All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
representatives vote 2019-07-31#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-08-15 15:00:05
|
Title
Bills — Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019; Second Reading- Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea
Description
<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>(<i>In division</i>) The member for Watson on a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>- The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a [second time](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). This means that they can now discuss it in greater detail.
- ### What is the bill's main idea?
- The bill was [introduced in order to](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6348):
- * *include certain serious criminal offences as a new category of ‘prescribed offence’ for the purposes of the automatic disqualification regime in relation to registered organisations;*
- * *establish an offence for a disqualified person to continue to act as an official or in a way that influences the affairs of an organisation;*
- * *allow the Federal Court to disqualify officials from holding office in certain circumstances or if they are otherwise not a fit and proper person;*
- * *allow the Federal Court to cancel the registration of an organisation on a range of grounds;*
- * *expand the grounds on which the Federal Court may order remedial action to deal with governance issues in an organisation;*
- * *expressly provide that the Federal Court may appoint an administrator to an organisation or part of an organisation as part of a remedial scheme;*
- * *introduce a public interest test for amalgamations of registered organisations; and*
- * *make minor and technical amendments.*
<p>I'm just seeking your guidance, under page 280 of <i>Practice, </i>on the requirement to vote in a certain way during divisions. Given that, when this amendment was put to the vote, the Leader of the House voted yes, does that create a requirement for him to now vote with us, which I believe this amendment would be worthy of?</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Well, I wasn't here to see any of that, but we've already begun the division.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>There is a requirement in certain circumstances where the Speaker will demand that people vote a particular way based on what they have said. That's why I'm just seeking your guidance.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Well, how much guidance do you want and for how long?</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I reckon I've probably peaked, Mr Speaker.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>I think you have. Not having been here—and I'm not going to ever go back and sort of re-run the tape—my attitude would be that, if a member was being deliberately obstructive or wilful, I might have a certain view. I'll just refer the Manager of Opposition Business to a very valid point he made the other day, and that was that, once members have taken their seats and the vote is being counted, no-one can move.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>That would have meant that you had to name him. I am on for that.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>I could name anyone. The question now is that this bill be read a second time.</p>
|