The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments (8) and (9) introduced by Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means they failed.

Rebellion

Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote "No" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "Yes".

What did the amendment do?

Dr Haines explained that:

These amendments enhance budgetary transparency and oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

... This amendment will also require the minister to table a statement of reasons if they deviate from the recommendations of the National Anti-Corruption Commission joint select oversight committee in relation to the budget. The amendment provides an additional layer of oversight and transparency over the National Anti-Corruption Commission's budget by requiring the government of the day to respond to a report regarding the adequacy of the NACC's budget.

... My amendments also require the parliamentary joint committee to review the Anti-Corruption Commission's budget every 12 months. This amendment will ensure regular review of the NACC's budgets and prevent the powerful budget oversight power from going unused.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(8) Clause 177, page 144 (line 19), before "to review", insert "at least once every 12 months,".

(9) Clause 177, page 144 (after line 30), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) If:

(a) in a report mentioned in paragraph (1)(g), the Committee makes a recommendation in relation to the NACC's finances and resources; and

(b) the Minister decides not to follow the recommendation;

then:

(c) the Minister must prepare a written statement of reasons for the decision not to follow the recommendation; and

(d) the Minister must cause a copy of the statement of reasons to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after making the decision.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments (1) to (4) introduced by Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means they failed.

Rebellion

Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote "No" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "Yes".

What did the amendment do?

Dr Haines explained that:

These amendments are really important. They put beyond doubt that pork-barrelling falls within the definition of 'corrupt conduct' when it meets the threshold of being serious or systemic. Pork-barrelling under this amendment will be defined as any conduct 'that involves the allocation of public funds and resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes'.

[...]

These amendments also ensure that the conduct of any person—and, notably, third persons—that could impair public confidence in public administration can be investigated by the NACC, when it meets the threshold of being serious and systemic.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 8, page 14 (after line 20), after paragraph (1)(d), insert:

(da) any conduct of a public official that involves the allocation of public funds or other resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes;

(2) Clause 8, page 14 (after line 23), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that impairs, or that could impair, public confidence in public administration and which could involve any of the following matters:

(a) collusive tendering;

(b) fraud in relation to applications for licences, permits or other authorities under legislation designed to protect health and safety or the environment or designed to facilitate the management and commercial exploitation of resources;

(c) dishonestly obtaining or assisting in obtaining, or dishonestly benefiting from, the payment or application of public funds for private advantage or the disposition of public assets for private advantage;

(d) defrauding the public revenue;

(e) fraudulently obtaining or retaining employment or appointment as a public official.

(3) Clause 8, page 14 (line 24), omit "does not", substitute "and subsection (1A) do not".

(4) Clause 8, page 15 (line 15), after "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or subsection (1A)".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendment (7) introduced by Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means it failed.

Rebellion

Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote "No" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "Yes".

What did the amendment do?

Dr Haines explained that:

If exceptional circumstances is to remain in this bill, it should be defined. The public deserves to know what circumstances justify the holding of a public hearing. My amendment will define 'exceptional circumstances' to mean 'circumstances where it is preferable or appropriate for evidence to be heard in public'. This will ensure the number of private hearings are not unreasonably increased due to the ambiguity of the phrase.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(7) Clause 73, page 69 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add:

Meaning of exceptional circumstances

(6) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), exceptional circumstances means circumstances in which it is preferable or appropriate for evidence to be given in public.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments (5) and (6) introduced by Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means they failed.

Rebellion

Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote "No" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "Yes".

What did the amendment do?

Dr Haines explained that:

Amendment (5) will strike out the unnecessary and alarming exceptional circumstances requirement. In my mind, this is the single most important change to this bill. My amendment will ensure that the commissioner may decide to hold public hearings if the commissioner is satisfied that it would be in the public interest—tested, simple and safe.

... amendment (6) will make it mandatory for the commissioner to consider certain factors when deciding whether to hold a public hearing, including unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing caused by a public hearing. This amendment boosts the protection of people who would be affected by the decision to hold a hearing in public.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(5) Clause 73, page 68 (lines 10 to 14), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.

(6) Clause 73, page 68 (line 16), omit "may", substitute "must".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with a motion introduced by Bradfield MP Paul Fletcher (Liberal), which means it failed. The motion was to suspend the usual procedural rules of parliament - known as standing orders - in order to let another vote take place.

