The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). The amendment was introduced by Hume MP Angus Taylor (Liberal).

Amendment text

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:

(1) this Government has mismanaged the economy and made a deliberate decision to break promises and raise taxes;

(2) the Coalition is committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes;

(3) because Australians are hurting from the Government's mismanagement of the economy, the Coalition will not oppose the reduction in the 19c tax rate to 16c;

(4) the Coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that is in keeping with the stage 3 tax cuts; and

(5) the Coalition's package will:

a. deliver lower, simpler, and fairer taxes;

b. fight bracket creep and enshrine aspiration in our tax system;

c. reward hard work and support a strong economy where every Australian can get ahead; and

d. unite, rather than pit Australians against each other".

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Brisbane MP Stephen Bates (Greens) to an original amendment, which means the original amendment will remain unchanged.

Amendment

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "

(1) notes that these revised tax cuts will still make economic inequality in Australia worse by:

(a) giving politicians and CEOs on incomes more than $200,000 three times the value of tax cuts compared to the average worker;

(b) only providing the poorest 20 per cent of society with 0.4 per cent of the share of tax cuts next financial year, compared to the wealthiest 20 per cent of society who will enjoy half the total value of the tax cuts;

(c) exacerbating the gender pay gap, with 42 per cent of the tax cuts going to women and 58 per cent to men; and

(d) starving the budget by a jaw-dropping $318 billion over the decade, removing revenue that could support people who rely on aged care services, disability support, income support and families who depend on the public education and health systems; and

(2) calls on the government to redesign the tax cuts to not give the wealthiest in society $4,529 a year and instead redirect this largesse to expanding public services like mental health and dental into Medicare and financial support for those earning below the tax free threshold in this cost of living crisis".

Original amendment

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:

(1) this Government has mismanaged the economy and made a deliberate decision to break promises and raise taxes;

(2) the Coalition is committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes;

(3) because Australians are hurting from the Government's mismanagement of the economy, the Coalition will not oppose the reduction in the 19c tax rate to 16c;

(4) the Coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that is in keeping with the stage 3 tax cuts; and

(5) the Coalition's package will:

a. deliver lower, simpler, and fairer taxes;

b. fight bracket creep and enshrine aspiration in our tax system;

c. reward hard work and support a strong economy where every Australian can get ahead; and

d. unite, rather than pit Australians against each other".

The majority voted against a motion:

That the member [i.e., Watson MP Tony Burke (Labor)] be no longer heard.

The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading amendment, which is "that the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This amendment was introduced by Deakin MP Michael Sukkar (Liberal).

Motion text

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Coalition's strong record supporting government funded paid parental leave;

(b) the former Government's commitment to supporting women's participation in the workforce saw women's participation reach record highs;

(c) at both the 2010 and 2013 federal elections, the Coalition's paid parental leave policy sought to deliver 26 weeks paid parental leave based on actual wage;

(d) both Labor and the Greens opposed the Coalition's paid parental leave policy; and

(e) the current paid parental leave scheme disproportionately adversely impacts smaller businesses, imposing an additional red-tape burden on small businesses by making them the pay clerk for the Government's paid parental leave scheme; and

(2) calls on the Government to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act to require the Secretary, as defined by the Act, to pay parental leave pay instalments directly to employees of small businesses except in cases where a small business opts to pay parental leave pay instalments directly to an employee".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the Senate amendments, which means the bill has now been passed in both house of parliament in its final form and so can now become law.

What are the Senate amendments?

Several amendments were agreed in the Senate, with the text of these amendments available here. Some of these amendments have a relevant explanatory memorandum, which is a political document that is prepared by the proposing party. You can find these memoranda on the bills homepage by matching the title of the amendment with the relevant explanatory memorandum. For example, the first amendment listed is labelled "sheet ZC243 revised" and can be matched with the Supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to sheet ZC243.

What does the bill do?

