The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Mackellar MP Sophie Scamps (Independent), which means they failed.

What did these amendments do?

Dr Scamps explained that:

I bring forward these amendments today to inject into the bill a more robust and independent process for the appointment of members to the board of this corporation. After all, this board will be making investment decisions for a $15 billion fund.

Over the last decade, the integrity of many institutions that underpin our democracy has taken a battering. In recent years, we've witnessed the 'jobs for mates' culture flourish here in Canberra, as rates of political friendly appointments to public boards and entities have soared. Last term, one of those entities, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, was so heavily stacked with political appointees—a rate of 40 per cent of those appointments—that the current Attorney-General has made the decision to abolish it. How can the Australian people trust the decisions that flow from institutions that have had their independence compromised in this way?

Amendment text

(1) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 20), after the definition of financial accommodation, insert:

former judge means:

(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or

(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or

(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

(2) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) A person must not be appointed as a Board member unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and

(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and

(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(3) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) Within 7 days after a person is appointed as a Board member, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification for the person (referred to in subparagraph (1A)(a)(iii)) to be:

(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or

(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Warringah MP Zali Steggall (Independent), which means they failed.

What would these amendments do?

Ms Steggall explained that:

These amendments seek to prevent misleading and deceptive advertising in the upcoming referendum campaign. These amendments, which will prohibit misleading or deceptive political advertising and referenda advertising, are a practical, popular and proven way to clean up our politics. They approach the regulation of political advertising with caution and respect for our constitutional freedom of political communication.

They are also urgent. We live in a world where our democracy is under attack from disinformation. A vote based on lies and misleading information lacks social licence and divides our communities. It lacks legitimacy and erodes trust in election results.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment introduced by Fowler MP Dai Le (Independent), which means it failed.

Ms Le explained that:

I agree with the minister that we should have a board with diverse skills and experience, but it must obviously have people with firsthand experience of community and social housing. It is therefore incredibly disappointing that the government won't be mandating a community housing provider representative. Without the government's mandate, the idea that it will happen—it just won't. To some extent I agree with the member for Griffith about the representation on the council, but co-investment from property developers and CHPs is crucial to the social housing sector.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 22, page 13 (lines 26 to 29), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) In appointing members, the Minister must ensure that:

(a) the appointed members collectively have an appropriate balance of qualifications, skills or experience in the fields mentioned in subsection (2); and

(b) at least 1 appointed member is a representative of the Community Housing Provider sector; and

(c) consideration is given to appointing members who have personal experience of social and affordable housing; and

(d) there is gender and cultural diversity within the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means they failed.

Rebellion

Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) voted "No" against the rest of her party, who voted "Yes". This is known as crossing the floor.

What did the amendments do?

Dr Haines explained that:

The council's role is to advise the government on how the Housing Australia Future Fund should be distributed and to assist them in making well-informed decisions. The amendments circulated add two additional functions to the council: first, to advise the minister on housing supply and affordability in regional, rural, remote and Australia; and, second, to include critical enabling infrastructure when it's monitoring conditions that impact housing supply. [...] I've said again and again that we can't fix housing supply if we don't fix critical enabling infrastructure. My amendments put regional, rural and remote Australia and critical enabling infrastructure on the council's agenda and, therefore, on the government's agenda.

Amendments text

(1) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 4), after the definition of Chair, insert:

critical enabling infrastructure, for new social or affordable housing, means:

(a) infrastructure critical to support the new housing, including new or upgraded infrastructure for services such as water, sewerage, electricity, telecommunications or transportation; or

(b) site remediation works relating to the new housing, including the removal of hazardous waste or contaminated material.

(2) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 13), after the definition of member, insert:

regional, rural and remote Australia means an area that is classified as inner regional Australia, outer regional Australia, remote Australia or very remote Australia under the Remoteness Structure described in:

(a) the document titled "Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5—Remoteness Structure, July 2016", published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as amended from time to time; or

(b) the most recent replacement of the document referred to in paragraph (a) that is published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as amended from time to time.

