Division
Brendan O'Connor As I was saying before this debate was moved to another part of business for the parliament, this bill, the Construction Industry (Protecting Witnesses) Bill, is to be opposed by the opposition because it is about whether the sunset provision should continue. It is the view of the opposition—implicit in the sunset clause—that it is incumbent upon the government to establish whether such a provision should continue. In other words, the onus is on the government to explain why they believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant the extension of this provision. And we would argue—given that there has been no review undertaken by the government in this matter—that the sunset provision should take effect, and that therefore the effect of the provision should lapse, because of the government's failure to review this matter. It is also interesting to note that, of course, this provision relates to the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It relates to the efforts by this government to reinstate such a commission—which we would argue is an overreach, excessive, and in breach of international human rights conventions—and, whilst the government still has that intention, it is interesting to note that in the budget documents of yesterday, in the strategic directions under this portfolio, it is no longer a priority in the way it was outlined in last year's budget. In last year's budget, there was a priority for the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. And yet that is no longer the case; it has been relegated down the order in the budget, which I think reflects the fact that the minister and indeed the government understand that they do not have the support of the parliament to proceed with their efforts to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In relation to this particular bill: this is a narrower bill in its application. We would say that it is prejudicial for the government, without un
House of Representatives, 2015-05-13. affirmative: ayes 79, noes 48.
Question
Brendan O'Connor As I was saying before this debate was moved to another part of business for the parliament, this bill, the Construction Industry (Protecting Witnesses) Bill, is to be opposed by the opposition because it is about whether the sunset provision should continue. It is the view of the opposition—implicit in the sunset clause—that it is incumbent upon the government to establish whether such a provision should continue. In other words, the onus is on the government to explain why they believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant the extension of this provision. And we would argue—given that there has been no review undertaken by the government in this matter—that the sunset provision should take effect, and that therefore the effect of the provision should lapse, because of the government's failure to review this matter. It is also interesting to note that, of course, this provision relates to the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It relates to the efforts by this government to reinstate such a commission—which we would argue is an overreach, excessive, and in breach of international human rights conventions—and, whilst the government still has that intention, it is interesting to note that in the budget documents of yesterday, in the strategic directions under this portfolio, it is no longer a priority in the way it was outlined in last year's budget. In last year's budget, there was a priority for the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. And yet that is no longer the case; it has been relegated down the order in the budget, which I think reflects the fact that the minister and indeed the government understand that they do not have the support of the parliament to proceed with their efforts to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In relation to this particular bill: this is a narrower bill in its application. We would say that it is prejudicial for the government, without un
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.