The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment to another motion, which means it failed.

Amendment text

That all words after paragraph (1) be omitted and the following be inserted:

(2) the question on the second reading of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 not be put until such time as every other Member willing to speak on the question has spoken for up to 15 minutes as provided for under standing order 1.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Warringah MP Zali Steggall (Independent), which means they failed and won't be included in the bill.

Rebellion

Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote 'No' in this division while the rest of her party voted "Yes". This means that Ms Archer supported these amendments.

What did the amendments do?

Ms Steggall explained that:

There are two components to the amendment that I have circulated. It's a simple amendment to the drafting of the objects of the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022. What's important in the first part of this amendment is that it's consistent with recommendation 16a of the Respect@Work report. This amendment omits the 'so far as practicable' from the objects. This is necessary because the current wording introduces a lower standard than is proposed in recommendation 16 of the Respect@Work report. It's inconsistent with several other objects contained in section 3 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which sets a higher standard. It may give rise to the implication that rights codified in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women will only be protected domestically to the extent that it is practicable to do so.

In relation to the second part of the amendment, it is about changing the language used. The objects as drafted by the government in the bill refer to men and women specifically. We need to start moving to gender neutral language. Legislation in this place needs to start embracing the future and younger generations, who are not defined by gender language. In line with the Commonwealth Latimer House principles, gender neutral language should be used in the drafting and use of legislation.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 8, item 2, page 44 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item, substitute:

2 Paragraph 3(e)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(e) to achieve substantive equality for everyone, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Wentworth MP Allegra Spender (Independent), which means they failed and won't be included in the bill.

Rebellion

Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote 'No' in this division while the rest of her party voted "Yes". This means that Ms Archer supported these amendments.

What did the amendments do?

Ms Spender explained that:

I celebrate the respect at work bill and I commend the government for putting forward this legislation at this time. However, in the noble pursuit of swiftly implementing the remaining findings of the Respect@Work report, this bill is too narrowly focused on sex. Hostile environment provisions and the positive duty to prevent discrimination do not extend to the full range of characteristics protected under the Sex Discrimination Act, including sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, pregnancy or relationship status. In particular, this bill does not provide appropriate protection to LGBTQ people. That is absolutely crucial in our consideration because there's ample evidence that LGBTQ people are particularly vulnerable to hostile environments in the workplace and are particularly vulnerable to the mental health impacts of such environments.

The bill also creates inconsistency in terms of what we're asking from business, who must already comply with antidiscrimination law that relates to all the protected characteristics under the Sex Discrimination Act.

The amendment I have moved extends the hostile workplace environment and positive duty provisions in this bill to cover all characteristics that are protected under the Sex Discrimination Act. It provides protections for the LGBTQ community and greater consistency and ease of implementation for business. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 12), after “sex”, insert “, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities”.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (before line 15), before the definition of workplace , insert:

discrimination matter means the following:

(a) a matter mentioned in any of paragraphs 5(1)(a) to (c) (sex discrimination);

(b) a matter mentioned in any of paragraphs 5A(1)(a) to (c) (discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation);

(c) a matter mentioned in any of paragraphs 5B(1)(a) to (c) (discrimination on the ground of gender identity);

(d) a matter mentioned in any of paragraphs 5C(1)(a) to (c) (discrimination on the ground of intersex status);

(e) a matter mentioned in any of paragraphs 6(1)(a) to (c) (discrimination on the ground of marital or relationship status);

(f) a matter mentioned in any of paragraphs 7(1)(a) to (c) (discrimination on the ground of pregnancy or potential pregnancy);

(g) a matter mentioned in any of paragraphs 7AA(1)(a) to (c) (discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding);

(h) a matter mentioned in any of subparagraphs 7A(b)(i) to (iii) (discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities).

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 19 to 29 ), omit section 8A, substitute:

8A Workplace environment that is hostile for 2 or more reasons

For the purposes of this Act, a workplace environment may be offensive, intimidating or humiliating to a person by reason of a discrimination matter if it is offensive, intimidating or humiliating by reason of 2 or more matters that include a discrimination matter, whether or not the discrimination matter is the dominant or substantial reason.

(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 5), at the end of subsection 28M(1), add “, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities”.

(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (lines 7 and 8), omit “the ground of sex”, substitute “a ground mentioned in subsection (1)”.

(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (lines 13 to 22), omit paragraph 28M(2)(c), substitute:

(c) a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated the possibility of the conduct resulting in the workplace environment being offensive, intimidating or humiliating to a person with the characteristics of the second person by reason of a discrimination matter.

(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 4), after “sex”, insert “, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities”.

(8) Schedule 2, item 8, page 7 (line 23), after “sex”, insert “, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities”.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with a motion to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - in order to let a vote on another motion take place.

Motion text

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

That:

(1) a Joint Select Committee on Fair Work Amendment Leg islation be established to inquire into and report on the provisions of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022;

(2) the committee consist of 12 members, being two from the House of Representatives and two from the Senate no minated by the Prime Minister, two from the House of Representatives and two from the Senate nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, and two from the House of Representatives and two from the Senate to be nominated by any minority group or independent M ember or Senator;

(3) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(4) in the event that a house is not sitting and is not expected to meet for at least two weeks, the relevant whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, minority groups or independent Senators may nominate any appointment or discharge of a member of a committ ee in writing to the relevant Presiding Officer. The change in membership shall take effect from the time the Presiding Officer received the written nomination. At the next sitting, the Presiding Officer shall report the change to the relevant house and th e house shall resolve that membership of the committee;

(5) the persons appointed for the time being to serve on the committee shall constitute the committee notwithstanding any failure by the Senate or the House of Representatives to appoint the full numb er of Senators or Members referred to in this resolution;

(6) members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's report;

(7) the committee elect a chair and deputy chair;

(8) in the event of an equally di vided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;

(9) four members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include at least one Government member of either house and one non-Government member of either house;

(10) the committee have power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(c) sit in public or in private; and

(d) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;

(11) the committee report on or before the last sitting day in February 2023;

(12) the bill not proceed past its second reading until the committee has reported; and

(13) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing and sessional orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with a motion:

That the Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022 made under the Export Control Act 2020 on 5 April 2022 and presented to the House on 26 July 2022, be disallowed.

