The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment introduced by Berowra MP Julian Leeser (Liberal), which means it failed.

Amendment text

(11) Schedule 8, item 2, page 44 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item.

What did the amendments do?

Mr Leeser explained that:

Amendment 11 seeks to retain the principle of equality of opportunity, which is a fundamental principle for those of us on this side of the House, in the objects act. We believe equality of opportunity should be retained, because equality of opportunity offers a state of fairness in which individuals are treated equally, and it's a fundamental principle of the Sex Discrimination Act. The circumstances of an individual's birth should not determine their future status. It's the application of effort and competition that's key. Equal opportunity implies that people should be judged on their merits and not discriminated against on the basis of sex in employment or access to public services. Equality of opportunity is the principle that people should be given the same opportunity to exercise their talents and abilities but that it's up to the individual to apply themselves to that opportunity as to what they will ultimately achieve. And we think this principle should remain in the act.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Berowra MP Julian Leeser (Liberal), which means they failed.

Amendment text

(9) Schedule 4, page 22 (line 1) to page 25 (line 12), omit the Schedule.

(10) Schedule 5, page 26 (line 1) to page 28 (line 28), omit the Schedule.

What did the amendments do?

Regarding amendment (9), Mr Leeser explained that:

These amendments deal with representative actions and costs orders. Schedule 4 of the bill seeks to amend the Human Rights Commission Act to make it easier for unions and other representative groups to bring representative claims in the Federal Court. The amendments would allow bodies to commence legal proceedings on behalf of other parties rather than the aggrieved person taking the matter for themselves. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has explained why this provision is not necessary. The ACCI has argued that representative groups are not prohibited from providing financial or legal support to parties pursuing a representative proceeding in the courts. Rather, they're simply prevented from commencing the proceedings on their behalf. It's not clear how allowing trade unions to commence legal proceedings on behalf of aggrieved persons would lead to better outcomes for these persons, especially in light of support that representative groups can already provide.

Fundamentally, litigants in representative actions need to be aggrieved persons, not bodies that represent or merely purport to represent their interest. This is how the existing avenue for class actions rightly operates. The interests of representative bodies do not always align with those they represent. Allowing these bodies to commence and run representative actions on their behalf could lead to the aggrieved person's interests being neglected in favour of other motives, such as a desire for a more lucrative settlement or political objectives. Further, representative bodies are not those whose reputations, finances and relationships are vulnerable during litigation. Allowing representative bodies to be the party instructing lawyers on the running of legal proceedings risks the pursuit of interests that are unrelated to those of the affected individuals.

Regarding amendment 10, he explained that:

In relation to costs, in schedule 5 the bill inserts a cost-neutral arrangement into the Human Rights Commission Act. This means that parties are expected to bear their own costs, with courts having power to make an alternative determination, considering the factors in the legislation, including: the financial circumstances of each party to the proceedings; the conduct of the parties, including conduct dealing with the commission; whether any parties have been wholly unsuccessful; whether any party has made an offer in writing to settle; whether the subject matter of the proceedings involves an issue of public importance; or any other matter the court considers relevant. We think discretion as to costs best sits with the court, and our amendments will remove schedule 5 of the bill and leave costs determinations at the discretion of the court, with the principle being that costs follow the event.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Berowra MP Julian Leeser (Liberal), which means they failed.

What did the amendments do?

Mr Leeser explained that:

these amendments seek to replicate exactly the same powers that this bill gives to the Australian Human Rights Commission in relation to enforcement and systemic inquiries, and gives those powers to the experienced Fair Work Ombudsman.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Berowra MP Julian Leeser (Liberal), which means they failed.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 9), after "conduct", insert "in relation to the second person".

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (lines 11 and 12), omit "or after".

(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 7 (line 7), omit "possible", substitute "reasonably practicable".

(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 7 (line 16), omit "possible", substitute "reasonably practicable".

What did the amendments do?

Mr Leeser explained that:

The principle we're adopting with all of our amendments is to make it easier for businesses to comply with and achieve the intention behind this bill. We're not seeking to see boxes ticked, we're not seeking to burden workplaces unnecessarily, but we are seeking to ensure that workplaces are safe place for all Australians. If employers can't easily fulfil the obligation this legislation places on them and an undue additional regulatory burden is imposed, we will create more problems than we solve. We must take a path that's achievable and will lead to tangible change.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment, which means it was unsuccessful.

