How Libby Coker voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce legislation that increases the powers and influence of trade unions in workplace relations

Division Libby Coker Supporters vote Division outcome

21st Oct 2019, 5:21 PM – Representatives Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019 and another - Second Reading - Protect Australian industry

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Brand MP Madeleine King (Labor), which means it failed. The amendment would have amended the usual second reading motion "that the bill be read for a second time" (in other words, that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill).

Amendment text

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes with concern potential temporary foreign labour arrangements concerning Contractual Service Suppliers;

(2) notes the importance of ensuring robust public interest safeguards, including on health and environmental law, relating to the new, modernised investor-state dispute settlement provisions;

(3) commends the outstanding work by civil society, the wider labour movement and the trade union movement in campaigning against antiquated investor-state dispute settlement provisions, for better, fairer free trade agreements;

(4) calls on the government to implement the recommendation made by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, to ensure that future proposed free trade agreements are accompanied by independent modelling and analysis;

(5) notes with concern the growth in worker exploitation under current temporary work visa arrangements; and

(6) calls on the Government to rigorously enforce anti-dumping measures to ensure Australian industry is not subject to anti-competitive and predatory trade practices".

absent Yes Not passed by a small majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Libby Coker was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.