Bill
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017
passed, as at 2017-09-14. Employment portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Employment
Recorded stages
- second reading — 2017-05-09
- second reading — 2017-05-10
- second reading — 2017-05-11
- second reading — 2017-05-11
- committee — 2017-05-11
- third reading — 2017-05-11
- introduced — 2017-06-13
- second reading — 2017-06-13
- second reading — 2017-08-10
- second reading — 2017-08-14
- second reading — 2017-08-15
- second reading — 2017-08-15
- committee — 2017-08-15
- committee — 2017-08-16
- committee — 2017-08-17
- committee — 2017-09-04
- third reading — 2017-09-04
- other — 2017-09-05
- passed — 2017-09-05
- royal assent — 2017-09-14
Divisions
- Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Keep penalty rates — 2017-05-11, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 69, noes 75
- The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the [bill's](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5826) main idea. 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 the Senate can now discuss the bill in more detail. ### What is the bill's main idea? According to the [bill's homepage](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5826), the bill will: > *increase maximum civil penalties for certain serious contraventions of the Act [that is, the [Fair Work Act 2009](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Work_Act_2009)]; hold [franchisors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchising) and [holding companies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_company) responsible for certain contraventions of the Act by their franchisees or [subsidiaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary) where they knew or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them; clarify the prohibition on employers unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments in relation to the performance of work; provide the [Fair Work Ombudsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Work_Ombudsman) (FWO) with evidence-gathering powers similar to those available to corporate regulators such as the [Australian Securities and Investment Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Securities_and_Investments_Commission) and the [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Competition_and_Consumer_Commission); and prohibit the hindering or obstructing of the FWO and or an inspector in the performance or his or her functions or powers, or the giving of false or misleading information or documents.* — 2017-08-15, Senate: affirmative, ayes 33, noes 29
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-04.22.1) introduced by NSW Senator [David Leyonhjelm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_leyonhjelm) (Liberal Democratic Party), which means they failed. Senator Leyonhjelm [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-04.22.1): > *... item (1) limits the penalty provisions so that they apply to franchisors only if the franchisor influences the franchisee's compliance with employment laws. Items (2) to (6) limit the penalty provisions so that they only apply to franchisors and bodies corporate who knew, or ought to have known, in the ordinary course of business that their franchisees and subsidiaries would fail to comply with employment laws and that the franchisor has a material impact on the franchisee entity's compliance or ability to comply.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 17, page 9 (line 16), omit "affairs.", substitute "affairs; and".* > > *(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 9 (after line 16), at the end of subsection 558A(2), add:* > >> *(c) that influence or control has a material impact on the franchisee entity's compliance or ability to comply with one or more of the civil remedy provisions referred to in subsection 558B(7).* > > *(3) Schedule 1, item 17, page 9 (line 32), after "known", insert ", in the ordinary course of business,".* > > *(4) Schedule 1, item 17, page 10 (line 5), after "known", insert ", in the ordinary course of business,".* > > *(5) Schedule 1, item 17, page 10 (line 18), after "known", insert ", in the ordinary course of business,".* > > *(6) Schedule 1, item 17, page 10 (line 23), after "known", insert ", in the ordinary course of business,".* — 2017-09-04, Senate: negative, ayes 31, noes 35
- The majority voted in favour of [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2017-09-04.19.2) introduced by NSW Senator [Doug Cameron](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/doug_cameron) (Labor), which means they passed. ### Amendment text See [sheet 8144](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5826_amend_50985f82-84eb-4874-9a22-63d3a25b3cbc%22;rec=0) for the text of amendments (28) to (30), (32) to (34) and (39) and [sheet 8218](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5826_amend_2aea85f9-68bf-41ba-a60c-725bbec6a2d6%22;rec=0) for the text of amendment (1). — 2017-09-04, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 30
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-04.53.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Doug Cameron](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/doug_cameron) (Labor), which means they failed. Senator Cameron [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-04.53.1): > *These amendments do three things. Firstly, they limit the definition of 'responsible franchisor' so that a franchisor has to have 'a degree of influence or control, not a significant degree'. Secondly, they extend the new civil liability provisions where labour hire companies are used and across the supply chain. They reverse the onus of proof to make it harder for franchisors and big companies to escape liability.* — 2017-09-04, Senate: negative, ayes 31, noes 33
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-04.206.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Lee Rhiannon](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/lee_rhiannon) (Greens), which means they failed. Senator Rhiannon [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-04.206.1): > *One thing that's really come out in this debate is that the government are making out that they're looking after vulnerable workers, but that argument has fallen over time and time again. If they were really sincere, this is where they would support these amendments, because these amendments are a simple package dealing with how we can recover the unpaid amounts for franchise employees. That's the essence, surely, of what this legislation is about. We're talking about vulnerable workers and we're talking about them being ripped off. Surely we should be doing something about it. This doesn't just put some airy-fairy measures in place; it gets to the heart of the issue—getting the money back to them.* ### Amendment text See OpenAustralia.org.au for a [copy of the amendment text](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-04.206.1). — 2017-09-04, Senate: negative, ayes 30, noes 33
Plain-language summary
Written by a model from the explanatory memorandum; not the record, as at 2017-03-01.
The bill would increase penalties for serious workplace law breaches and make franchisors and parent companies liable for underpayments in their networks.
It would give the Fair Work Ombudsman stronger powers to gather evidence and investigate exploitation.
The bill would also ban employers from forcing workers to return wages in cash.
- Introduces higher penalties for serious contraventions of workplace laws.
- Increases penalties for record-keeping failures.
- Makes franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments where they knew or should have known and failed to act.
- Bans employers from unreasonably requiring employees to make payments.
- Strengthens the Fair Work Ombudsman's evidence-gathering powers.
- Gives the Fair Work Ombudsman new powers to pursue those who obstruct investigations or provide false information.
Vulnerable workers, including migrant workers, and franchisors, holding companies, and their franchisees or subsidiaries.
Sources
em
em supp
billhome
frl act