The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with an amendment introduced by Wentworth MP Allegra Spender (Independent), which means it failed.

Rebellion

Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote "No" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "Yes".

What did the amendment do?

Ms Spender explained that:

Politicisation damages public institutions and our democracy, and we cannot afford to undermine the NACC. My amendment addresses the risk of such politicisation without affecting the government's control over the parliamentary committee's other functions. It prevents the committee's chair from having the casting vote when it comes to appointing the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector. That means the majority of all committee members would be required to approve these appointments, including at least one crossbench or opposition member. My amendment will ensure that the people chosen for these critical roles enjoy multipartisan support and that they are truly independent from government. It is a commonsense way to ensure this commission delivers what the public expects.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) If the proposed recommendation is for the appointment of the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner, or the Inspector:

(a) the decision to approve or reject the recommendation is to be determined by a majority of all of the members of the Committee; and

(b) despite paragraph 173(5)(b), if the votes are equal, the Chair of the Committee does not have a casting vote.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments (3) to (7) introduced by Warringah MP Zali Steggall (Independent), which means they failed.

What did the amendment do?

Ms Steggall explained that:

Amendment (5) relates to setting a deadline for the tabling of reports from inquiries. Section 149 of the bill requires a commissioner to prepare a report on an investigation, and section 154 requires him or her to give a report to certain persons but provides no time frame in which that report should be provided. Parties subject to an investigation should have certainty around when a report will be released. This is so we don't have a situation such as the current one in New South Wales with the investigation into Gladys Berejiklian, where the report's release keeps getting delayed with no clear explanation, creating uncertainty for all sides. My proposal is that the report should be tabled within a year of the completion of public hearings or, where public hearings were not held, within a year of the last private hearing. This amendment will also require the tabling of reports to parliament to improve the transparency and accountability of the commission.

Amendments (6) and (7) set a deadline for the opportunity to respond to findings. Section 157 of the bill provides for the opportunity for any persons who have an adverse finding against them in a report to have a reasonable opportunity to respond. I believe this should be replaced with a fixed time frame in which to respond. The amendment proposes changing a reasonable opportunity to three months or such longer period as determined by the commissioner. Again, it is all about trying to provide a timeliness framework to investigations and reporting so that we don't have parties with deep pockets and an ability to bring on successive challenges in the legal sense that would delay the provision of reports. It is also because it can be politicised—we know this—and reports left without a specific time frame means they can be delayed purposefully or from an unintended consequence relating to when elections and other issues might be arising.

Amendments (3) and (4) relate to changing the threshold for the use of legal professional privilege so it cannot be so easily abused to avoid public hearings. The commissioner should have discretion in deciding whether or not to hear private evidence that may disclose legal advice or a communication protected by legal professional privilege. I agree with the Centre for Public Integrity to make this mandatory. The current legislation says it 'must be private in all circumstances', so to make it mandatory would be to leave it open to well-funded litigants to exploit this right, with the effect of delaying or disrupting the commission's work.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(3) Clause 74, page 69 (lines 16 and 17), omit subparagraph (b)(ii).

(4) Page 69 (after line 21), after clause 74, insert:

74A Evidence involving legal professional privilege

The Commissioner may determine that evidence is to be given in private if giving the evidence would disclose a communication that is protected against disclosure by legal professional privilege.

(5) Clause 149, page 122 (after line 6), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) The investigation report must be completed and tabled in each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable, and in any event within 12 months, after:

(a) if any public hearings are held in the course of the corruption investigation—the conclusion of the last public hearing that is held; or

(b) otherwise—the conclusion of the last hearing that is held in the course of the corruption investigation.

(6) Clause 155, page 128 (lines 5 to 7), omit all the words from and including "must" to the end of the clause, substitute:

must, within 14 days after receiving the report:

(c) table the report in each House of the Parliament; or

(d) if a House is not sitting—present the report to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.

(7) Clause 157, page 128 (line 32), omit "a reasonable opportunity", substitute "the period of 3 months, or such longer period as is determined by the Commissioner,".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments (1) to (3) introduced by Fowler MP Dai Le (Independent), which means they failed.

What did the amendment do?