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) expresses concern that the Government is seeking to remove an additional source of funding for natural disaster recovery at the very moment when many communities across south-east Australia are facing many months of work to clean up after devastating floods; and

(2) notes the Government has not yet identified what disaster mitigation actually encompasses”

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. This means the amendment failed

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 private ownership and delivery of essential infrastructure often leads to worse outcomes for the community and the environment, as corporate profits are put ahead of everyday people's interests; and

(2) calls on the Labor government to:

(a) deliver a fully publicly owned high speed rail network, from infrastructure construction to service delivery, that is run for the public good, not for profit;

(b) ensure high speed rail infrastructure development utilises to the greatest extent possible green steel and other green technologies to minimise carbon emissions during the construction phase; and

(c) ensure the new trains and other associated infrastructure are manufactured in Australia, helping to reinvigorate domestic manufacturing and create jobs".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments, which means they failed.

What do these amendments do?

Fadden MP Stuart Robert (Liberal), who introduced the amendments, explained that:

Amendments (1) and (3) effectively excise schedule 5 from the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022. That is the measure that allows faith based super funds to not have to meet the requirements of the benchmark that was put in place under the Your Future, Your Super legislative changes. We do that quite soberly. If we look through at the benchmark requirements that this parliament passed, it requires super funds to meet basic benchmarks of performance. If they do not, then of course they are named and they will need to inform their members that their fund is not performing to those benchmarks. If they fail a second time they are no longer able to receive contributions that are mandatory and therefore they can't be a MySuper regulated fund. This has already occurred once. Thirteen funds failed, and they all quite rightly sought to merge with other funds. Quite recently five other funds have also been named for underperformance.

It's not as if these benchmarks are onerous.

Whitlam MP Stephen Jones (Labor) disagreed, saying that:

Let me explain what the government is proposing to do and why the member for Fadden has just misled the House. There are fewer than five faith based funds in the country, and they are set up with a specific investment mandate. They say, 'If you join our fund, you can be assured that your funds are going to be invested in accordance with your religious and your faith based precepts.' Just putting the word 'Catholic' in your name does not make you a faith-based investment fund. Just putting the word 'Presbyterian' in your name does not make you a faith based fund. Putting the word 'Anglican' in your name does not make you a faith based fund. What makes you a faith-based investment fund is if your investment mandate specifically says, 'We are going to invest members' money in accordance with our faith based principles.'

Amendment text

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item.

(3) Schedule 5, page 14 (line 1) to page 19 (line 14), omit the Schedule.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment introduced by Griffith MP Max Chandler-Mather (Greens), 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.

Motion text

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

the House:

(1) notes this bill only provides limited support for families that are currently paying exorbitant fees for early childhood education and care; and

(2) calls on the government to make early childhood education and care universal and free, and address the workforce crisis by ensuring educators receive better pay and conditions".

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with the following amendment:

That the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fairfax be disagreed to:

(1) Schedule 2, item 7, page 13 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item.

In other words, they were in favour of keeping item 7 of Schedule 2 in the bill.

Text of item 7, Schedule 2

7 Paragraphs 117(3)(a) and (3)(c) and (4)(d)

Omit “the Regulator”, substitute “the Minister”.

What does item 7 of Schedule 2 do?

According to the bills digest:

Item 7 inserts ‘the Minister’ in place of ‘the Regulator’ as the decision maker in terms of the form of financial security any licence holder must provide (paragraph 117(3)(a)), when the financial security is no longer required (paragraph 117(3)(c)) and the circumstances under which a reduced financial security can be accepted (paragraph 117(4)(d)). As set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill:

Given that financial security must be provided to and is held by the Commonwealth, and can only be recovered by the Commonwealth [section 119 of the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 (OEI Act)] it is more appropriate that the Commonwealth (rather than the Regulator [National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA)], which as a corporate Commonwealth entity is not formally part of the Commonwealth) has the power to make decisions in relation to financial security… The Minister still retains the discretion to delegate any of their powers under item 7 to the CEO of the Regulator under paragraph 303(1)(a) of the OEI Act.

The majority voted in favour of the motion: "That the amendments be agreed to." This means that the majority voted to agree with the amendments passed by the Senate.

Because both house of Parliament have now agreed with the bill in its amended form, it will now become law.

What does this bill do?

The bills digest provides the following key points that explain what the bill does and why it was introduced:

• There are two schemes for income support recipients that aim to limit spending on harmful goods such as alcohol, illicit drugs, and gambling. One is the cashless debit card (CDC) program and the other is income management.
• The CDC program currently operates in six areas around Australia — Ceduna (South Australia), Kununurra and Wyndham in the East Kimberly (Western Australia), the Goldfields region (Western Australia), the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region (Queensland), the Northern Territory, and Cape York (Queensland). In June 2022 it applied to 17,382 people.
• The Bill will abolish the CDC program in line with the Government’s 2022 election commitment.
• The abolition will occur in two stages.
• Certain people who are currently participating in the CDC program may be moved to income management. Others may decide to voluntarily participate in income management.