This bill became law on Feb 26th, 2024.
Work & employment
A worker can only be treated as casual if there is no real advance promise of ongoing work and the worker gets casual loadingExtra pay on top of ordinary rates that is meant to compensate a worker for not getting permanent entitlements like paid leave. or casual pay rates.
Some workers were being kept on as "casuals" even when they had regular ongoing jobs, leaving them without permanent-work rights and letting employers avoid those rights by changing hours or rosters. The bill tightens the test for who counts as casual and lets eligible workers move to permanent work, with employers required to respond in writing.
Before the bill, some employees were still being treated as casuals despite working regular ongoing hours, which left them without permanent-work rights and made it easier for employers to avoid those rights by changing rosters or hours. The bill, introduced in September 2023 and passed in February 2024, tightened the legal test for casual work, created a pathway for eligible workers to move to permanent status, required written employer responses, and became law after Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill into law; on this page it marks the point when the new workplace rules became an Act. later that month.
The main criticism was that the bill layered complicated, late-changing workplace rules onto casual work, bargaining and union access in ways critics said would raise costs, create confusion and make it harder for small businesses to comply. That case was pressed mainly by Coalition senators and echoed by business groups in public reporting, while crossbench supporters said amendments and a review had made the package more balanced.
Minister MP introduced this bill. In the Senate final vote, support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, One Nation, some crossbench members; opposition came from Labor, Greens, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 26 Feb 2024
Final passage
Recorded final vote
2 counted final-passage votes were recorded.
Passage speed
175 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
A worker can only be treated as casual if there is no real advance promise of ongoing work and the worker gets casual loadingExtra pay on top of ordinary rates that is meant to compensate a worker for not getting permanent entitlements like paid leave. or casual pay rates.
A casual worker can ask to move to permanent work after 6 months, or after 12 months if the employer is a small business, if the job no longer looks genuinely casual.
Employers must give a written answer within 21 days when a casual worker asks to change their status.
Employers cannot cut a worker’s hours, change their roster pattern, or sack them to avoid casual employmentA work arrangement where the worker is not guaranteed ongoing hours, but this page focuses on when a job is genuinely casual and when a worker can ask to become permanent. rights.
The minister must start a review of the new gig worker rules and the new right to disconnectA rule that limits when workers can be expected to respond to work contact outside normal hours. no later than 2 years after royal assentThe final step that turns a bill into law; on this page it marks the point when the new workplace rules became an Act., and the reviewers must report within 6 months after the review begins.
(1) An employee is a casual employee of an employer only if:Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) as-passed bill text
(aa) an employee who has completed 6 months of employment (12 months if a small business employer) can notify the employer if, having regard to the employee’s current employment relationship with the employer, the employee believes that the employee no longer meets the requirements of subsections 15A(1) to (4);Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) as-passed bill text
(1) An employer must give an employee a written response to a notification given under section 66AAB within 21 days after the notification is given to the employer.Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) as-passed bill text
(1) An employer must not do any of the following in order to avoid any right or obligation under this Division:Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) as-passed bill text
The review must commence no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) as-passed bill text
Context
Before the bill, some employees were still being treated as casuals despite working regular ongoing hours, which left them without permanent-work rights and made it easier for employers to avoid those rights by changing rosters or hours. The bill, introduced in September 2023 and passed in February 2024, tightened the legal test for casual work, created a pathway for eligible workers to move to permanent status, required written employer responses, and became law after Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill into law; on this page it marks the point when the new workplace rules became an Act. later that month.
Regular workers remained classified as casuals
The bill was framed around workers who were kept as casuals even when their jobs had become regular and ongoing, leaving them without permanent-work rights.
User-provided bill brief ↗Government introduces the bill
The bill was introduced to tighten the test for casual employmentA work arrangement where the worker is not guaranteed ongoing hours, but this page focuses on when a job is genuinely casual and when a worker can ask to become permanent. and let eligible workers seek conversion to permanent work with a written employer response.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses agreed on the final form of the bill, clearing the way for the new casual conversionThe process that lets an eligible casual ask to move into permanent full-time or part-time work. protections and anti-avoidance rules to become law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill receives Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill into law; on this page it marks the point when the new workplace rules became an Act.
