The majority voted in favour of an amendment introduced by Wentworth MP Allegra Spender (Independent), which means it passed and will now become part of the bill.

What does this amendment do?

Ms Spender explained that:

The bill, as drafted, would require the minister to make an annual statement to parliament about Australia's progress in reducing emissions, relevant international developments, the government's climate change policies and the effectiveness of the government's climate change policies.

My first change would require that the statement consider, sector by sector, the impact of policies. It is important that Australians can see the progress being made by each sector of the economy and understand where climate policies are effective and where they are not. [...]

My second change would require the statement to consider the effectiveness of the government's policies in general, rather than climate policy specifically. This is a subtle change but an important one. It will allow the minister, with advice from the Climate Change Authority, to consider the impact of the government's policies which may be making the emissions reduction task more difficult, such as fossil fuel subsidies. Transparency will help to inform the public debate and allow voters to take an informed view of the full cost of government policies.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 12, page 7 (line 16) to page 7 (line 18), omit paragraph (1)(d), substitute:

(d) the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's policies in contributing to the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and reducing emissions in the sectors covered by those policies.

An accidental rebel

Note that while Gippsland MP Darren Chester (Nationals) appears to have crossed the floor in this division - voting "Yes" against the majority of his party, which voted "No" - this was a mistake. He later explained that:

For the record, I inadvertently voted in a manner I did not intend to during an earlier division. I was engaged in a very lively discussion with the member for Lyons and I simply made a mistake. I fully support the coalition's position on the climate change bills and consequential amendments, and humbly apologise to my leadership team and my colleagues for my mistake and misadventure. I congratulate the member for Lyons for his engaging and quite distracting conversational skills. It was a matter of tactical brilliance by the member for Lyons!

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Melbourne MP Adam Bandt (Greens), which means they were unsuccessful.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 10, page 5 (line 10), omit "43%", substitute "at least 75%".

(2) Clause 10, page 5 (line 16), omit "2050", substitute "2035 and working towards negative emissions thereafter".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with amendments introduced by Clark MP Andrew Wilkie (Independent), which means they failed.

What were the amendments?

Mr Wilkie explained that:

Firstly, we need much more ambitious targets because what we do this decade is obviously critically important to the success or failure of Australia's response to climate change. [...]

...With all this in mind, amendments (1) and (2) replace the weak targets that are currently in the bill with targets of a 75 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 and a commitment to reach net zero by 2035 at the latest. These are science backed and equitable.

Secondly, Australia is one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels on the globe, and our own measuring and reduction of carbon emissions needs to reflect that. [...]

...That's why amendment (3) requires that Australia's scope 3 emissions—the emissions we export overseas—be included in the minister's annual climate change statements. This would ensure that the public cannot not be misled when it comes to Australia's huge contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and puts our fossil fuel exports front and centre.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 10, page 5 (line 10), omit "43%", substitute "75%".

(2) Clause 10, page 5 (line 16), omit "2050", substitute "2035, at the latest".

(3) Clause 12, page 7 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; and (e) Australia's scope 3 emissions of greenhouse gas.

The majority voted in favour of amendments introduced by Mayo MP Rebekha Sharkie (Centre Alliance) on behalf of Indi MP Helen Haines (Independent), which means they will now form part of the bill.

What were the amendments about?

Dr Haines' submission explained that:

First, I propose to amend the Climate Change Authority to make sure that Australia's climate policies boost economic, employment and social benefits for rural and regional Australia. [...]

Second, I am proposing to expand the list of eligible qualifications for appointments to the Climate Change Authority. [...]

Third, my amendment requires the Minister to outline the benefits that their policies are delivering to the regions. [...]

And finally, my amendment requires regions to be explicitly considered when setting new emissions targets.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 12, page 7 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; and (e) the impact of the Commonwealth's climate change policies to achieve Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets on rural and regional Australia, including the social, employment and economic benefits being delivered by those policies in rural and regional Australia.

(2) Clause 15, page 9 (after line 34), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) The advice given under subsection (1) must include advice on:

(a) the social, employment and economic benefits of any new or adjusted greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and associated policies, including for rural and regional Australia; and

(b) the physical impacts of climate change on Australia, including on rural and regional Australia.

The majority voted in favour of an amendment introduced by Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel (Independent), which means it passed and will now become part of the bill.

Ms Daniel explained that:

I've moved this amendment because the science says that we should be hitting at least 50 per cent, preferably 60 per cent, by 2030 to help keep global temperatures below two degrees and as close as possible to 1.5 degrees.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 10, page 5 (lines 17 and 18), omit the note, substitute:

Note: The achievement of a target involves reducing Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to a level that is at or below the target. Accordingly, nothing in subsection (1) limits Australia's ability to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions beyond 43% below 2005 levels by 2030.

The majority voted in favour of amendments moved by Kooyong MP Monique Ryan (Independent) on behalf of Curtin MP Kate Chaney (Independent), which means they succeeded.

What do the amendments do?

Regarding the first amendment, Dr Ryan explained that:

This amendment clarifies the underlying climate goals of the bill, the urgency of action and a link to scientific knowledge. An acknowledgement of the object's clause of the urgency of action and a link to scientific knowledge should give business certainty that this is a new era in climate policy and that the Australian parliament has an intention to be guided by the science and to decarbonise our economy. The setting of a numerical target is the first step in this significant shift.

