This bill became law on Jul 9th, 2024.
Work & employment
An application could be made to the Fair Work CommissionThe workplace tribunal that runs the ballot and has a role in approving how the split happens. for a secret ballotA private vote used here to let members decide whether the Manufacturing Division should leave the CFMEU. on whether the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. Manufacturing DivisionThe part of the CFMEU that the bill lets members vote to split off and form a new union. should leave the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union., but it had to be lodged before 31 October 2024.
The CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. Manufacturing DivisionThe part of the CFMEU that the bill lets members vote to split off and form a new union. wanted to leave the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union., but a one-off, time-limited process was needed to make that happen. The bill lets members vote on a de-merger, creates an agreed alternative process if both sides opt in, and sets rules to stop overlap between the two unions.
A union demergerThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. pathway had previously been put into federal law, but by 2024 the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. Manufacturing DivisionThe part of the CFMEU that the bill lets members vote to split off and form a new union. wanted to leave the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. and a fresh, one-off process was needed to let members vote and to stop the two organisations ending up with overlapping coverage. The government responded by introducing a bill tailored to that split, Parliament passed it quickly in late June and early July 2024, and Royal Assent on 9 July 2024 turned the special withdrawalThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. process into law.
The main criticism was that the bill is a narrow, union-specific fix that singles out the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. and could set a bad precedent, while still leaving demergerThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. rights too limited and time-boxed. That argument came most clearly from the Greens in outright opposition, while Coalition speakers mostly backed the bill but said its restrictions showed it did not go far enough.
Hon Tony Burke MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, Nationals, some crossbench members; opposed by Greens.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 09 July 2024
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
15 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
An application could be made to the Fair Work CommissionThe workplace tribunal that runs the ballot and has a role in approving how the split happens. for a secret ballotA private vote used here to let members decide whether the Manufacturing Division should leave the CFMEU. on whether the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. Manufacturing DivisionThe part of the CFMEU that the bill lets members vote to split off and form a new union. should leave the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union., but it had to be lodged before 31 October 2024.
If the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. and its Manufacturing DivisionThe part of the CFMEU that the bill lets members vote to split off and form a new union. jointly notified the minister by 30 August 2024, the minister could set a tailored legal process for the split.
If the ballot applicant asks for all or part of the vote to be held in person, the Fair Work CommissionThe workplace tribunal that runs the ballot and has a role in approving how the split happens. must allow that voting method.
Until 1 January 2034, the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. cannot get approval for rule changes that would overlap with the new union's coverage if the new union objects.
The new union created by a split and the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. cannot end up covering the same workers when the withdrawalThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. takes effect.
enable an application to be made to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) before 31 October 2024 for a ballot to be held to decide whether the Manufacturing Division should withdraw;Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) explanatory memorandum
(1) If a joint written notice is given to the Minister under subclause 2(2) on or before 30 August 2024, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a determination:Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Act 2024 final Act text
(10) Notwithstanding the old Act and the old Regulations, if the application seeks, pursuant to subsection 100(3) of the old Act, that the FWC make orders that the vote of the constituent members be done in whole or in part by attendance ballot, the FWC must make the orders.Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Act 2024 final Act text
Subclause 6(2) deals with the situation where a future proposed alteration to the eligibility rules of the CFMEU (however named) would result in overlapping eligibility rules between the CFMEU and the new organisation. The subclause would prohibit the FWC or General Manager from consenting to such an alteration, if the FWC or the General Manager is satisfied that the alteration would result in an overlap between the eligibility rules of the CFMEU and the new organisation, and the new organisation has raised an objection to the alteration. This provision would effectively require the consent of the new organisation to proposed alterations to the eligibility rules of the CFMEU that would affect it as well. This prohibition on the FWC or the General Manager consenting to such alterations would apply until 1 January 2034.Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) explanatory memorandum
(5) The eligibility rules of the CFMEU, as proposed to be altered, must not overlap with the eligibility rules of the new organisation when the withdrawal from amalgamation takes effect.”.Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Act 2024 final Act text
Context
A union demergerThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. pathway had previously been put into federal law, but by 2024 the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. Manufacturing DivisionThe part of the CFMEU that the bill lets members vote to split off and form a new union. wanted to leave the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. and a fresh, one-off process was needed to let members vote and to stop the two organisations ending up with overlapping coverage. The government responded by introducing a bill tailored to that split, Parliament passed it quickly in late June and early July 2024, and Royal Assent on 9 July 2024 turned the special withdrawalThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. process into law.