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill into law; on this page it marks the point when the new workplace rules became an Act. turned the measure into an Act, formally establishing the new casual employmentA work arrangement where the worker is not guaranteed ongoing hours, but this page focuses on when a job is genuinely casual and when a worker can ask to become permanent. rules and the later review requirement.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Committee (07/09/2023): Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee; Further proceedings of the inquiry into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 have been confined to consideration of this bill (07/12/2023) ; Committee report (01/02/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved : Bill divided by the Senate on 07/12/2023
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 34 to 30.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
Recorded vote: 30 to 33.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill into law; on this page it marks the point when the new workplace rules became an Act., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill layered complicated, late-changing workplace rules onto casual work, bargaining and union access in ways critics said would raise costs, create confusion and make it harder for small businesses to comply. That case was pressed mainly by Coalition senators and echoed by business groups in public reporting, while crossbench supporters said amendments and a review had made the package more balanced.
Criticism was substantial but mostly came from the Coalition and employer-side advocates, not from all non-government senators.
Complexity and compliance burden
Critics said the bill's casual employmentA work arrangement where the worker is not guaranteed ongoing hours, but this page focuses on when a job is genuinely casual and when a worker can ask to become permanent. test and related new rules were too complicated for ordinary employers to apply, especially small businesses, and would create uncertainty, extra legal risk and higher labour costs.
Expanded union power and workplace entry
Opponents argued the bill shifted power toward unions through broader entry and bargaining settings, with warnings this could intrude into small or family-run workplaces and leave employers at a disadvantage in disputes.
Rushed amendments and poor certainty
A separate concern was that major amendments were added late and in large numbers, leaving employers, HR teams and even workplace advisers struggling to understand what the final law would require before Parliament voted on it.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Defeated 30 to 33. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 32 to 29. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 34 to 30. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 35 to 28. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Defeated 59 to 79. Support came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The amendments were defeated, so the Senate’s workplace changes remained before the House.
Passed 81 to 59. Support came from Labor, Greens, and Katter's Australian Party. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a procedural vote, not a final vote on whether the bill would become law.
Defeated 58 to 78. Support came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The amendments were defeated, so the House did not undo those Senate changes.
Passed 78 to 61. Support came from Labor, Greens, and Katter's Australian Party. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The guillotine motion carried, cutting off further debate and forcing the House toward a decision.
Passed 80 to 59. Support came from Labor, Greens, and Katter's Australian Party. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The proposed change was agreed.
The APH progress record says 82 Government amendments were agreed without a counted division being collected by this run.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The APH progress record says 8 Crossbench amendments were agreed without a counted division being collected by this run.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The APH progress record says 2 Crossbench amendments were agreed without a counted division being collected by this run.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Defeated 32 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Because the amendment failed, the bill’s second reading continued without that formal criticism being added.
Passed 34 to 31. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The amendment carried, so the Senate added the Greens’ right-to-disconnect changes to the bill.
Defeated 31 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The proposed change was not agreed.
Passed 36 to 29. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The proposed change was agreed.
Defeated 5 to 44. Support came from Jacqui Lambie Network, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The amendment failed, so the bill did not gain that coal-industry casual pay package.
Defeated 30 to 31. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The amendment failed narrowly, so the bill did not create that CFMEUA major union named in the debate because some amendments and speeches focused on its structure and power. demerger process.
Passed 34 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The amendment carried, strengthening protections for casual workers using the bill’s new processes.
Defeated 29 to 31. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The amendment failed, so the bill did not add that extra safeguard for bargaining determinations.
Defeated 30 to 33. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The package was defeated, so those bill changes remained in place.
The Senate agreed on voices to a large package of Government, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, Independent and joint crossbench amendments.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Lambie’s package was agreed on voices and bundled changes to casual employmentA work arrangement where the worker is not guaranteed ongoing hours, but this page focuses on when a job is genuinely casual and when a worker can ask to become permanent. timing, road transport and digital labour platform rules, underpayment entry powers, a worker opt-out for section 15AA, consultation bodies, a review clause, and some small business penalty settings.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 80 Government amendments, 8 Crossbench amendments, 2 Crossbench amendments, and 108 Government, 3 Australian Greens, 1 Jacqui Lambie Network, 79 Jacqui Lambie Network/Independent amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Roberts opposes the bill, saying it will not fix the wage theft he alleges in coalmining and instead gives union bosses more power without accountability.
Read in Hansard ↗Barbara Pocock says the Greens support the bill because it makes modest but important gains for gig workers, casual workers and bargaining rights, while also saying it still falls short because it does not yet include a right to disconnectA rule that limits when workers can be expected to respond to work contact outside normal hours..
