The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading motion - "that the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill) - which was introduced by Bradfield MP Paul Fletcher (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 notes that:

(1) the electronic execution of a Commonwealth statutory declaration was first implemented under the former government;

(2) digital verification relies on MyGovID and the Trusted Digital Identity Framework, both of which were created by the former government;

(3) the government is yet to formally respond to the MyGov User Audit; and

(4) the government is yet to establish a legislated national digital identity system".

The majority voted in favour of a motion:

That the question be put.

In other words, they voted to end debate on the matter and instead vote on it straight away.

The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time" (reading a bill for a second time is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This amendment was introduced by Barker MP Tony Pasin (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 that the bill is deficient in a number of respects including that:

(1) more than three million Australians have a HECS debt or other type of student debt under the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) scheme which increased by a massive 7.1 per cent on 1 June 2023, the highest indexation rate in more than 30 years, as a result of the Government's cost of living crisis and sky-high inflation rate;

(2) by proposing to abolish the Coalition's 50 per cent pass rule, the Government has failed to protect students at high risk of not completing their course from accumulating debilitating HECS debts and suffering acute financial hardship;

(3) the Government's reliance on a 'survey' of 27 universities to justify the abolition of the 50 per cent pass rule indicates that the Government has not been able to access the relevant data as to how many students are impacted by this measure, reflecting a poor adherence to evidence-based policy;

(4) in proposing to uncap Commonwealth supported places (CSPs) available to Indigenous students living in metropolitan areas which extends the Coalition's measure to uncap CSPs for Indigenous students living in regional and remote Australia, the Government has not explained how it will hold universities to account for poor completion rates by Indigenous students which currently sees only 26 per cent of Indigenous students complete their undergraduate degree within four years, with 37 per cent of students dropping out during that period;

(5) by reason that the Government is proposing to release a consultation paper on its proposed support-for-students policy, it is clear that the Government has not done its homework on this policy nor determined the basis on which universities would be fined as proposed by the bill;

(6) the bill fails to impose on universities a strong accountability and transparency framework including fair and just access to student refunds and the requirement that universities must publish all relevant course information including out-of-pocket costs, total costs, completion rates, modes of course delivery, and employment outcomes;

(7) the Government needs to be transparent with taxpayers regarding how much its changes to the higher education system will cost and how it will pay for them; and

(8) given its deficiencies, the bill should be referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry".

The majority voted against an amendment to a motion, which means the amendment failed.

NOTE: At the time this entry was edited, MP Cameron Caldwell was showing up as a rebel voter, but this is an error (see the original Hansard record, which shows Mr Caldwell voting with the rest of his party).

Amendment text

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

this House:

(1) expresses its regret and apologises to the Australians who received unlawful debt notices under the income compliance program administered by the Department of Human Services and Services Australia;

(2) notes that the Morrison Government cancelled the program and it ensured that those affected received a refund or had their debts zeroed, and that, to date, 99 per cent of refunds have been issued; and

(3) notes that debate on this motion moved by the Member for Maribyrnong is diverting parliamentary time from the pressing challenges which Australian are facing, including eleven consecutive mortgage interest rate increases under this government, gas and electricity prices increasing dramatically in the face of the government's inability to deliver the promised $275 reduction in power bills, and soaring inflation which is creating a cost of living challenge for Australians.

Original motion text

That this House:

(1) accepts the findings of the report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme regarding the former ministers involved in the design and implementation of the scheme;

(2) expresses its deep regret and apologises to the victims of the unlawful robodebt scheme, and to front-line Centrelink staff; and

(3) commits to ensuring this cruel, unlawful chapter in the history of Australian public administration is never repeated.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Dickson MP and Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton (Liberal), which means it failed. The motion was to suspend the usual procedural motions - known as standing orders - in order to let another vote take place.

There was one rebellion, with Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossing the floor to vote "No" against the rest of her party.

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—

That the House:

(1) notes the Prime Minister is dividing the nation with his divisive voice proposal by deliberately refusing to provide detail to the Australian people;

(2) further notes the Prime Minister promised on 34 occasions to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, which includes the Makarrata Commission's national treaty-making process, but has since continually denied there will be a treaty;

(3) notes the Minister for Indigenous Australians said work on a treaty was to start within weeks but the Prime Minister is now walking that back and in two train wreck media interviews, the Prime Minister is telling different audiences different things on the treaty;

(4) further notes that despite the Prime Minister being shifty on whether a treaty is being worked on, he has already allocated $5.8 million for the Makarrata Commission national treaty-making process but refuses to explain how $900,000 of this money has already been spent;

(5) notes that the Government's Minister for Indigenous Australians has treated this House with contempt by repeatedly and consistently failing to answer direct questions in Question Time; and

(6) condemns the Prime Minister for his complete inability to be upfront and honest with the Australian people and calls on the Prime Minister to explain today in plain language what:

(a) The Voice will be, how it will be structured and how it will operate;

(b) the Makarrata Commission will be, how it will be structured and how it will operate;

(c) the money for the Makarrata Commission is being spent on; and

(d) the treaty making process will be, how long it will take, and what the financial implications for the Commonwealth and for taxpayers will be.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree to the bill. This means that they agreed with the bill and will now consider whether to pass it so it can be sent to the Senate for their consideration.

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest, the key points on the bill are that:

• Australia is a party to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Protocol). The London Protocol aims to promote the effective control of all sources of marine pollution and take practical steps to prevent pollution of the sea by the dumping of wastes and other matter.

• The London Protocol is administered by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialised agency of the United Nations.

• The London Protocol is implemented in Australia by the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Sea Dumping Act). However, certain activities, including sub-seabed sequestration of greenhouse gases, are also regulated by the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (OPGGS Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

• The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 proposes to amend the Sea Dumping Act to implement 2009 and 2013 amendments to the London Protocol to:

• allow for the issue of permits for the export of carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for the purpose of sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formations

• allow for the issue of permits for the placement of wastes or other material for a marine geoengineering activity for the purpose of scientific research.

• The commencement of the provisions would be dependent on the deposit of ratification, and in the case of the 2009 amendment, further steps as outlined in this Digest.

• The amendments to the London Protocol were subject to a House Standing Committee inquiry and have also been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time. This means that they agreed with the main idea of the bill and will now discuss the bill in greater detail.

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest, the key points on the bill are that:

• Australia is a party to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Protocol). The London Protocol aims to promote the effective control of all sources of marine pollution and take practical steps to prevent pollution of the sea by the dumping of wastes and other matter.

• The London Protocol is administered by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialised agency of the United Nations.

• The London Protocol is implemented in Australia by the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Sea Dumping Act). However, certain activities, including sub-seabed sequestration of greenhouse gases, are also regulated by the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (OPGGS Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

• The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 proposes to amend the Sea Dumping Act to implement 2009 and 2013 amendments to the London Protocol to:

• allow for the issue of permits for the export of carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for the purpose of sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formations

• allow for the issue of permits for the placement of wastes or other material for a marine geoengineering activity for the purpose of scientific research.

• The commencement of the provisions would be dependent on the deposit of ratification, and in the case of the 2009 amendment, further steps as outlined in this Digest.

• The amendments to the London Protocol were subject to a House Standing Committee inquiry and have also been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.