Opposition cites earlier union demergerThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. pathway
Opposition speakers said the bill restored a union demergerThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. mechanism that had been enacted by the former Coalition government in 2020.
Hansard ↗Government introduces a one-off bill for the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. Manufacturing DivisionThe part of the CFMEU that the bill lets members vote to split off and form a new union. split
The minister said the bill would let the Manufacturing DivisionThe part of the CFMEU that the bill lets members vote to split off and form a new union. apply for a member ballot on withdrawing from the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. and set safeguards so any new union would not overlap with the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union.'s coverage.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both Houses passed the bill in the same form, completing Parliament's approval for the special demergerThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. process.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Withdrawal process commences after Royal Assent
The Act commenced the day after Royal Assent, allowing the time-limited mechanism for a Manufacturing DivisionThe part of the CFMEU that the bill lets members vote to split off and form a new union. withdrawalThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. ballot and related non-overlap rules to take effect.
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. For this bill, the Federation Chamber reported back later the same day and the House then completed its remaining formal steps that day.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step. The official House record shows the referral out and return both happened on the same day, before the House moved to its final formal votes.
Reported from Federation Chamber
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 agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 45 to 10.
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
Recorded vote: 46 to 10.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill is a narrow, union-specific fix that singles out the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. and could set a bad precedent, while still leaving demergerThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. rights too limited and time-boxed. That argument came most clearly from the Greens in outright opposition, while Coalition speakers mostly backed the bill but said its restrictions showed it did not go far enough.
Most criticism was conditional or about the bill's narrow design, not opposition to allowing a demergerThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. itself.
Singles out one union
Critics argued the bill unfairly targets the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. instead of setting a general rule for all registered organisations, raising concern that parliament was making industrial law for one political controversy rather than applying a consistent principle.
Too narrow and time-limited
Supporters with reservations said the bill was drafted too narrowly because it only created a short, special pathway for this case, rather than restoring broader ongoing withdrawalThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. rights for divisions of amalgamated unions.
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.
Passed 46 to 10. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, Nationals, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 45 to 10. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, Nationals, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Defeated 58 to 80. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was the main second-reading amendment in the House and it tested whether the demergerThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. rules should apply more widely than the government bill proposed.
Senate
Defeated 27 to 33. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a second-reading statement vote, so it tested support for allowing union divisions to split off by ballot rather than changing the bill text itself.
Passed 30 to 29. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This added a political call to the second-reading motion rather than altering the bill text, and it passed by one vote.
Defeated 26 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This vote would have broadened the bill beyond the manufacturing divisionThe part of the CFMEU that the bill lets members vote to split off and form a new union. and made the withdrawalThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. pathway permanent, but the Senate did not accept the package.
Moved by Michaelia Cash (Liberal Party). Defeated 27 to 33. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a second-reading statement vote about expanding demergerThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. rights, not a direct change to the bill text.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Burke supports the bill and says it will let affected members of the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. manufacturing divisionThe part of the CFMEU that the bill lets members vote to split off and form a new union. vote on whether to demerge, with limited safeguards and a fallback mechanism if the parties agree on the details by 30 August 2024.
Read in Hansard ↗Nick McKim says the Greens will oppose the bill because they believe it could fragment the union movement and weaken workers' ability to organise, bargain, and take collective action.
Read in Hansard ↗Fletcher says the coalition will not block the bill, but argues Labor is only bringing it forward because of CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. pressure and that the government reversed course for political convenience rather than concern for workers.