In relation to the second amendment, she explained that it "promotes accountability and ambition to reflect that this is the start of a significant journey ahead."

Amendment text

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (before line 15), before paragraph (a), insert:

(aa) to advance an effective and progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change drawing on the best available scientific knowledge; and

(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 21), after "accountability", insert "and ambition".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bills for a second time. In other words, they voted to agree with the main idea of the bills so they can now discuss them in more detail

Crossing the floor

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

What is the main idea of the bills?

According to the Explanatory Memorandum:

Under the Paris Agreement, to which Australia is a Party, countries are required to communicate their Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC, which sets out their emissions reduction ambitions. On 16 June 2022, Australia communicated its updated NDC under Article 4 of the Paris Agreement to the UN. This updated NDC included confirmation of Australia’s commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, and a new, increased, 2030 target of 43% below 2005 levels by 2030.

[...]

This bill will ensure that Australia’s emissions reduction targets are not just recorded in international settings, but are clearly stated in Australia’s domestic law. As reflected in the objects clause of the bill, Australia’s emissions reduction targets will contribute to the global goals of keeping global temperature rise this century well under 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and pursuing efforts to keep warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Formalising the targets in legislation will deliver certainty to the Australian community about what these commitments are, and underscore their importance to the future of this country. The targets set a floor on Australia’s emissions reduction ambition, not a ceiling. There is nothing in this bill that would prevent these targets being surpassed or achieved early.

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.

Crossing the floor

Bonner MP Ross Vasta (Liberal) crossed the floor to vote "No" against the rest of his party, which voted "Yes."

Mistaken vote

During the vote, Kooyong MP Monique Ryan inadvertently voted "Yes" to disagree with the amendment. She later made a mistake in correcting her voting record in the chamber, stating that:

During the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne today, I cast my vote for the noes. This was not my intention. I wish to inform the House I intended to vote with the ayes. I thank the House.

Taken at face value, this would have reaffirmed that she was indeed voting "Yes" to disagree with the amendment. However, she clarified her actual stance on Twitter, which is to support the amendment by voting "No" against disagreeing with the amendment, writing that:

I should note: in the flurry of divisions this morning (among my first on the job!) I made a mistake, & my vote on @AdamBandt amendment was counted contrary to my intention.

As I’ve consistently stated: Australia must not open new coal mines, gas fields or fossil fuel projects.

The voting record below does not reflect this correction, as votes are, in most cases, final.

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 acknowledges that for the Government to reach their target of Net Zero by 2050, not one new coal, oil or gas project can commence"

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time. In other words, they voted to agree with the bill's main idea, which means they can now discuss it in more detail.

What is the bill's main idea?

In his second reading speech, Whitlam MP Stephen Jones (Labor) explained that the bill:

repeals paragraph 5(e) of the Superannuation (Salary) Regulations with effect from 1 July 1986 and provides that the effect of the repeal does not apply to individuals where limited circumstances are satisfied.

The changes in the bill are only relevant to current and former Commonwealth public sector civilian employees.

The default superannuation salary of a member of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme established under the Superannuation Act 1976 includes the value of any allowance that, under the regulations, is to be treated as salary under the act.

Prior to 1 March 2022 paragraph 5(e) of the regulations provided that the rent-free use of housing made available to a person by reason that they held a particular office or performed particular duties or work was an allowance that was to be treated as salary for the purpose of the act.

The value of rent-free housing as per paragraph 5(e) of the regulations flowed through to the default superannuation salary of members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, and members of the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan and certain members of non-Commonwealth choice funds.

At the time the regulations were made in 1978, an employee's assessable income was taken to include the value of rent-free housing. With the introduction of the fringe benefits tax regime in 1986, the tax burden in relation to rent-free housing shifted from the employee to employer.

Following this change in 1986 the Commonwealth has typically not treated rent-free housing as forming part of superannuation salary and generally neither employers nor employees have made superannuation contributions that have taken into account the value of rent-free housing.

A recent case before the Federal Court has exposed differing views on the operation and scope of former paragraph 5(e) of the regulations. If the interpretation as argued by the applicants was accepted, it would have significant financial impacts for the Commonwealth and inequitable financial outcomes for differing cohorts of individuals.

Some individuals would receive an unexpected windfall increase in their superannuation benefits while others could incur potentially large unexpected debts for unpaid member contributions with little or no corresponding increase in their superannuation benefit.

Conflicts of interest

Both Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel (Independent) and Mackellar MP Dr Sophie Scamps (Independent) left the chamber before the vote (so they didn't take part) because of potential conflicts of interest. See the Hansard for more information.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a third time. This means it can now go to the Senate, where our senators will decide on whether should become law.

Why are the major parties split on how to vote?

This was a free vote (also known as a conscience vote), which means our MPs voted according to their own beliefs rather than voting along party lines.

What does this bill do?

According to the bills digest:

• The Bill proposes to remove the restrictions currently preventing the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory from passing legislation which would allow for voluntary assisted dying (VAD).
• These restrictions were introduced in 1997 through the passage of a private member’s Bill introduced by Mr Kevin Andrews MP.
• There have been a number of attempts by parliamentarians to remove these restrictions in previous Parliaments.

In other words, the purpose of the bill is to remove the prohibition on legalising euthanasia so that the Territories can introduce their own laws on the subject.