Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-12-07.34.1) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (to read a bill for a second time is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with its main idea). This amendment was introduced by Victorian Senator [David Van](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/david_van) (Independent). ### Amendment text > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:* > > *(a) in the Government's 2023 policy paper it stated that the intent of 'Same Job, Same Pay' was 'the Government's Same Job, Same Pay measure seeks to address the limited circumstances in which host employers use labour hire to deliberately undercut the bargained wages and conditions set out in enterprise agreements made with their employees', and the bill does not do this and never has;* > > *(b) the bill does not define 'labour hire', unlike existing legislation governing labour hire, such as the 4 state and territory licensing regimes;* > > *(c) without a definition, labour hire businesses (who provide workers) are treated no differently to service contractors (who deliver a specified service), this is contrary to the Government's policy intent, and instead of 'limited circumstances' it casts the net over almost any form of contractor arrangement, and this is not about 'closing a loophole';* > > *(d) the definition of 'labour hire' in the Victorian Labour Hire Licensing Act 2018 should be reproduced in section 306E of the bill, to provide a 'regulated labour hire arrangement order' can only apply to 'labour hire', consistent with the Government's policy;* > > *(e) all business groups agree that service contractors are not 'labour hire' and should be excluded from 'Same Job, Same Pay'; and* > > *(f) 'labour hire' must be defined and the legislation should expressly state that service contractors are excluded from the definition and it is not sufficient to rely onl
Senate, 2023-12-07. negative: ayes 25, noes 31.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-12-07.34.1) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (to read a bill for a second time is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with its main idea). This amendment was introduced by Victorian Senator [David Van](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/david_van) (Independent). ### Amendment text > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:* > > *(a) in the Government's 2023 policy paper it stated that the intent of 'Same Job, Same Pay' was 'the Government's Same Job, Same Pay measure seeks to address the limited circumstances in which host employers use labour hire to deliberately undercut the bargained wages and conditions set out in enterprise agreements made with their employees', and the bill does not do this and never has;* > > *(b) the bill does not define 'labour hire', unlike existing legislation governing labour hire, such as the 4 state and territory licensing regimes;* > > *(c) without a definition, labour hire businesses (who provide workers) are treated no differently to service contractors (who deliver a specified service), this is contrary to the Government's policy intent, and instead of 'limited circumstances' it casts the net over almost any form of contractor arrangement, and this is not about 'closing a loophole';* > > *(d) the definition of 'labour hire' in the Victorian Labour Hire Licensing Act 2018 should be reproduced in section 306E of the bill, to provide a 'regulated labour hire arrangement order' can only apply to 'labour hire', consistent with the Government's policy;* > > *(e) all business groups agree that service contractors are not 'labour hire' and should be excluded from 'Same Job, Same Pay'; and* > > *(f) 'labour hire' must be defined and the legislation should expressly state that service contractors are excluded from the definition and it is not sufficient to rely onl
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.