Read in Hansard ↗Pocock supports the bill and says the crossbench amendments have made it fairer, simpler and better balanced for workers and businesses.
Read in Hansard ↗Matt O'Sullivan opposes the bill and moves an amendment to block it, arguing it is bad industrial relations policy that will raise costs, worsen productivity and hand more power to unions.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
7 speakers · 7 support
“This bill completes the work of the original bill. It will ensure that no worker slips through the cracks of IR loopholes and a corporate race to the bottom on working conditions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Remember: we're only talking about cases where the Fair Work Commission is satisfied that wage theft may be taking place. The current system gives the wage thief a 24-hour heads up before the union can help. In what other part of the legal system do we give people strongly suspected of a crime a 24-hour head start on the authorities? It's completely ridiculous, and this law closes that loophole. The whole bill closes the loopholes that some businesses have used to drive down wages and make jobs less safe and less secure to compete unfairly with good businesses. This bill is a cost-of-living bill. This bill will save businesses. This bill will save lives, and it must be passed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“My good friend Senator Polley this morning in her contribution said that she was brought up in a family that I think is quintessentially Australian. She was told, 'Show up to work, do a really good day's work, get a fair pay, make sure you've got an insurance policy and join your union, and if you get really smart you'll join the Labor Party too.' She knows what a winning ticket looks like. This piece of legislation will close the loopholes that have seen too many Australians exploited. This is going to be better for workers and better for our nation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation, which has been dragged out for months and months and months, needs to pass this chamber. They've fought against this legislation every single step of the way.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There are loopholes here we must close, and I am proudly, proudly supporting the bill before us.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill, as it says in its name, is about closing the loopholes that undercut pay and conditions for workers. It is absolutely amazing that those opposite aren't supporting that—then again, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. It will implement the necessary steps to protect and strengthen hard-fought industrial rights and protections.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is just going to deliver some basic minimum standards for workers. That's what it's going to do. It's going to deliver some basic safety standards for these workers. Fair and safe workplaces are what Australians expect, and it's what all Australian workers, and all workers who we invite to our shores to work in the essential jobs that we rely on, deserve.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
7 speakers · 8 contributions · 7 oppose
“Above all, the economic modelling represents something akin to a year 8 economics paper. The RIS was cobbled together. The way this government has presented this bill is an embarrassment. Its data limitations, its assumptions, are completely inept and completely unacceptable, given the original bill contained 800 pages. This government was not interested in knowing the full cost implications of this bill; its calculations were inept at best. This bill does nothing to benefit Australian families or reduce cost-of-living pressures, and it does everything to increase trade union influence in the workplace.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Albanese Labor government's latest round of industrial relations will have a damaging impact on our economy and on your standard of living. The government, the Greens and Senator Pocock have let drop a number of last-minute amendments to this proposed legislation, which they're now ramming through in less than 24 hours without scrutiny. These amendments actually make this bad bill even worse overall.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“However, there are deep concerns we have in relation to this legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. As is so often the case when there are things that need to be addressed in society and issues of legitimate concern to anyone of good faith and good heart, there's concern that, when the regulatory pendulum swings too far and too hard, good people who are doing the right thing are damaged. A lot of those good people aren't the cross-border multinationals with billions and billions of dollars of capital; they're small businesses. The over two million small businesses in this country, which employ more than 40 per cent of employed Australians, are the ones who are going to be left to grapple with this legislation. They're the ones I'm concerned about—the small businesses who don't have an internal legal department with hordes and hordes of lawyers ready to support them and don't have multiple billions of dollars of capital but who are just hanging on by their fingernails. I have advocated for a number of these small businesses to the Australian Taxation Office and to other people in relation to what they're going through. My concern is for those small businesses and what this legislation is going to impose upon those small businesses.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There is so much that is wrong with this bill. Unfortunately, given the time today, we're only going to get a short amount of time to talk about it. But I've got to deal with the right to disconnect. This is fantastic, seriously! I see Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, has come out today and backed in that right to disconnect. Let's talk about this right to disconnect. It wasn't talked about prior to the election; that's not unusual for the Albanese government. It certainly wasn't raised in any of the non-consultation that the government had on any of their industrial relations bills.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. There is nothing more to say about this bill than that it is a bad bill for Australia. In fact, it is disastrous. Senator Sheldon just used the saying, 'If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.' Well, I tell you what, there is a far more apt saying about this bill, and that is: 'You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.' This bill does not fool anybody. You can dress it up in all of the pious things that have been said on the other side of the chamber—as if there's only one side of this chamber that has compassion for Australians. You can be as pious as you like, but nothing will change the fact that this week the Prime Minister lost the confidence of the Australian people because his word is no longer his bond.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Maria Kovacic on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Maria Kovacic says the opposition will vote against the bill because it is overly complex, raises costs for small businesses and consumers, and adds uncertainty for casuals and contractors. She argues it is a union-driven change that weakens productivity, jobs, and competition.