Note: The Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5—Remoteness Structure, July 2016 could in 2023 be viewed on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website (https://www.abs.gov.au).

(3) Clause 9, page 5 (after line 25), after paragraph (1)(b), insert:

(ba) to advise the Minister on matters relating to housing supply and affordability in regional, rural and remote Australia;

(4) Clause 9, page 6 (line 7), after "homelessness", insert ", critical enabling infrastructure for new social and affordable housing".

(7) Clause 22, page 13 (after line 29), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) Despite subsection (3), at least one of the appointed members must have:

(a) substantial experience, expertise or qualifications; and

(b) significant standing;

in relation to housing needs in regional, rural and remote Australia.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment introduced by Mayo MP Rebekha Sharkie (Centre Alliance), which means it failed.

Ms Sharkie explained that:

This amendment is pretty simple. One in five of us live in regional Australia; at least one in five of these homes should be in regional Australia. Too many of the decisions we make in this place very much favour the capital cities, and I see in my electorate and I see in regional Australia more generally that there is a huge need for housing. Down on the south coast of my electorate, we're talking about vacancy rates of less than one per cent. We need to make sure that a share of this money is going across regional Australia—just an equitable share. That's where the need is so great and that is where people are so isolated.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 18, page 18 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add:

(9) The proportion of grants made under subsection (1) or (3) during a financial year that are grants in relation to acute housing needs, social housing and affordable housing in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia must be equivalent to the proportion of the Australian population that live in those areas based on the most recently available census data.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment introduced by Fowler MP Dai Le (Independent), which means it failed.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 65, page 48 (line 24), omit "2028", substitute "2025".

What would this amendment do?

Ms Le explained that:

This amendment to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill ensures there is a timely review process in which we should be able to see the effectiveness of the bill in two years, not five years. Not every piece of legislation is perfect. Sometimes we get the processes wrong.

Note from 17/02/23

Note that this division entry is currently showing Calare MP Andrew Gee (Independent) as a rebel. This is an error and due to the fact we have not yet updated our system to show that Mr Gee has left the Nationals and is now an Independent.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the bill. In other words, they voted to agree with the detail of the bill and can now decide whether to pass it in the House of Representatives.

What does this bill do?

The bills digest sets outs the following key points:

• Section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 applies a ‘character test’ to all non-citizens holding or applying for an Australian visa. Under this provision, if the Minister or a delegate is not satisfied that a non-citizen passes the ‘character test’ they may—and in some specific cases must—cancel or refuse to grant a visa to the person.
• Cancellation of a person’s visa is mandatory if they are serving a prison sentence and they have a substantial criminal record or have been convicted of sexually based offences involving a child. One of the grounds for determining that a person has a substantial criminal record for the purposes of mandatory visa cancellation is if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
• In Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether an aggregate sentence of imprisonment (a single sentence for more than one offence) constituted ‘a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more’.
• The Federal Court found that it did not, and the Government is now seeking to amend the Migration Act to provide that where a provision of the Migration Act or regulations made under that Act refers to a sentence of imprisonment, it does not matter whether this sentence has been imposed with respect to one offence or multiple offences.
• The Bill will also retrospectively validate decisions affected by the Pearson decision, including validating previous mandatory cancellation decisions of a person’s visa.
• The Human Rights Law Centre has previously stated that the inclusion of aggregated sentences for the purposes of mandatory visa cancellation cannot be ‘easily reconciled with the Labor government’s commitment to reducing immigration detention numbers’. Other human rights advocacy groups, such as the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, have opposed the Bill.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing of a motion introduced by Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel (Independent), which means it failed.

Amendment text

(1) Page 7 (after line 33), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Character test

Migration Act 1958

1 After subsection 501(7)

Insert:

(7AA) Paragraphs (7)(c) and (d) do not apply if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years or less, and any of the following apply:

(a) the person is a person for whom a protection finding within the meaning of subsections 197C(4) to (7) has been made;

(b) the person is a person in respect of whom Australia has non-refoulement obligations;

(c) the person is stateless;

(d) the person has arrived in Australia and has been granted a visa on humanitarian grounds.