According to the bills digest (which is prepared by the non-partisan parliamentary library):

• The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 seeks to amend the Water Act 2007 and the Basin Plan 2012 to implement legislative aspects of the Agreement of Murray-Darling Basin Ministers to deliver the Basin Plan in full agreed by the Commonwealth and Basin States (except Victoria) on 22 August 2023.

• The Bill broadens the activities that may be funded by the Water for the Environment Special Account, repeals the limit on the Commonwealth’s purchase of water access entitlements, and extends several timeframes for delivery of water recovery projects.

• The Bill also seeks to amend the Water Act, Basin Plan and Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CC Act) to implement some recommendations of the Water market reform: final roadmap report. That report examined and mapped out a ‘phased, practical and cost-effective plan’ (p. 2) for responding to the recommendations of the ACCC’s Murray-Darling Basin water markets inquiry.

• Water market reforms proposed include a Water Market Intermediaries Code, civil penalties for insider trading and market manipulation, and strengthening information transparency mechanisms.

• The Explanatory Memorandum (pp. 7–8) indicates that the Department undertook 2 separate consultation processes:

• in relation to delivery of the Basin Plan, a general consultation on community ideas for delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan

• in relation to water market reforms, a targeted consultation with key stakeholders, including by providing an Exposure Draft of proposed provisions.

• While stakeholders have generally welcomed the extension of key timeframes for delivery of water recovery targets, farming and irrigator groups remain strongly opposed to the purchase of water access entitlements by the Commonwealth and voiced concerns about negative social and economic impacts on Basin communities.

• The Bill has been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 November 2023.

The majority voted in favour of a motion:

that the question be now put.

In other words, they voted in favour of ending debate and instead voting on the matter under discussion straight away.

The majority voted against amendments introduced by North Sydney Kylea Tink (Independent), which means they failed.

What did the amendments do?

Ms Tink explained that:

the first amendment I am moving will require the committee to report on defined national poverty reduction targets. If the purpose of this committee is to help our government and this parliament shift the dial then we must know not just what we are currently dealing with but where we are trying to get to. Improving policy to eradicate poverty for all people in this country should be a central part of the committee's remit. As we are already seeing, growing inequality undermines social cohesion and is detrimental to economic growth. It is pivotal, therefore, that the very committee tasked with providing independent advice to the government on economic inclusion and how to tackle disadvantage put poverty reduction front and centre. My amendments task the committee with setting out the process and time line for the development of national poverty targets and measures and reporting on the progress made to achieve those targets.

Secondly, these amendments require the committee's report to be released to the public at least two weeks before the budget. As we know, the interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee was established earlier this year pending this legislation being passed. Yet its primary recommendation—that 'the government, as a first priority, commit to a substantial increase in the base rates of the JobSeeker payment and related working age payments'—was not implemented in the most recent federal budget. Similarly, the interim committee's call for the scrapping of the activity test for child care subsidies went unheeded. This shows us there is a real risk that the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee's recommendations will be ignored by the government, and it is imperative that the committee's report be made public at least two weeks before the budget to give the public, individuals, peak bodies, NGOs and social services time to consider the committee's recommendations and then monitor which are taken up come budget day.

Thirdly, these amendments require that the committee be composed of people with lived experience of poverty. While efforts are being made to ensure that a diverse range of experts sit on the committee, the perspectives of a peak employer group, a business association or an academic are not the same of those of people with real lived experience of poverty and economic disadvantage. Only a woman actually living in a car knows exactly why she is there and why there is no other option, just as only a young person trying to survive in a city while seeking work knows what it's like to struggle, and only an older Australian trying to balance their pension across competing priorities knows what it's like to go without.

To ensure people from all walks of life and all socioeconomic backgrounds can become committee members, these amendments provide for committee numbers to be remunerated. Making committee membership a paid position reduces the risk of people not being able to afford to participate or having limited capacity to participate due to a lack of resources.

