=0 here].
|
|
representatives vote 2012-03-22#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-04-30 12:05:58
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley]. This means that the amendments were unsuccessful.
The two amendments were:''(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:''''(2) Schedule 1, item 61, page 25 (after line 10), after section 789EA, insert:''''789EB TCF outworkers not to be worse off''''(1) This Part applies in relation to a TCF outworker only to the extent to which, in a particular respect, the outworker would not be worse off.''''(2) A reference in subsection (1) to this Part includes a reference to any regulations made for the purposes of this Part.''''(3) The regulations may prescribe:''''(a) what a particular respect is for the purposes of subsection (1); or''''(b) the circumstances in which a TCF outworker would or would not be worse off for the purposes of subsection (1).''- Ms Ley explained that the first amendment ensures that no worker be worse off, which she said addresses the concerns of many outworkers that this bill will be detrimental towards them. The second amendment concerned delaying the commencement of the bill to allow for the completion of the review into the Fair Work Act.[1]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The bill was introduced to address the poor working conditions facing vulnerable workers in the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry.[2] Controversially, it extends most of the provisions of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' to outworkers by deeming them to be employees. It also extends specific right of entry rules to sweatshop premises. This allows a permit holder (such as a union official) to enter such premises without giving 24 hours notice under certain circumstances.
- References
* [1] Read Ms Ley's full explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2 here].- * [1] Read the amendments and Ms Ley's full explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2 here].
- * [2] More information about this bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s861 here]. The text of the bill as passed by both houses can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs861_aspassed%2F0000%22;rec=0 here].
|
|
representatives vote 2012-03-22#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-04-30 12:04:18
|
Title
Bills — Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail- Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - No worker be worse off + delay bill
Description
<p class="speaker">Sussan Ley</p><p>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2):</p><p class="italic">(1)   Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:</p>- The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sussan_Ley&mpc=Farrer&house=representatives Sussan Ley]. This means that the amendments were unsuccessful.
- The two amendments were:
- ''(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:''
- ''(2) Schedule 1, item 61, page 25 (after line 10), after section 789EA, insert:''
- ''789EB TCF outworkers not to be worse off''
- ''(1) This Part applies in relation to a TCF outworker only to the extent to which, in a particular respect, the outworker would not be worse off.''
- ''(2) A reference in subsection (1) to this Part includes a reference to any regulations made for the purposes of this Part.''
- ''(3) The regulations may prescribe:''
- ''(a) what a particular respect is for the purposes of subsection (1); or''
- ''(b) the circumstances in which a TCF outworker would or would not be worse off for the purposes of subsection (1).''
- Ms Ley explained that the first amendment ensures that no worker be worse off, which she said addresses the concerns of many outworkers that this bill will be detrimental towards them. The second amendment concerned delaying the commencement of the bill to allow for the completion of the review into the Fair Work Act.[1]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The bill was introduced to address the poor working conditions facing vulnerable workers in the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry.[2] Controversially, it extends most of the provisions of the ''Fair Work Act 2009'' to outworkers by deeming them to be employees. It also extends specific right of entry rules to sweatshop premises. This allows a permit holder (such as a union official) to enter such premises without giving 24 hours notice under certain circumstances.
- References
- * [1] Read Ms Ley's full explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-03-22.40.2 here].
- * [2] More information about this bill and the context surrounding it can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s861 here]. The text of the bill as passed by both houses can be found [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs861_aspassed%2F0000%22;rec=0 here].
<p class="italic">(2)   Schedule 1, item 61, page 25 (after line 10), after section 789EA, insert:</p><p class="italic">789EB TCF outworkers not to be worse off</p><p class="italic">(1)   This Part applies in relation to a TCF outworker only to the extent to which, in a particular respect, the outworker would not be worse off.</p><p class="italic">(2)   A reference in subsection (1) to this Part includes a reference to any regulations made for the purposes of this Part.</p><p class="italic">(3)   The regulations may prescribe:</p><p class="italic">  (a)   what a particular respect is for the purposes of subsection (1); or</p><p class="italic">  (b)   the circumstances in which a TCF outworker would or would not be worse off for the purposes of subsection (1).</p><p>The first amendment relates to no worker being worse off. While we understand that there are numerous agendas—especially union agendas—being incorporated into this legislation, I restate the point that if amendments are required to the Fair Work Act they should be included with the review of the implementation of the Fair Work Act, something that is ongoing, something that is presumably quite comprehensive because it has been ongoing for a while and something that, when it comes back to this parliament, will include any problems that may exist as a result of this bill.</p><p>The amendment that no worker be worse off addresses the concerns of many outworkers—and I refer the government to the submissions that have been made to the inquiry that they so callously guillotined—that they will be worse off as a result of this amendment. The then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Julia Gillard, now Prime Minister, promised that no worker would be worse off as a result of the Fair Work Act. Given that this is an amendment to the Fair Work Act we in the coalition are seeking to enshrine that promise within the bill. But we also wish to allay the concerns that have been raised with the coalition and also with the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee about the fact that workers may very well be worse off after this legislation is implemented. I remind members of the House of that promise that no worker would be worse off. Literally thousands of Australian workers are now being ripped off under the so-called modern awards. The flaws are being made obvious daily despite the ironclad promise from Labor that no worker would be worse off.</p><p>I ask the minister and the government to show some courage on this matter and accept that, in responding so energetically to the union agenda around the dwindling number of members of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union, and in seeking to characterise people who actually are independent contractors as employees—something that offends the principles of the tax act, offends the principles of natural justice and is nonsense when considered in the context of this bill—the perverse outcome might very well be that workers will be worse off.</p><p>We stand by the most vulnerable and marginalised workers, who may be working in workplaces that have been described in the context of this bill. Those workers and their circumstances should never become a political football in this place. Those workers and their circumstances should be protected. Women who take an interest in the fashion supply chain in this country certainly understand that we want the clothes that we wear with pride—because they are made in Australia—not to be manufactured under conditions that have been described in media outlets from time to time, and which are entirely offensive.</p><p>I remind people in this place that the examples brought to the table in the context of this debate are already out of order and illegal, and are against state and federal legislation and the Fair Work Act itself. We stand by those workers and we will be moving an amendment that no worker will be worse off.</p><p>The second amendment concerns the time frame. If the government wants to jump into the process of examining and possibly amending its own Fair Work Act—and on the surface of it you would think was a sensible thing to do because if you implement an act and make major and extraordinary changes to it you should review how those changes are playing out in the system—then the government should incorporate the changes it thinks are so necessary that it has brought this legislation into the review process of the modern awards and into the review of the Fair Work Act. We therefore say that we want to delay the commencement of any legislation passed today that allows for the completion of the review into the Fair Work Act, and the government's response, prior to the commencement of this legislation. We believe the provisions of this bill should be considered only as part of that review, along with any changes proposed in any final and publicly available report resulting from that review, prior to commencement. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Peter Slipper</p><p>The question is that opposition amendments (1) and (2) be agreed to.</p>
|