The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the bill. The House will now decide on whether to pass the bill, known as reading the bill as a third time.

What does the bill do?

The bill was put through parliament so quickly that the parliamentary library has not had time to summarise what it does. The explanatory memorandum - which is prepared by the Government, who introduced the bill - describes it like this:

Schedule 1 to the Bill inserts Part IVBB into the CCA [Competition and Consumer Act 2010] to create an overarching framework to enable the Government to regulate the gas market. Two kinds of legislative instruments will underpin the new framework; gas market codes and gas market emergency price orders. These instruments are collectively referred to as gas market instruments.

First, the Governor-General may, through regulations, make gas market codes. Gas market codes may prescribe a broad range of matters relating to the supply and acquisition of gas commodities, including:

• regulating dealings between persons who supply or acquire a gas commodity, including negotiations between them; and

• dealing with and resolving disputes or complaints between persons who supply or acquire a gas commodity.

Second, the Minister may make gas market emergency price orders regulating the terms on which gas commodities are supplied or acquired, specifically including price. A gas market emergency price order is designed to provide short-term relief from the current energy crisis. The Minister’s power to make gas market emergency price orders sunsets 12 months after the commencement of any order, or 12 months after commencement of the enabling provision in Schedule 1 to the Bill if no order is made. The Minister must consult the ACCC [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission] prior to making a gas market emergency price order, and an order is automatically repealed after 12 months. Gas market emergency price orders provide the basis for emergency price regulation of gas, primarily to reduce domestic prices and address the current energy crisis.

Schedule 1 to the Bill includes a range of mechanisms that are aimed at detecting, deterring and addressing non-compliance with Part IVBB and gas market instruments. The ACCC has the power to require the production of certain information and documents, investigate suspected non-compliance and utilise a range of sanctions that are appropriate and proportionate to the non-compliance.

The consequences of contravening relevant provisions of Part IVBB or a gas market instrument include civil penalties, infringement notices, warning notices and orders under Part VI.

Schedule 1 to the Bill prohibits avoidance schemes that are designed to avoid the application of a civil penalty provision of a gas market instrument.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time. This means they can now consider the bill in more detail.

What does the bill do?

The bill was put through parliament so quickly that the parliamentary library has not had time to summarise what it does. The explanatory memorandum - which is prepared by the Government, who introduced the bill - describes it like this:

Schedule 1 to the Bill inserts Part IVBB into the CCA [Competition and Consumer Act 2010] to create an overarching framework to enable the Government to regulate the gas market. Two kinds of legislative instruments will underpin the new framework; gas market codes and gas market emergency price orders. These instruments are collectively referred to as gas market instruments.

First, the Governor-General may, through regulations, make gas market codes. Gas market codes may prescribe a broad range of matters relating to the supply and acquisition of gas commodities, including:

• regulating dealings between persons who supply or acquire a gas commodity, including negotiations between them; and

• dealing with and resolving disputes or complaints between persons who supply or acquire a gas commodity.

Second, the Minister may make gas market emergency price orders regulating the terms on which gas commodities are supplied or acquired, specifically including price. A gas market emergency price order is designed to provide short-term relief from the current energy crisis. The Minister’s power to make gas market emergency price orders sunsets 12 months after the commencement of any order, or 12 months after commencement of the enabling provision in Schedule 1 to the Bill if no order is made. The Minister must consult the ACCC [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission] prior to making a gas market emergency price order, and an order is automatically repealed after 12 months. Gas market emergency price orders provide the basis for emergency price regulation of gas, primarily to reduce domestic prices and address the current energy crisis.

Schedule 1 to the Bill includes a range of mechanisms that are aimed at detecting, deterring and addressing non-compliance with Part IVBB and gas market instruments. The ACCC has the power to require the production of certain information and documents, investigate suspected non-compliance and utilise a range of sanctions that are appropriate and proportionate to the non-compliance.

The consequences of contravening relevant provisions of Part IVBB or a gas market instrument include civil penalties, infringement notices, warning notices and orders under Part VI.

Schedule 1 to the Bill prohibits avoidance schemes that are designed to avoid the application of a civil penalty provision of a gas market instrument.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment, which means it failed. It would have added the words below to the usual second reading motion, which is "That this bill be now read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). It was introduced by Dickson MP Peter Dutton (Liberal).