Motion text

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government introduced the 249 page Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 on 27 October and rushed it through the House forcing its passage on 10 November through the use of a gag motion which greatly curtailed debate;

(b) the process was so rushed and chaotic that on 9 November the Government moved a further 34 pages of amendments;

(c) the Bill would make radical changes to Australia's industrial relations system including:

(i) abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission;

(ii) introducing compulsory multi-employer bargaining;

(iii) expanding the supported bargaining stream enabling businesses to be covered without their actual agreement; and

(iv) giving unions new powers including:

(A) forcing an employer to bargain for a replacement agreement, even if the employer and the majority of its employees do not wish to bargain; and

(B) vetoing an agreement reached by an employer and a majority of its employees to remove themselves from coverage by an agreement;

(d) the measures in the Bill, and the chaotic and rushed process, have been criticised by a wide range of stakeholders; and

(e) this Bill puts the narrow sectional interests of union bosses ahead of the interests of all Australians in a prosperous and harmonious society in which businesses of all sizes can grow and prosper, working in alignment with their employees, their suppliers, their shareholders and the broader community; and

(2) therefore calls on the Government to lay aside this damaging and ill-considered Bill.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "that the bill be read a third time", which is parliamentary jargon for passing the bill in the House. It will now be sent to the Senate for their consideration.

What does the bill do?

According to the bills digest:

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 aims to make numerous changes to industrial relations legislation with the intention of:

• encouraging and facilitating enterprise bargaining, and multi-business enterprise bargaining in particular
• simplifying the bargaining and approval processes for enterprise agreements, including simplifying the better off overall test (BOOT)
• improving job security and gender equity, including by limiting the use of fixed term contracts and prohibiting pay secrecy clauses
• improving workplace conditions and protections by providing an enforceable right to request flexible working arrangements
• abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and making the Fair Work Ombudsman the workplace relations regulator for the building and construction industry
• abolishing the Registered Organisations Commission and transferring its functions to the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission and
• enacting other measures not examined in this Digest.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "that the bill, as amended, be agreed to", which means they can now decide whether to pass the bill in the House.

What does this bill do?

According to the bills digest:

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 aims to make numerous changes to industrial relations legislation with the intention of:

• encouraging and facilitating enterprise bargaining, and multi-business enterprise bargaining in particular
• simplifying the bargaining and approval processes for enterprise agreements, including simplifying the better off overall test (BOOT)
• improving job security and gender equity, including by limiting the use of fixed term contracts and prohibiting pay secrecy clauses
• improving workplace conditions and protections by providing an enforceable right to request flexible working arrangements
• abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and making the Fair Work Ombudsman the workplace relations regulator for the building and construction industry
• abolishing the Registered Organisations Commission and transferring its functions to the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission and
• enacting other measures not examined in this Digest.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Warringah MP Zali Steggall (Independent), which means they failed.

What do the amendments do?

Ms Steggall explained that:

Amendments (1) to (3) deal with potential impacts on the productivity of businesses being roped into multi-employer bargaining after it has been completed. They haven't even been part of the negotiations, and the bill currently allows an employee representative—the union—to join an employer to a multiparty EBA after the conclusion of the agreement. The Fair Work Commission should consider the potential impact on the productivity of a business as a result of being compelled to sign onto the EBA. This is a straightforward amendment that should not be objected to by the government.

The public interest test is amendment (6). Again, the amendment deals with the potential effects on productivity and competition. The bill as currently drafted requires the Fair Work Commission to be satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to do so before making a single-interest authorisation. The problem is that the drafting does not specify what would be contrary to the public interest. There is, therefore, no guarantee that the Fair Work Commission would take into account the benefits to productivity, competition and consumer protection that come from enterprise-level collective bargaining. The proposed amendment would require the Fair Work Commission to take into account the need to achieve productivity and fairness through an emphasis on enterprise-level collective bargaining and the need to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and the provision of consumer protections.

Amendment (5) deals with common interest. In the single-interest stream, the common interest test in the current bill is very loosely defined and could have the effect of lessening competition by obliging smaller competitors to agree to multi-employer agreements with much larger businesses, with the potential for the smaller competitors to simply be priced out of the market. My proposed amendments would oblige the Fair Work Commission to take into account the economic circumstances and the relative sizes and scope of the employers' enterprises, as well as the extent to which the employers operate collaboratively rather than competitively, when determining whether the employers have a common interest.

Of course, we've heard much today of the small business definition. The bill currently exempts businesses with fewer than 15 employees from being forced into single-interest employer bargaining. That figure is ridiculous. Many businesses with up to 50 employees would be unable to compete with large businesses who could afford to absorb the extra cost. They will go to the wall. What the amendment proposes is that it be at 50 full-time equivalent. At the very least, the government is saying it will consider it, and there is dispute on this number.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Wentworth MP Allegra Spender (Independent), which means they failed.

What were the amendments?

Ms Spender explained that:

My amendments ... will make this bill more workable for businesses, particularly small businesses, who have had an incredibly tough time in recent years. It will make it more workable for workers, who desperately need a pay rise to cope with the rising cost of living.

Many of the concerns of this bill can be undone with one simple amendment: let businesses consent to multi-party bargains in the single interest stream.