Ms Le explained that:

The amendments I have risen to move will do the following: increase cooperation between the commission and individuals of multicultural backgrounds; and assist those with language barriers to be fully understood and also to clearly communicate with the commission. Amendment (1) will ensure translation and interpretation services are available to Australians who require them. It means the commission will need to provide contact details for translator services in a situation where there is a language barrier. This amendment will ensure that is followed through to summons and the commission's investigative processes. Amendments (2) and (3) will ensure the commission will provide individuals with appropriate mental health resources and support through the commission process. Being called in front of an integrity commission can be daunting, can be shocking and can lead to suicide—and it has led to suicides. I want to ensure that, when the commission is established, investigating corruption is not at the cost of life, especially a life who was not corrupt or may have never been found corrupt.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 63, page 64 (line 10), at the end of subclause (4), add:

; and (c) include contact details for translator services.

(2) Page 65 (after line 19), after clause 66, insert:

66A Services that must be provided to persons appearing at hearings

(1) The Commissioner must cause the following to be provided to a person who appears at a hearing:

(a) appropriate translation services during the hearing;

(b) mental health counselling and support services, provided by an appropriately qualified social support worker or health care professional (the treatment provider).

(2) If, under paragraph (1)(b), a person is provided with a counselling or support service by a treatment provider, neither the person nor the treatment provider is required to do anything under this Act that would disclose any statement made or any information given as part of the counselling or support service.

(3) Clause 73, page 68 (line 30), at the end of subclause (3), add:

; (f) whether a person giving evidence has a reasonable level of English language proficiency;

(g) the need for cultural sensitivity if the person giving evidence is from a non-English speaking background.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendment (10) introduced by Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means it failed.

What did the amendment do?

Dr Haines explained that:

This is a very important amendment because it speaks to independence again—the separation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission from the executive arm of government in a way that brings full transparency and accountability to this incredibly important legislation ...

This amendment will strengthen the all-important parliamentary oversight committee's role in keeping the NACC independent. This amendment requires that a majority of the parliamentary joint committee, when considering whether to approve or reject the appointment of a commissioner, a deputy commissioner or an inspector, must include at least two non-government members. The amendment will ensure that decision to approve or reject recommendations for the incredibly important appointment of the commissioner—the appointment of the commissioner is a make or break deal. We must make sure that it has the support of the whole parliament. So this amendment will ensure that that decision to approve or reject the recommendations for the appointment of the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector is a true consensus decision of this oversight committee, and not a government fait accompli.

This amendment adopts the appointment clause from my own bill, the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill, and I believe it's a very fair amendment. It ensures that the appointment decision has multipartisan support. It prevents the government appointing the commissioner, deputy commissioner or inspector when the proposal is only supported by the government. It ensures that when that crucial decision is made that at least two non-government members form part of the majority in approving that decision.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(10) Clause 178, page 146 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) The decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation is to be determined by a majority of all of the members of the Committee for the time being holding office. The majority must include:

(a) at least 2 Government members; and

(b) at least 2 non-Government members.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments (8) and (9) introduced by Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means they failed.

Rebellion

Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote "No" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "Yes".

What did the amendment do?

Dr Haines explained that:

These amendments enhance budgetary transparency and oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

... This amendment will also require the minister to table a statement of reasons if they deviate from the recommendations of the National Anti-Corruption Commission joint select oversight committee in relation to the budget. The amendment provides an additional layer of oversight and transparency over the National Anti-Corruption Commission's budget by requiring the government of the day to respond to a report regarding the adequacy of the NACC's budget.

... My amendments also require the parliamentary joint committee to review the Anti-Corruption Commission's budget every 12 months. This amendment will ensure regular review of the NACC's budgets and prevent the powerful budget oversight power from going unused.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(8) Clause 177, page 144 (line 19), before "to review", insert "at least once every 12 months,".

(9) Clause 177, page 144 (after line 30), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) If:

(a) in a report mentioned in paragraph (1)(g), the Committee makes a recommendation in relation to the NACC's finances and resources; and

(b) the Minister decides not to follow the recommendation;

then:

(c) the Minister must prepare a written statement of reasons for the decision not to follow the recommendation; and

(d) the Minister must cause a copy of the statement of reasons to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after making the decision.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments (1) to (4) introduced by Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means they failed.

Rebellion

Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote "No" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "Yes".

What did the amendment do?

Dr Haines explained that:

These amendments are really important. They put beyond doubt that pork-barrelling falls within the definition of 'corrupt conduct' when it meets the threshold of being serious or systemic. Pork-barrelling under this amendment will be defined as any conduct 'that involves the allocation of public funds and resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes'.

[...]