Amendment text

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

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and:

(1) notes the Prime Minister’s failure to deliver on his promise to reduce electricity prices by $275;

(2) notes that Prime Minister has instead delivered the most expensive average wholesale electricity prices on record, with electricity prices set to rise by more than 63 per cent and gas prices to rise by 40 per cent over the next two years;

(3) notes that after six months of doing nothing to bring down power prices and provide cost of living relief, the Government is attempting to rush through legislation without any consultation;

(4) notes the Government continues to ignore expert advice that this bill will destroy investment confidence in Australia’s energy sector, leading to higher prices, job losses and blackouts;

(5) criticises the Prime Minister and the Government for putting the energy security and economic prosperity of Australia at risk; and

(6) criticises the Prime Minister and the Government for the contempt that they have shown the Australian Parliament during this legislative process".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment, which means it failed. It would have added the words below to the usual second reading motion, which is "That this bill be now read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). It was introduced by Melbourne MP Adam Bandt (Greens).

Amendment text

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

"agrees to give the bill a second reading and:

(1) notes that this legislation gives the government the power to stop power bills rising at all and to freeze electricity bills at pre-crisis levels;

(2) calls on the government to immediately use those powers and address the urgent cost of living crisis by freezing electricity bills;

(3) does not consider it acceptable that electricity bills are set to rise by over 20% while coal and gas corporations keep getting subsidies and don't pay their fair share of tax; and

(4) considers that any price rise from here on in is squarely the government’s responsibility".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with a motion introduced by Dickson MP Peter Dutton (Liberal), which means it failed.

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 immediately—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) before the election, the Prime Minister promised on at least 97 occasions that Australians would receive a $275 cut in their power bills; and

(b) since the election, the Prime Minister has abandoned this promise and refused on 27 occasions to stand by this promise when asked about it in this House; and

(2) therefore condemns the Prime Minister for cynically and deliberately misleading the Australian people.

The majority voted in favour of a motion that censured former Prime Minister and current Cook MP Scott Morrison (Liberal). It was introduced by Watson MP Tony Burke (Labor).

Rebellion

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

Motion text

That the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Constitution provides for 'responsible government', described by the High Court of Australia as a 'system by which the executive is responsible to the legislature and, through it, to the electorate';

(b) in the Inquiry into the Appointment of the Former Prime Minister to Administer Multiple Departments, the Honourable Virginia Bell AC found that while the Member for Cook was the Prime Minister of Australia he:

(i) had himself appointed to administer:

(A) the Department of Health on 14 March 2020;

(B) the Department of Finance on 30 March 2020;

(C) the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources on 15 April 2021;

(D) the Department of Treasury on 6 May 2021; and

(E) the Department of Home Affairs on 6 May 2021; and

(ii) did not inform:

(A) Cabinet;

(B) the relevant Departments;

(C) the House of Representatives; or

(D) the Australian public;

about these additional appointments; and

(c) as found by the Honourable Virginia Bell AC, the actions and failures of the Member for Cook:

(i) 'fundamentally undermined' the principles of responsible government because the Member for Cook was not 'responsible' to the Parliament, and through the Parliament to the electors, for the departments he was appointed to administer; and

(ii) were 'apt to undermine public confidence in government' and were 'corrosive of trust in government'; and

(2) therefore censures the Member for Cook for failing to disclose his appointments to the House of Representatives, the Australian people and the Cabinet, which undermined responsible government and eroded public trust in Australia's democracy.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments (4) and (5) introduced by Fowler MP Dai Le (Independent), which means they failed.

What did the amendment do?

Ms Le explained that:

My fourth amendment will seek to ensure that, when the commissioner plans to make a public statement about an investigation, they must consider the need to, firstly, provide the context in which a witness is called; and, secondly, provide support against the onslaught of public scrutiny that may arise throughout the investigation. The fifth amendment aims to sure that those who are facing an inquiry will be able to at least share the fact that they have been summoned with their spouse, unless the spouse is also under investigation, to alleviate pressures and provide support during a time that is no doubt stressful and, in some cultures, tremendously humiliating.

Read more about the bill in its bills digest.

