Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-08-09.59.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Doug Cameron](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/doug_cameron) (Labor), which means it failed. ### What did this amendment do? Senator Cameron [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-08-09.59.1): > *This amendment changes the definition of 'related party' in relation to the new requirements to make disclosures during negotiations of enterprise agreements. The bill imposes disclosure requirements during the negotiation of enterprise agreements where a proposed term of an agreement will give either the union or the employer a financial benefit. The bill requires the union to disclose any potential benefits from an enterprise agreement that may flow to a related party, which, as currently defined, is an extended, unreasonable list of people and entities. The amendment defines 'related party' clearly and precisely as the branch or branches of the organisation which the members of the organisation—that is, the bargaining representatives—are members of, an officer of that branch, an entity controlled by the organisation, or a spouse of a divisional committee of management provided that an officer of the branch referred to in paragraph (a) is also a member of such committee. Again this is overreach. The amendment is needed to make this bill consistent with all the expert advice to the committee and the minister.* ### Amendment text > *(16) Schedule 2, item 1, page 11 (lines 8 and 9), omit the definition of related party in section 12, substitute:* > > *related party, of an organisation that is a bargaining representative for a proposed enterprise agreement, means:* > >> *(a) a branch of the organisation of which employees who will be covered by the agreement are members; or* >> >> *(b) an officer of a branch mentioned in paragraph (a); or* >> >> *(c) an entity controlled by the organisation; or* >> >> *(d
Senate, 2017-08-09. negative: ayes 27, noes 32.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-08-09.59.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Doug Cameron](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/doug_cameron) (Labor), which means it failed. ### What did this amendment do? Senator Cameron [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-08-09.59.1): > *This amendment changes the definition of 'related party' in relation to the new requirements to make disclosures during negotiations of enterprise agreements. The bill imposes disclosure requirements during the negotiation of enterprise agreements where a proposed term of an agreement will give either the union or the employer a financial benefit. The bill requires the union to disclose any potential benefits from an enterprise agreement that may flow to a related party, which, as currently defined, is an extended, unreasonable list of people and entities. The amendment defines 'related party' clearly and precisely as the branch or branches of the organisation which the members of the organisation—that is, the bargaining representatives—are members of, an officer of that branch, an entity controlled by the organisation, or a spouse of a divisional committee of management provided that an officer of the branch referred to in paragraph (a) is also a member of such committee. Again this is overreach. The amendment is needed to make this bill consistent with all the expert advice to the committee and the minister.* ### Amendment text > *(16) Schedule 2, item 1, page 11 (lines 8 and 9), omit the definition of related party in section 12, substitute:* > > *related party, of an organisation that is a bargaining representative for a proposed enterprise agreement, means:* > >> *(a) a branch of the organisation of which employees who will be covered by the agreement are members; or* >> >> *(b) an officer of a branch mentioned in paragraph (a); or* >> >> *(c) an entity controlled by the organisation; or* >> >> *(d
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.