Read in Hansard ↗Katter supports the bill, because he says the coalminers union should stand apart from the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. and argues that workers need a union that fights for them.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
“I hope all members will support this legislation, which will give affected members of the manufacturing division the opportunity to vote on whether to demerge from the CFMEU.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
14 speakers · 12 support · 1 mixed · 1 unclear
“"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is about restoring the position put in place by the coalition.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'll be speaking in support of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. Talking about payments to the ALP instead of the union may have been a Freudian slip by the member for Kennedy, because what we're seeing, and what we're seeing with this piece of legislation, is actually who is controlling the ALP—who is directing them and who has directed them on this issue.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In February this year, Senator Lambie brought forward a private senator's bill that would have allowed the manufacturing union, which included the textiles union, to demerge from the CFMEU. This government had an opportunity back then to deal with an insidious issue where that section of the union wanted to disassociate itself because they were embarrassed to be connected with the behaviour of the construction division of the CFMEU. This government wouldn't do anything about it then. But, finally, we have a bill here—that we are going to pass today, hopefully—that will resolve this issue and allow the textiles union, in particular, to demerge from the CFMEU. This is a good thing.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“At long last, despite opposing a proposal of this very same nature in February, the Albanese Labor government are now allowing the manufacturing division to demerge from the CFMEU.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I don't expect the Australian Labor Party to support that because, again, this is a political bill, and nothing more, to clean up a mess. If you truly believe that smaller unions should be allowed to withdraw if they want to—and it really doesn't matter what the reasons are, quite frankly—because they no longer feel that they can represent their own workers within the bigger union that they are in, the only logical law to have in place is one that allows them to demerge. But no, this is a tightly drafted bill. Worse, it even has a timeframe in it, so that, if you don't do it in a certain timeframe, it's 'too bad, so sad' and you've got to stay. Shame on Mr Albanese and shame on Mr Burke. It's a political fix to what is a very, very serious problem.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As for the Greens, it seriously just baffles me how the Australian Greens could possibly vote against this legislation. This is about the right of the textile worker members who form part of that union not wanting to be associated with the CFMEU construction division because they don't agree with the tactics of the CFMEU construction division and how they conduct themselves. On what possible basis would you say to a group of people who are currently part of a union and don't want to be part of that union because they don't agree with its intimidation, bullying, threatening and unlawful behaviour, 'No, you've got to stay there'? The Australian Greens say: 'You've got to stay there. We don't care. You've got to stay with John Setka and his bullying mates. You don't have the right to leave.' What right do the Australian Greens have to say that to those workers? What gives you the right to say that to those workers? They are people's mothers, sisters and daughters. What gives you the right to issue that edict from this place? What gives the Australian Greens the right?”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The real question is: What's going to happen in the future? Are they going to quietly, in six months time, change the legislation and drag out the process for the textile workers so nothing can change? Will they wait until the heat dies down, bring it back in, ram it through with their numbers and do a sweetheart deal with a few on the crossbench to get it through? Well, let's see.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The legislation that's before this place is legislation that simply puts back into law the very good law relating to union demergers that the coalition government brought in in 2020. It should never have been repealed. That much is evident.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Now we're faced with a piece of legislation which I support but which I think should go further, and I would like to see more ALP members coming in here to support their own piece of legislation and explain to the union movement and explain to Australia why it's important, because that's what we do in this place—we bring our experiences and explain why things are important, otherwise you'd just passed legislation and have no debate. That sometimes happens here, with the guillotines that I've seen going on. But what this legislation seeks to do is say that a union that's incorporated into the CFMEU can demerge if it wishes, and that's the right thing. It's the right thing in this case, and I think we're going to move some amendments that say it should be the right thing to do in a number of other cases.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“What do we have a result? We have a weaker economy and businesses going bust at almost record levels. That is why this bill is a fantastic step forward. I'm sure the forestry division would also like the right to get out of this space, but anything that shuts down the CFMEU and brings sanity to our workplaces in the construction sector is something I will support.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The textile clothing and footwear sector, which has the greatest number of women members, faces significant issues within the CFMEU.