Division
Don Farrell by leave—I move opposition amendments (2), (9), (10) and (11) on sheet 1014: (2) Schedule 2, item 9, page 8 (line 20), omit "5A,". (9) Schedule 2, item 47, page 31 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute: 47 Item 9 of Schedule 1 Omit "5,". (10) Schedule 2, items 49 and 50, page 31 (lines 8 to 11), omit the items, substitute: 49 Item 10 of Schedule 1 Omit "5". 50 Item 10 of Schedule 1 Omit "789GJ(2)". (11) Schedule 2, item 51, page 31 (line 18), omit "or 789GJD(2)". We also oppose schedule 2 in the following terms: (1) Schedule 2, items 2 to 8, page 7 (line 3) to page 8 (line 14), to be opposed. (3) Schedule 2, items 10 to 22, page 8 (line 21) to page 21 (line 5), to be opposed. (4) Schedule 2, items 25 to 27, page 21 (lines 15 to 24), to be opposed. (5) Schedule 2, item 29, page 21 (line 28) to page 24 (line 16), to be opposed. (6) Schedule 2, items 30 and 30A, page 24 (line 24 to 29), to be opposed. (7) Schedule 2, items 33 and 34, page 25 (lines 4 to 7), to be opposed. (8) Schedule 2, items 36 to 38, page 25 (line 10) to page 28 (line 2), to be opposed. These amendments remove all references to the so-called legacy employers from the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020, thereby removing access to the fair work flexibility provisions for businesses no longer eligible for government support. Labor believes the extension of JobKeeper flexibility provisions are unnecessary. The same businesses doing well enough to lose all government support are now being allowed to take away the job security of their workers. The government is shifting the cost of supporting businesses onto ordinary workers. Why should the pay of workers go down when the business's revenue is improving? How is it that a business suffering a 10 per cent hit is allowed to inflict a 40 per cent hit on its workers? Extending the fair work flexibility provisions for people who are no longer receiving JobKeeper is a complete shift from what we were
Senate, 2020-08-31. affirmative: ayes 26, noes 24.
Question
Don Farrell by leave—I move opposition amendments (2), (9), (10) and (11) on sheet 1014: (2) Schedule 2, item 9, page 8 (line 20), omit "5A,". (9) Schedule 2, item 47, page 31 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute: 47 Item 9 of Schedule 1 Omit "5,". (10) Schedule 2, items 49 and 50, page 31 (lines 8 to 11), omit the items, substitute: 49 Item 10 of Schedule 1 Omit "5". 50 Item 10 of Schedule 1 Omit "789GJ(2)". (11) Schedule 2, item 51, page 31 (line 18), omit "or 789GJD(2)". We also oppose schedule 2 in the following terms: (1) Schedule 2, items 2 to 8, page 7 (line 3) to page 8 (line 14), to be opposed. (3) Schedule 2, items 10 to 22, page 8 (line 21) to page 21 (line 5), to be opposed. (4) Schedule 2, items 25 to 27, page 21 (lines 15 to 24), to be opposed. (5) Schedule 2, item 29, page 21 (line 28) to page 24 (line 16), to be opposed. (6) Schedule 2, items 30 and 30A, page 24 (line 24 to 29), to be opposed. (7) Schedule 2, items 33 and 34, page 25 (lines 4 to 7), to be opposed. (8) Schedule 2, items 36 to 38, page 25 (line 10) to page 28 (line 2), to be opposed. These amendments remove all references to the so-called legacy employers from the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020, thereby removing access to the fair work flexibility provisions for businesses no longer eligible for government support. Labor believes the extension of JobKeeper flexibility provisions are unnecessary. The same businesses doing well enough to lose all government support are now being allowed to take away the job security of their workers. The government is shifting the cost of supporting businesses onto ordinary workers. Why should the pay of workers go down when the business's revenue is improving? How is it that a business suffering a 10 per cent hit is allowed to inflict a 40 per cent hit on its workers? Extending the fair work flexibility provisions for people who are no longer receiving JobKeeper is a complete shift from what we were
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.