To disallow with a motion is to stop it from having legal force. Because this motion failed, the rules will continue.

Why was this motion introduced?

Clark MP Andrew Wilkie (Independent), who introduced the motion, explained his reasoning:

in April 2022—this year!—the then coalition government made regulations which effectively reduced the live-export prohibition period during the Northern Hemisphere summer? I remind members that those regulations made by the previous government allowed Australian exporters to take sheep through the Red Sea to Israel for that two-week period from 1 to 14 June, which had been previously banned. Moreover, in terms of the ban on exporting to some Persian Gulf destinations, including Qatar—although not the major live export ports of Oman and Kuwait—live exporting was allowed to begin a week earlier, on 22 May, this year. Effectively, this means there was an 11-day reduction in the prohibition on exporting sheep to Qatar and a 14-day reduction in the prohibition on exporting sheep to Red Sea destinations.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments (2) and (4) introduced by Fadden MP Stuart Robert (Liberal), which means they failed.

What were these amendments?

Mr Robert explained that:

Amendments (2) and (4) seek to put what was the annual member meeting notices by regulation into primary legislation. Imagine an incoming government's first act of Treasury. You would think the first act would be fairly significant. They've been out of government for nine years, and the very first act of Treasury was to water down transparency in super.

Whitlam MP Stephen Jones (Labor) countered that:

There is an important piece of work to be done on transparency and reporting in superannuation funds all across the country. Unfortunately, the politically motivated regulations that were introduced by the former government were all about the politics and had nothing to do with transparency. I ask the House to consider this: if there is something material that ought to be disclosed to members, would you stick it in the annual member meeting notice, or would you stick it in an annual report? Would you stick it in an annual member meeting notice that gets mailed out, or would you stick it in the annual report that is required to be disclosed to all of your members, to regulators and all the rest of it?

Read more about these amendments in the debate.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment introduced by Moncrieff MP Angie Bell (LNP), which means it failed.

Note that this is an amendment to a second reading motion, which means that it would have no legal force even if it had succeeded. Instead, these types of motions are symbolic and represent the will of the House majority.

Note also that "to give a bill a second reading" is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with its main idea.

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 that this bill does nothing to address broader challenges for access to child care in Australia, namely:

(a) child care service gaps in regional Australia; and

(b) early childhood education and care workforce shortages which are preventing families from accessing the care they need;

(2) notes that the Government's child care package, which costs $4.5 billion, does not add one additional child care place;

(3) notes that child care providers have already increased fees since the Government came to office and the additional demand placed on child care services as a result of this bill will put further inflationary pressure on fees;

(4) calls on the Government to ensure that the promised savings for families will not be eroded by higher fees due to the additional demand for child care services as a result of this bill; and

(5) notes that the bill commits to higher ongoing structural spending and calls on the Government to manage its spending commitments to improve the budget while standing by their promise to deliver legislated targeted income tax relief"

The majority voted in favour of an amended motion to suspend the usual procedural rules of parliament, which are known as standing orders, and instead agree to the timetable set out below.

Motion text

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022:

(1) from 8 pm on Wednesday 26 October, the time limit for Members speaking on the second reading debate being reduced to 10 minutes;

(2) from 9 pm on 26 October, the time limit for Members speaking on the second reading debate being reduced to 5 minutes;

(3) the second reading debate continuing until either:

(a) no further Members rise to speak; or

(b) a Minister requires that the debate be adjourned at no earlier than 10 pm; at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday 27 October at 9 am;

(4) during the sitting of Thursday 27 October, the bill being called on and questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill;

(5) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill, with any detail amendments to be moved together, with:

(a) one question to be put on all government amendments;

(b) one question to be put on all opposition amendments; and

(c) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to;

(6) should a Minister require, any question provided for under paragraph (5) being put after no less than 10 minutes of debate on each set of amendments;

(7) when the bill has been agreed to, the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill; and

(8) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with Senate amendments (2) to (7) and (14) to (16). This means that the bill will be returned to the Senate where our senators will decide on whether to insist on their amendments or not.

Kingston MP Amanda Rishworth (Labor) explained why the Labor party opposed these amendments:

These amendments that have been put forward are amendments that are completely unrelated to the Commonwealth seniors health card. In fact, the amendments are based on a completely separate private member's bill introduced into the Senate on 3 August 2022 by Senator Dean Smith. The Senate 28 September 2022 amendments to the bill do not concern the Commonwealth seniors health card. They do not concern the income limits that the Commonwealth seniors health card relates to. This is a political tactic by the opposition to delay many seniors access to this important card, and I urge the opposition to stop these shenanigans.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with a motion to ignore the usual rules - known as suspending standing orders - in order to let another vote take place.

Motion text

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would allow the Member for Melbourne to give notice for a Bill for an Act which would have the effect of repealing the stage three tax cuts.