“This bill does nothing to address the productivity crisis and it does absolutely nothing to increase competition. It places jobs at significant risk and it seeks only to act as part of the blank cheque that the Labor government writes to the union movement every single election.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Kovacic opposes the bill, arguing that its new union right-of-entry powers would let union representatives enter farms and even family-home workplaces without notice, and that the government is siding with unions over small businesses. She also criticises the bill's new definition of casual employmentA work arrangement where the worker is not guaranteed ongoing hours, but this page focuses on when a job is genuinely casual and when a worker can ask to become permanent. as one of its most egregious features.
“No evidence is required for unions to exercise their right-of-entry powers. The National Farmers Federation is right to be concerned about the new rights of entry without notice, which would allow union reps to enter farms unannounced. For most farmers, their workplace is also their family home. The farm is their kids' backyard. Union reps should not be able to waltz in unannounced, and this begs the question: what does this mean for small businesses that operate out of their owners' family homes? Does this bill give union representatives the right to enter a family home purely based on a fear that an underpayment has occurred? No-one knows the answer to this question. Perhaps we will have to rely on the Prime Minister and his word as his bond if he tells us that it's not the case. How on earth does this provision balance the rights and liberties of employers and employees fairly?”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This is an economically destructive bill. It will damage our economy over time and it will see more people on the unemployment queue. I think that is a disgrace, and this bill should not be supported.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“The key purpose of a workplace relations system must be to protect the interests of working people fairly from the disproportionate power of employers, big contractors and monopolies. The Australian Greens have already secured amendments in the closing loopholes bill that will improve working conditions, and we urge the parliament to support our amendment and to legislate a right for workers to disconnect. It is good for workers, good for their kids, good for their mental health, good for our communities and also good for our productivity.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Greens are on record as supporting this bill and wanting it to go further. We are supporting this bill and acknowledging that it goes some way to giving Australia a fairer and more equitable industrial relations system that really focuses on the rights of working people; to having a system that gets away from the idea that the market will determine everything and that workers are just little widgets that get put into the economy; and to actually ensuring that peoples' rights as workers, as employees, are respected and that they're treated as people—not as little economic widgets that can just be squeezed, manipulated, sacked, reengaged and contracted out but actually as people.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“Nothing in this bill will fix the absolute scandal One Nation has uncovered. Minister Burke's bill aims to hide those responsible. Failure of the CFMEU bosses is even more obvious. We have a signed letter from the Hunter Valley CFMEU and labour hire company Chandler Macleod. In that letter, the CFMEU promises to never take action against Chandler Macleod for any breaches of worker entitlements. Our report details that the CFMEU has had commercial business dealings in the coal sector for decades. The CFMEU pretends to be a union. In fact, it is one of the employers, the bosses. It started labour hire casuals in the Hunter. It employed labour hire casuals. It started it. This theft must stop. CFMEU union bosses must be held to account for failing to represent workers, for betraying workers. The Fair Work Commission must be held to account for failing to stop dodgy enterprise agreements.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“I think almost every area that was raised as a key concern during consultation has been improved and there has been a balance struck. There are people on both sides who are unhappy, but things like people's right to convert from casual to permanent have been strengthened.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“To conclude: I will support this bill, as it is an important step to ensuring better workplace conditions for so many people. Much of the detail of what this will look like in the future remains to be seen, and I look forward to the agenda the Fair Work Commission will set up for determining minimum standards for digital platform work. I will keep watching this process closely and I will stand with workers always.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved : Bill divided by the Senate on 07/12/2023
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 34 to 30.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 30 to 33.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill into law; on this page it marks the point when the new workplace rules became an Act., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee; Further proceedings of the inquiry into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 have been confined to consideration of this bill (07/12/2023) ; Committee report (01/02/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (7 Sept 2023): Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee; Further proceedings of the inquiry into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 have been confined to consideration of this bill (7 Dec 2023) ; Committee report (1 Feb 2024)
APH bill page notes
