|
representatives vote 2017-06-20#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-07-08 18:28:26
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-06-20.117.1) introduced by Labor MP [Brendan O'Connor](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gorton/brendan_o'connor) (Gorton), which means it was unsuccessful. [According to MP O'Connor](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-06-20.106.1), the amendments would have ensured that *"workers will not lose real income on 1 July or, indeed, the day following—the Sunday"*.
There was one rebel voter, with Liberal Senator [George Christensen](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/dawson/george_christensen) (Dawson) crossing the floor to vote 'yes' against the rest of his party.- There was one [rebel voter](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/crossing-the-floor.html), with Liberal Senator [George Christensen](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/dawson/george_christensen) (Dawson) crossing the floor to vote 'yes' against the rest of his party.
- ### Motion text
- See the motion text on [OpenAustralia.org.au](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-06-20.117.1).
|
|
representatives vote 2017-06-20#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-07-07 22:28:37
|
Title
Bills — Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017; Consideration in Detail- Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - Consideration in Detail - Workers not to lose real income
Description
<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The Manager of Opposition Business briefly on indulgence.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>- The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-06-20.117.1) introduced by Labor MP [Brendan O'Connor](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gorton/brendan_o'connor) (Gorton), which means it was unsuccessful. [According to MP O'Connor](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-06-20.106.1), the amendments would have ensured that *"workers will not lose real income on 1 July or, indeed, the day following—the Sunday"*.
- There was one rebel voter, with Liberal Senator [George Christensen](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/dawson/george_christensen) (Dawson) crossing the floor to vote 'yes' against the rest of his party.
- ### Motion text
- See the motion text on [OpenAustralia.org.au](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-06-20.117.1).
<p>I have simply been asked to report to the House that two of the Independents entered into a pairing arrangement because one of them was unable to be here for personal reasons. The member for Indi had intended to vote with the government and the member for Denison had intended to vote with the opposition. They asked me to report that to the House.</p><p class="italic">Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The member for Hunter is warned. I am just getting some attention!</p> <p class="speaker">Brendan O'Connor</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3, column headed "Provisions"), omit "3 and 4", substitute "3, 4 and 5".</p><p class="italic"> <i>[protecting take</i> <i>-home pay for all workers]</i></p><p class="italic">(2) Page 18 (after line 23), at the end of the Bill, add:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 5—Protecting take -home pay for all workers</p><p class="italic"> <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i></p><p class="italic">1 At the end of Division 2 of Part 2 -3</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic">135A Protecting penalty rates</p><p class="italic">(1) A penalty rate in a modern award cannot be varied to make the penalty rate lower than that in force under the award on 30 June 2017.</p><p class="italic">(2) A determination of the FWC made on or after 22 February 2017 that would reduce a penalty rate in a modern award so that the penalty rate would be lower than that in force under the award on 30 June 2017 has no effect.</p><p class="italic">2 At the end of section 193</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Effect of removing or reducing penalty rates—award covered employees</i></p><p class="italic">(8) Despite anything else in this section, an enterprise agreement that is not a greenfields agreement does not <i>pass the better off overall test</i> under this section if:</p><p class="italic">(a) a penalty rate under the relevant modern award for an award covered employee, or a prospective award covered employee, is removed or reduced under the agreement; and</p><p class="italic">(b) because the employee usually works, or will usually work, on a day in relation to which a penalty rate is payable under the relevant modern award, the removal or reduction in the penalty rate disproportionately affects the employee as compared with employees who do not usually work on that day.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Effect of removing or reducing penalty rates—prospective award covered employees</i></p><p class="italic">(9) Despite anything else in this section, a greenfields agreement does not <i>pass the better off overall test</i> under this section if:</p><p class="italic">(a) a penalty rate under the relevant modern award for a prospective award covered employee is removed or reduced under the agreement; and</p><p class="italic">(b) because the employee will usually work on a day in relation to which a penalty rate is payable under the relevant modern award, the removal or reduction in the penalty rate will disproportionately affect the employee as compared with employees who will not usually work on that day.</p><p class="italic">3 Application of item 2</p><p class="italic">The amendment made by item 2 of this Schedule applies in relation to enterprise agreements made on or after the commencement of the item.</p><p>If these amendments are enacted and change this bill, it will ensure that those workers will not lose real income on 1 July or, indeed, the day following—the Sunday. That will not happen. This will remedy and rectify an order of the Fair Work Commission as a result of the changes being proposed by these amendments. I have to say that these amendments reflect exactly the efforts by the member for Dawson—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The Leader of the House on a point order.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance, yet again, because the House has just rejected the amendments moved by the member for Gorton, and the amendments he now seeks to move are almost precisely the same as the ones the House has just dealt with. As a consequence, I am at a loss to know how they can be in order for him to move them again. They are virtually the same.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>On the point of order, I will hear from the member for Gorton.</p> <p class="speaker">Brendan O'Connor</p><p>Whilst they may be similar—to the effect of changing the order—they are an entirely different construction from those I moved earlier insofar as the change that would occur here would freeze the penalty rates not protect the net reduction to income. It is an entirely different thing, in relation to the first amendment.</p><p>In relation to the second part of the amendments that I am seeking to move, that is entirely a different construction. Indeed, that is entirely different to what I sought to move earlier—namely, that goes to the arrangements of the better off overall test, the way in which workers will be treated because of bargaining and the way in which that test would apply to an agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission. These may be similar, but they are distinct—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The member for Gorton will resume his seat. Of course, he can jump many times in this—he was responding to the point of order and I think he is drifting back into his speech. I owe it to the House to rule on the point of order. The Leader of the House's point is there is a similarity, but, having examined the amendments, there are sufficient differences. There is material in this that is not in the amendments that the House has just dealt with, so the amendments are an order and the member for Gorton has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Brendan O'Connor</p><p>The fact is that the member for Dawson—the only member of the government at this point—has foreshadowed his concern about the effect of the Fair Work Commission decision and what it will mean for up to 700,000 workers in this country. Whilst we see these amendments as not being as good as the ones we earlier moved, in that there are some issues as to the way they will apply to certain provisions of the Fair Work Act—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The member for Gorton will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>I move that the motion be put.</p><p>Question agreed.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Gorton be agreed to.</p>
|