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, in Adelaide we have the threat via John Setka that the new headquarters for the Adelaide Crows team will be sabotaged, disrupted, delayed and have enormous cost blowouts. If the AFL doesn't dismiss a very innocent employee of theirs whose great high crime was legally working for the Australian Building and Construction Commission, then that will be the punishment meted out by Mr Setka and his thug mates at the CFMEU. This behaviour is completely disgusting and utterly unsurprising. It underscores why we need to bring back the ABCC. And it definitely underscores the importance not only of passing this bill but also perhaps of the government recognising the fact that it should never have been illegal in the first place for unions to have the right to demerger, particularly in circumstances such as this one. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That is why we will support this bill and it's why we will put forward necessary amendments, because it's not only the demerger power that's needed for this one-off example with the CFMEU. It is needed across the board because we want to make sure that real wages go up—as the Prime Minister promised—but at the moment, sadly, they are going down. And we want to make sure that when it comes to that Australian dream, especially for young Australians, of being able to own your first home that we will be able to do the things that are necessary to make that dream a reality for young Australians—not what this government is doing, driving prices higher and higher and making that dream an unreality.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“The Greens have a straightforward and very principled position on this legislation. We are not going to support this legislation. We're going to stand with working Australians, and we're going to support unions that in turn support the rights of working Australians. That's why we opposed things like the ABCC, that's why we voted against Work Choices, that's why we were so critical of the royal commission into unions, and that is why we're going to oppose this legislation today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It is a bit shocking to see them now saying, 'Actually, we want to reinstate some of it,' because generally, as I said, what we should have is a system of laws that applies across the board. If you break those laws, the system should be holding you to account. Also, when it comes to unions and their fate, they should comply with the laws that exist and are in place at the time. If there is a case to make for changing those laws generally, then come in and make it, but it is a really worrying precedent in terms of what this government is doing. I urge the government to rethink this question and ask themselves why it is you don't see Labor members standing up here and speaking on this. You only see coalition members. If you're bringing in legislation that the coalition thinks is a terrific idea, are you doing the right thing?”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 4 contributions · 3 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Bob Katter on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Katter supports the bill, because he says the coalminers union should stand apart from the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. and argues that workers need a union that fights for them. His main point is that the split reflects the real interests of coal workers, even though he uses the speech to attack the treatment of the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. and the decline in coal jobs.
“Let me go back to the coalminers union. We are now not in the CFMEU. We are in the coalminers union. Wages in Queensland have been driven down from $185,000 a year to $135,000 a year, for those of us who can get jobs—because we're supporting an ALP that wants the coal industry closed down.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Bob Katter supports the bill, saying there is logic in the manufacturing section of the CFMEUThe union at the centre of the bill; the Manufacturing Division wants to leave this larger union. leaving and that the union movement is better off recognising the split. He argues that workers still need to stay united, but accepts this withdrawalThe legal process for a division to leave a merged union and become separate again. as a practical step.
“But I'll get back to the heart of what we're discussing today, which is that a large part of the CFMEU, the manufacturing part, is leaving. The manufacturing part is dominated by women. In fact, every executive member that I've met from that part has been a woman. Of course, on the construction side, every person I've met has been a man, and that's fairly predictable, looking at what is required in both of those industries. There is logic in these people leaving, but, at every demonstration or rally I've been in as a very active member of the CFMEU, we chant 'Workers united cannot be defeated.' Well, we're a bit disunited here! But I can see the logic that is behind this. These ladies really don't want to be running around with hard knuckleheaded construction workers who are overwhelming, almost exclusively, male. So there is a lot of logic in what is taking place here, but I do urge all elements of the trade union movement to realise that workers united cannot be defeated, and if we are disunited we are very easily defeated.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“So here we are, the Labor Party has copied my private senator's bill and have finally brought it to the chamber today—hurray. Well done to Minister Burke for acting quickly, no matter his motivation. I am confident the coalition will back this in. They know very well how John Setka operates and what pressure he puts on people to make sure that he gets what he wants.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Frankly, I support the coalition's previous legislation that allowed demergers of unions, and I stood against the government's repealing of this legislation. If they hadn't repealed this legislation we would not currently be in this situation where we have to pass this separate legislation. I'm not suggesting that we would see necessarily a lot of demerger activities but we do need to have broad demerger abilities in the union movement in Australia.”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 · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
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 · 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
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: 45 to 10.
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 · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 46 to 10.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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 Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
