Lin Thorp voted very strongly for increasing trade unions' powers in the workplace

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 for a third time.

This means that the bill has passed through the Senate. Since it has already passed through the House of Representatives, it can now be sent to the Governor General to become law.

Debate in Parliament

This bill was considered by the Senate on the last sitting day of the 43rd Parliament, which meant the debate had to be short.

Liberal Party Senator Michaelia Cash said that the legislation was “being slammed through the Senate with 3½ minutes of debate” and argued that it showed how “the union movement controls the ALP [Australian Labor Party]”.(Read Senator Cash's whole contribution here. )

A controversial aspect of the bill that was introduced by amendment in the House of Representatives is the requirement that unions are represented on the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration.(See the debate on this amendment here. )

Background to the Bill

The Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 was introduced by MP O'Connor to “enhance the government's ability to deter sponsor behaviour which is inconsistent with the policy intent of the subclass 457 visa program and other temporary employer sponsored visa programs”.(Read MP O'Connor's comments here. ) At the time this bill was introduced, the 457 visa program was receiving extensive media attention with claims that it was being misused.(See ABC News. A simple explanation of the 457 visa scheme can be found on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s website here.)

References

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 for a second time.

This means that the bill can now be considered in further detail. However, in this case, there was no further discussion of the bill and the Senate immediately voted on whether to pass it.(That division is available here. )

Debate in Parliament

This bill was considered by the Senate on the last sitting day of the 43rd Parliament, which meant the debate had to be short.

Liberal Party Senator Michaelia Cash said that the legislation was “being slammed through the Senate with 3½ minutes of debate” and argued that it showed how “the union movement controls the ALP [Australian Labor Party]”.(Read Senator Cash's whole contribution here. )

A controversial aspect of the bill that was introduced by amendment in the House of Representatives is the requirement that unions are represented on the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration.(See the debate on this amendment here. )

Background to the Bill

The Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 was introduced by MP O'Connor to “enhance the government's ability to deter sponsor behaviour which is inconsistent with the policy intent of the subclass 457 visa program and other temporary employer sponsored visa programs”.(Read MP O'Connor's comments here. ) At the time this bill was introduced, the 457 visa program was receiving extensive media attention with claims that it was being misused.(See ABC News. A simple explanation of the 457 visa scheme can be found on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s website here.)

References

The majority voted in favour of a motion "that schedule 4 and part 5 of schedule 7 [of the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013] stand as printed."

In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part and schedule, which expanded the rights of permit holders (such as union officials who have received a permit from the Fair Work Commission) to enter work premises for investigation and discussion purposes. Someone who voted Aye supported the part and schedule. Since the majority voted Aye, the part and schedule remained unchanged.

Debate in Parliament

The motion on whether to support the part and schedule was put after Liberal Party Senator Eric Abetz introduced an amendment to oppose them.

Senator Abetz said that he did not have the opportunity to speak to the amendment in detail due to time constraints.(Read Senator Abetz's contribution here.) However, he did say that the expanded right of entry provisions contained in that part and schedule allowed trade union bosses “to invade the lunch room of every workplace in Australia in circumstances where only 13 per cent of the workforce are actually members of the trade union movement in the private sector”.

The Labor Government did not comment on the proposed amendment to oppose the part and schedule.

Background to the bill

The Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 was partly made in response to a review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.

References

The majority voted against a motion to amend the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013, which was introduced by Liberal Party Senator Eric Abetz and was directed at the part of the bill that enabled an employee who is bullied at work to apply to the Fair Work Commission (‘FWC’) for an order to stop the bullying.

The amendment would have expanded the bill's bullying provisions so that they included the conduct of union officials towards workers and employers. It also would have provided that workers were only able to approach the FWC for an order after they had first approached an independent regulatory body for help and advice, such as Safe Work Australia.

Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. The majority voted No, so the amendment was unsuccessful.

Debate in Parliament

Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said that he did not have the opportunity to speak to the amendments in detail due to time constraints. However, he did emphasise the importance of expanding the bullying provisions to include the conduct of union officials.(Read Senator Abetz's comments and associated debate here.)

The Labor Government did not comment on the proposed amendment.

Background to the bill

The Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 was partly made in response to a review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) by an independent review panel in 2012. The Panel found that the Act was broadly meeting its objectives and so its recommendations were mainly technical. Approximately one third of these recommendations were implemented by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 and this Bill was introduced to implement several more of the recommendations as well as other reforms.

References

The majority voted against a motion to amend the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2013.(The text of the proposed amendment can be found here. )

The amendment was introduced by Liberal Party Senator Mathias Cormann to address concerns that the Opposition held about the absence of independent directors on industry superannuation fund boards.

Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. The majority voted No so the amendment was unsuccessful.

Debate in Parliament

Liberal Senator Cormann argued that the amendment was based on a recommendation made by the Cooper Review into superannuation,(According to the media, the Cooper review recommended "sweeping changes". ) which was that at least one third of directors on industry superannuation fund boards should be independent directors. This would replace the current equal representation model, which Senator Cormann described as a “cosy arrangement with union representatives in charge and employer representatives making up the numbers”.(Read Senator Cormann's contribution here. ) He said that independent directors were important because they are not limited by union or employer interests and so can offer a dispassionate view. The Opposition accused the Government of not following this Cooper Review recommendation because of pressure from the union movement.

The Labor Government did not comment on this amendment.

Background to the Bill

The Bill is the fourth and final legislative bundle implementing the Stronger Super reforms announced by the Labor Government in 2010.(More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found here.) It introduces a number of corporate governance measures that arose out of the Review into the Governance, Efficiency, Structure and Operation of Australia’s Superannuation System (known as the Cooper Review) and the Government’s own consultations with industry, employer and consumer groups.

References

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, which was:

That the Senate-

(a)   notes that the Supreme Court of Victoria issued interim injunctions against the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) in relation to Grocon sites in Melbourne, and that contempt proceedings in relation to certain injunctions remain before the court;(Read more about the lawsuit on the Financial Review here. )

(b)   condemns the CFMEU's blockade of the Myer Emporium site, which involved violent attacks on police and police horses and posters issued by CFMEU bosses labelling workers as 'scabs';(Read more about the blockade on ABC News here.)

(c)   notes that Grocon workers, who are members of the CFMEU, have expressed disappointment at abuse, threats and intimidation by CFMEU bosses and at the CFMEU's failure to adhere to the law;

(d)   affirms that violence, unlawful activity, bullying, harassment and thuggery have no place in any workplace; and

(e)   calls on the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens to refuse to accept any further donations from the CFMEU until it desists from unlawful activity, thuggery and violence in the workplace.

References