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".

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.