Division
The majority voted against [amendments (1), (3) and (8)](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/27600/&sid=0000) introduced by Bradfield MP [Paul Fletcher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bradfield/paul_fletcher) (Bradfield), which means they failed. ### What do these amendments do? Mr Fletcher [explained that](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/27600/&sid=0000): > *I will explain to the House what these amendments do. Their combined impact, if the amendments are passed, will be to remove a series of objectionable provisions in the bill, particularly the bill as amended by the Senate. The first effect would be to remove the lengthy, multipage, 15-plus factor provisions dealing with casual employment, which have done a remarkable job of casting darkness and confusion where before there was light and clarity after several High Court decisions that made the law very clear. The opposition's amendments, if passed, would allow the certainty which the High Court has established to continue to prevail.* > > *They would remove the intractable bargaining provisions, which are another set of provisions which essentially wholly undermine the operation of enterprise bargaining, and for that reason the opposition believes those provisions should be removed.* > > *They would remove the union demerger provisions.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Senate amendment (1) (proposed new table items 2, 6A, 17 and 21 in subclause 2(1) of the Bill), omit the table items.* > > *(2) Senate amendment (2) (proposed new Divisions 2 and 5 of Part 16 of the Fair Work Act 2009), omit the Divisions.* > > *(3) Senate amendment (2) (proposed new Part 17 of the Fair Work Act 2009), omit the Part.* > > *(8) Senate amendment (52), omit the amendment.*
House of Representatives, 2024-02-12. negative: ayes 59, noes 78.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments (1), (3) and (8)](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/27600/&sid=0000) introduced by Bradfield MP [Paul Fletcher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bradfield/paul_fletcher) (Bradfield), which means they failed. ### What do these amendments do? Mr Fletcher [explained that](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/27600/&sid=0000): > *I will explain to the House what these amendments do. Their combined impact, if the amendments are passed, will be to remove a series of objectionable provisions in the bill, particularly the bill as amended by the Senate. The first effect would be to remove the lengthy, multipage, 15-plus factor provisions dealing with casual employment, which have done a remarkable job of casting darkness and confusion where before there was light and clarity after several High Court decisions that made the law very clear. The opposition's amendments, if passed, would allow the certainty which the High Court has established to continue to prevail.* > > *They would remove the intractable bargaining provisions, which are another set of provisions which essentially wholly undermine the operation of enterprise bargaining, and for that reason the opposition believes those provisions should be removed.* > > *They would remove the union demerger provisions.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Senate amendment (1) (proposed new table items 2, 6A, 17 and 21 in subclause 2(1) of the Bill), omit the table items.* > > *(2) Senate amendment (2) (proposed new Divisions 2 and 5 of Part 16 of the Fair Work Act 2009), omit the Divisions.* > > *(3) Senate amendment (2) (proposed new Part 17 of the Fair Work Act 2009), omit the Part.* > > *(8) Senate amendment (52), omit the amendment.*
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.