Finally, these amendments ensure there is gender equality and Indigenous representation by requiring that 50 per cent of the committee be composed of women and requiring sufficient Indigenous representation on the committee as determined through consultation with Indigenous representative bodies.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Clause 8, page 6 (line 5), at the end of subclause (2), add:

; (h) the process and timeline for developing and achieving national poverty-reduction targets, or, if those targets are already developed, the progress towards achieving those targets.

(3) Clause 8, page 6 (lines 15 to 19), omit subclause (5), substitute:

Timing of report

(5) The Committee must give the report at least 15 business days before the Commonwealth Government budget is delivered in the House of Representatives.

(4) Clause 8, page 7 (lines 1 to 4), omit subclause (9), substitute:

Publication

(9) The Minister must cause a report given under this section to be published on the Department's website within 5 business days after the day it is given under this section.

(5) Clause 11, page 8 (after line 12), after the heading to subclause (2), insert:

(1A) In appointing the Chair and other members of the Committee, the Minister must ensure that at least 5 members are persons directly affected by poverty.

(6) Clause 11, page 8 (line 14), omit "each member", substitute "each of the members not covered by subsection (1A)".

(7) Clause 11, page 8 (lines 29 and 30), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute:

(a) ensure that at least half of the members of the Committee are women; and

(aa) after consulting bodies representing Indigenous persons, ensure that the membership of the Committee consists of a sufficient representation of Indigenous persons; and

(8) Clause 14, page 10 (lines 3 to 8), omit the clause, substitute:

14 Remuneration and allowances

(1) A member of the Committee is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed by the regulations.

(2) A member of the Committee is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed by the regulations.

(3) Subsections 7(9) and (13) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 do not apply in relation to the office of a member of the Committee.

Note: The effect of this subsection is that remuneration or allowances of the members of the Committee will be paid out of money appropriated by an Act other than the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

(4) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (except as provided by subsection (3)).

The majority voted in favour of an amendment introduced by Bradfield MP Paul Fletcher (Liberal), which means it succeeded.

Amendment text

That all words in paragraph (1) after "immediately" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"with the time limit for the first Opposition speaker being 10 minutes, and the time limit for all other Members speaking being five minutes".

Original motion text

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:

(1) debate on the second reading resuming immediately, with the time limit for Members speaking being five minutes; and

(2) the second reading debate continuing for no longer than one hour, after which the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

The majority voted against a motion to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - in order to let another vote take place. This means that other vote won't happen.

Motion text

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—

That the House:

(1) expresses its grave concern at the vicious rise of antisemitic vilification in our country, and the breakdown in social cohesion occurring in our communities;

(2) expresses its grave concern that social disharmony has reached dangerous levels, and that community safety is now at significant risk;

(3) condemns the Prime Minister's failure to show the strong leadership required to overcome divisions within his own caucus, to stamp out antisemitism and bring our country together;

(4) expresses its concern that community safety in this country has been further threatened by the release of more than 80 hardcore criminals from immigration detention into the Australian community;

(5) expresses its deep concern that this cohort includes individuals who have committed acts of child rape, murder, sexual assault, and other violent crimes;

(6) condemns the Government for catastrophically and demonstrably failing to prepare contingencies for High Court proceedings where it fully aware of the risks;

(7) condemns the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs for consequently undertaking an unprecedented and shocking mass release of dangerous criminal non-citizens into the Australian community; and

(8) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to:

(a) understand that his priority must be the protection of the Australian community at home;

(b) cancel his plans to travel to the United States;

(c) urgently convene a National Cabinet meeting to formulate a strong and coherent response to combat the rise of antisemitism, repair social cohesion and protect community safety;

(d) urgently bring forward any legislation necessary to neutralise the threat posed by the hardcore criminals his Government has released into the Australian Community; and

(e) amend the days and hours of sitting to facilitate the passage of such legislation prior to the rising of the Parliament this week.