Amendment text

(4) Clause 73, page 69 (line 10), at the end of subclause (5), add:

; (c) the context in which the witness is appearing at the hearing;

(d) the need for the public not to scrutinise a witness before the corruption investigation has been completed.

(5) Clause 95, page 82 (lines 9 and 10), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The notation must permit disclosure of information to:

(a) the spouse of the recipient of the notice to produce or private hearings summons (unless the spouse is a subject of the corruption investigation in relation to which the notice or summons is given); and

(b) any mental health professional who is providing mental health care to the recipient of the notice to produce or private hearings summons.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment introduced by Kennedy MP Bob Katter (Katter's Australian Party), which means it failed.

What does the amendment do?

Mr Katter explained that:

I'm moving for the exclusion of farming here. I'm supporting the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, but, in the area of farming, it's just not like it is everywhere else. To give you some idea, the banana industry employs about 6,000 people. I'm in the pub drinking and I say, 'What do you do, Mick?' He said, 'I work in bananas. ' I said, 'Well, you're not working today.' He said, 'I don't work on Tuesdays.' I said, 'Do you work later in the week?' He said: 'Sometimes I work on Thursdays. If you turn up at 6.30 in the morning at the corner of Eden Street, a bus picks you up and takes you out there. If you're not there, well, you're not there.' This is not the ordinary sort of arrangements—and I think everyone here are from cities—that you consider in a city. I just think it's so enormously different.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, item 660, page 229 (after line 18), after Division 1, insert:

Division 1A — Application generally

55A Amending Act does not apply to farming employment

The amendments of this Act made by Schedule 1 to the amending Act do not apply in relation to farming employment. Farming employment will be under general uniform base wage and conditions.

55B Amending Act does not apply to certain businesses

The amendments of this Act made by Schedule 1 to the amending Act do not apply to businesses that employ under 50 full time equivalent employees in regional, rural and remote Australia.

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

What did the amendments do?

Dr Ryan explained that:

The Respect@Work report proposed that costs might be ordered against the applicant only where the court was satisfied that the party instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without cause. That model has not been adopted in this bill. Instead, this bill proposes a cost-neutrality approach in which litigants bear their own costs unless the court orders otherwise. The bill does set out various factors that the court must have regard to in making costs orders. Superficially, the cost-neutral arrangement represents an improvement on the status quo. In effect, however, its design and the uncertainty around its operation will serve to undermine access to justice by limiting the ability of applicants to secure legal representation. Taking a cost-neutrality approach to a relationship characterised by systemic inequality only serves to entrench that inequality.

The amendment I have proposed offers an alternative: an equal-access approach. Under this proposal, each party will bear its own costs, except when the applicant is unsuccessful—that is, when the court has found that the respondent has engaged in discriminatory conduct, in which case the respondent will be liable to pay the applicant's costs, as they should. You should not be excused from bearing costs when you have broken the law. People and organisations found to have engaged in discrimination or harassment in breach of the law should have to pay the legal costs of the applicant. This will act as an incentive to change workplace cultures that permit discriminatory treatment. This should apply not only to sex discrimination cases but also to cases or instances of discrimination on the basis of race, age or physical capacity.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 5, item 3, page 26 (line 12) to page 27 (line 13), omit section 46PSA, substitute:

46PSA Costs

(1) In proceedings under this Division against a respondent to a terminated complaint, an applicant in the proceedings may be ordered by the court to pay costs incurred by another party to the proceedings only in accordance with subsection (3).

(2) The court may not make an award of costs against an applicant who conducts the proceedings in a reasonable manner, in respect of any costs which relate to:

(a) the complaint; or

(b) any appeal in respect of the complaint.

(3) The applicant may be ordered to pay:

(a) all, or part of, the costs referred to in subsection (2) if the court is satisfied that the applicant instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause; or

(b) so much of another party's costs that the court is satisfied were incurred as a result of conduct by the applicant in the course of the proceedings which the court determines to be unreasonable.

(2) Schedule 5, item 6, page 27 (lines 24 and 25), omit "if the Court considers that there are circumstances that justify it in doing so", substitute "in certain circumstances".

(3) Schedule 5, item 9, page 28 (lines 8 and 9), omit "if the Court considers that there are circumstances that justify it in doing so", substitute "in certain circumstances".