These amendments also ensure that the conduct of any person—and, notably, third persons—that could impair public confidence in public administration can be investigated by the NACC, when it meets the threshold of being serious and systemic.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 8, page 14 (after line 20), after paragraph (1)(d), insert:

(da) any conduct of a public official that involves the allocation of public funds or other resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes;

(2) Clause 8, page 14 (after line 23), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that impairs, or that could impair, public confidence in public administration and which could involve any of the following matters:

(a) collusive tendering;

(b) fraud in relation to applications for licences, permits or other authorities under legislation designed to protect health and safety or the environment or designed to facilitate the management and commercial exploitation of resources;

(c) dishonestly obtaining or assisting in obtaining, or dishonestly benefiting from, the payment or application of public funds for private advantage or the disposition of public assets for private advantage;

(d) defrauding the public revenue;

(e) fraudulently obtaining or retaining employment or appointment as a public official.

(3) Clause 8, page 14 (line 24), omit "does not", substitute "and subsection (1A) do not".

(4) Clause 8, page 15 (line 15), after "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or subsection (1A)".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendment (7) introduced by Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means it failed.

Rebellion

Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote "No" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "Yes".

What did the amendment do?

Dr Haines explained that:

If exceptional circumstances is to remain in this bill, it should be defined. The public deserves to know what circumstances justify the holding of a public hearing. My amendment will define 'exceptional circumstances' to mean 'circumstances where it is preferable or appropriate for evidence to be heard in public'. This will ensure the number of private hearings are not unreasonably increased due to the ambiguity of the phrase.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(7) Clause 73, page 69 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add:

Meaning of exceptional circumstances

(6) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), exceptional circumstances means circumstances in which it is preferable or appropriate for evidence to be given in public.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments (5) and (6) introduced by Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means they failed.

Rebellion

Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote "No" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "Yes".

What did the amendment do?

Dr Haines explained that:

Amendment (5) will strike out the unnecessary and alarming exceptional circumstances requirement. In my mind, this is the single most important change to this bill. My amendment will ensure that the commissioner may decide to hold public hearings if the commissioner is satisfied that it would be in the public interest—tested, simple and safe.

... amendment (6) will make it mandatory for the commissioner to consider certain factors when deciding whether to hold a public hearing, including unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing caused by a public hearing. This amendment boosts the protection of people who would be affected by the decision to hold a hearing in public.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(5) Clause 73, page 68 (lines 10 to 14), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.

(6) Clause 73, page 68 (line 16), omit "may", substitute "must".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with a motion introduced by Bradfield MP Paul Fletcher (Liberal), which means it failed. The motion was to suspend the usual procedural rules of parliament - known as standing orders - in order to let another vote take place.

Motion text

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government introduced the 249 page Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 on 27 October and rushed it through the House forcing its passage on 10 November through the use of a gag motion which greatly curtailed debate;

(b) the process was so rushed and chaotic that on 9 November the Government moved a further 34 pages of amendments;

(c) the Bill would make radical changes to Australia's industrial relations system including:

(i) abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission;

(ii) introducing compulsory multi-employer bargaining;

(iii) expanding the supported bargaining stream enabling businesses to be covered without their actual agreement; and

(iv) giving unions new powers including:

(A) forcing an employer to bargain for a replacement agreement, even if the employer and the majority of its employees do not wish to bargain; and

(B) vetoing an agreement reached by an employer and a majority of its employees to remove themselves from coverage by an agreement;

(d) the measures in the Bill, and the chaotic and rushed process, have been criticised by a wide range of stakeholders; and

(e) this Bill puts the narrow sectional interests of union bosses ahead of the interests of all Australians in a prosperous and harmonious society in which businesses of all sizes can grow and prosper, working in alignment with their employees, their suppliers, their shareholders and the broader community; and

(2) therefore calls on the Government to lay aside this damaging and ill-considered Bill.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "that the bill be read a third time", which is parliamentary jargon for passing the bill in the House. It will now be sent to the Senate for their consideration.

What does the bill do?

According to the bills digest:

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 aims to make numerous changes to industrial relations legislation with the intention of:

• encouraging and facilitating enterprise bargaining, and multi-business enterprise bargaining in particular
• simplifying the bargaining and approval processes for enterprise agreements, including simplifying the better off overall test (BOOT)
• improving job security and gender equity, including by limiting the use of fixed term contracts and prohibiting pay secrecy clauses
• improving workplace conditions and protections by providing an enforceable right to request flexible working arrangements
• abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and making the Fair Work Ombudsman the workplace relations regulator for the building and construction industry
• abolishing the Registered Organisations Commission and transferring its functions to the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission and
• enacting other measures not examined in this Digest.