The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with an amendment introduced by Mayo MP Rebekha Sharkie (Centre Alliance), which means the amendment was unsuccessful.

What is the amendment?

Ms Sharkie explained that the amendment:

aims to supplement measures provided in schedule 2 of the bill. It does not limit matters which may be provided for in the User Rights Principles under the Aged Care Act. It does, however, specify that those principles should include a reasonable schedule of charges associated with the provision to care recipients of administration and management of care, services, and equipment.

The bills digest explained that Schedule 2:

will introduce a power enabling the Government to limit (cap) the fees that approved providers can apply to home care package recipients and remove the ability of approved providers to charge the care recipient an exit amount.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 5 (line 11), omit "recipient;", substitute:

recipient, including a schedule of reasonable charges associated with the provision of the following to the care recipient:

(i) administration and management of care;

(ii) services;

(iii) equipment;

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment to the usual second reading motion, "that the bills be read a second time." To read a bill a second time is to agree with its main idea. Because this vote to disagree was successful, the original motion will remain unchanged.

This amendment as introduced by Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Farrer MP Sussan Ley (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 that, of the aged care providers who do not currently have a registered nurse on site, and on duty, at all times, 53% are based in regional and remote areas and 86% are small providers; and

(2) calls on the Government to ensure that:

(a) when amending the Quality of Care Principles to make provision for an exemption to the new responsibility relating to registered nurses, the disproportionate impact on providers in regional and remote areas, especially small providers, is taken into account; and

(b) further consideration of the bill is deferred until two sitting days after a draft of legislative instruments relating to the following matters are made available:

(i) exemption from the responsibility related to registered nurses as proposed in section 54-1A of the bill; and

(ii) information about aged care services that must be publicly available as proposed in section 86-10 of the bill".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment to another amendment moved by Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Farrer MP Sussan Ley (Liberal). Because this motion passed, the amendment to the amendment failed and the original motion will remain unchanged.

This amendment to the amendment was introduced by Mayo MP Rebekha Sharkie (Centre Alliance), who explained that her amendment:

calls on the government to take into account ... that smaller and regional residential aged-care providers which are experiencing critical workforce shortages have flexibility.

Amendment to the amendment text

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

"the House:

(1) has concerns that the bulk of the substantive measures comprising the bill are to be detailed in subordinate rather than in primary legislation; and

(2) calls on the Government to

(a) provide an opportunity to review the Quality of Care Principles, User Rights Principles and Information Principles proposed to be made under the Aged Care Act 1997;

(b) include in the Quality of Care Principles under Schedule 2 criteria for the exercise of exemption powers which provide for smaller and regional providers taking into account critical workforce shortages among other considerations; and

(c) specify in Information Principles under Schedule 3 financial and non-financial information of value to older Australians, their families and the community that must be published by the Secretary, including:

(i) expenditure on care, nursing, food, maintenance, cleaning and administration;

(ii) profits;

(iii) payments such as rent to third parties; and

(iv) expenditure on executive salaries".

Original 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:

(1) notes that, of the aged care providers who do not currently have a registered nurse on site, and on duty, at all times, 53% are based in regional and remote areas and 86% are small providers; and

(2) calls on the Government to ensure that:

(a) when amending the Quality of Care Principles to make provision for an exemption to the new responsibility relating to registered nurses, the disproportionate impact on providers in regional and remote areas, especially small providers, is taken into account; and

(b) further consideration of the bill is deferred until two sitting days after a draft of legislative instruments relating to the following matters are made available:

(i) exemption from the responsibility related to registered nurses as proposed in section 54-1A of the bill; and

(ii) information about aged care services that must be publicly available as proposed in section 86-10 of the bill".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an Opposition motion introduced by Bradfield MP Paul Fletcher (Liberal) to suspend the standing orders so as to allow another motion to amend the standing orders to be considered immediately. Standing orders are the usual procedural rules of parliament. The result of the vote means that the House will not proceed to debate and vote on that subsequent motion.

In arguing for the suspension of standing orders, Paul Fletcher argued:

This is demonstrably a matter of urgency. We have just had a change to the standing orders made on the basis of a series of arguments put by the Leader of the House and, indeed, by the crossbench, which argued that it's been the conduct of the opposition—it was said—which meant there had been a reduction in the effective number of questions that members of the crossbench were able to ask. […]

As I have explained to the House, the practical consequence of the change which has just been made is that there will be a reduction in the effective number of questions which are open to the opposition to ask every day. Standing order 65(a) is predicated on the assumption that there will be 22 questions. But the fact is that the conduct we've seen from the government and from the Prime Minister is, typically, that question time is being brought to an end after 20 questions or after 18 questions. Indeed, today, question time was brought to an end after 18 questions.

I emphasise that the opposition and the crossbench have a shared interest in scrutiny. We have a shared interest in accountability. The crossbench are here to represent the interests of their constituents. The opposition are here to represent the interests of our constituents. Indeed, in a Westminster system there is a very strong interest in the government being subject to the day-to-day scrutiny of an informed opposition and of an informed crossbench. I think we have a shared interest in as much practical and effective scrutiny as there can be of the government of the day.

Motion text

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

That standing order 97 be amended by the addition of a new paragraph, standing order 97(c), to read as follows:

Question time must not be concluded before 3.30 pm each day.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "that the bill be considered urgent."

What does this mean?

Speaker and MP for Oxley Milton Dick (Labor) explained that:

As the House has declared the bill urgent, I remind members standing order 85 provides principles for proceedings, which include standing order 31 will not apply and a second reading debate may continue from 7.30 until 10 pm or earlier if no member rises to speak. Each member will have a maximum of 10 minutes of speaking time. At 10 pm or earlier the Speaker shall interrupt the debate and immediately adjourn the House until 9 am tomorrow. After prayers tomorrow, the question on the bill will be put without further amendment or debate.

Why would this bill be considered urgent?

Watson MP Tony Burke (Labor) explained that:

I previously explained to the House one of the challenges with the bill that is now before us is that if it is to be carried by both houses, for the deadline on the card, which is within the bill, there needs to be a phase down period. The phase down period is required because—and I'm not sure how this has happened, and I don't want to engage too much with the debate—it has been possible with this particular card for people to connect it to Afterpay accounts. As a result of that, you can't just suddenly end it on a set date without there being a staged down period. For that reason, for the bill to be able to work, the government requires when we return in the next sitting fortnight for the Senate to pass it at that point.

Those familiar with the Senate, which I suspect is none of us—but I know enough to know that overwhelmingly their government business occurs on a Monday, which means even though we're only on Tuesday at the moment, given what will happen with the climate bills tomorrow, the only way we can make sure that the legislation before us has a chance of being implemented in an orderly fashion is for this bill to go through tonight.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with 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. Because the amendment was unsuccessful, the usual second reading motion will be left unchanged.

Note that amendments like this (that is, amendments to second reading motions) do not change the wording of the bill but are instead expressions of the will of the House.

In explaining why the Government would not be supporting this amendment, Attorney-General and Isaacs MP Mark Dreyfus said:

This bill solely concerns the process for the selection and appointment of existing statutory members of the commission. The bill is being progressed as a priority in order to urgently and directly address the concerns raised by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions in its deferral of the reaccreditation of the commission as an A-status national human rights institution. While we of course understand the strong sentiment expressed by members of the community in support of a dedicated LGBTIQA+ commissioner, this bill is not the vehicle to create such a position.

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 calls on the Government to establish a Human Rights Commissioner for LGBTIQA+ people within the Australian Human Rights Commission".