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.

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". To read a bill a second time is to agree with its main idea.

The amendment was introduced by Griffith MP Max Chandler-Mather (Greens).

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 this bill delivers a Liberal Party election commitment adopted by the Labor Party, namely the downsizer contribution, adding to the list of Liberal Party economic policies adopted by the Labor Party, such as the stage three tax cuts; and

(2) calls on the Labor government to stop adopting taxation measures that will increase inequality and instead ease cost of living pressures by getting dental into Medicare, making childcare free, wiping student debt and freezing rents".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with an amendment made by the Senate. This means that that amendment - which relates to the prescribed functions of ARENA - will now be part of the bill.

This vote means that all parts of the bill have now been agreed to by both the House and the Senate, which in turn means that the bill will now become law.

Rebellion

One MP crossed the floor, with Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) voting 'Yes' against the rest of her party, who voted 'No'.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 2, insert:

2A At the end of section 8

Add:

Note: Paragraph (f) allows additional functions to be prescribed related to renewable energy technologies as well as electrification technologies or energy efficiency technologies.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with amendments made by the Senate. This means that they will now be part of the bill.

This vote means that all parts of the bill have now been agreed to by both the House and the Senate, which in turn means that the bill will now become law.

Rebellion

One MP crossed the floor, with Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) voting 'Yes' against the rest of her party, who voted 'No'.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 12, page 7 (line 24), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; and (f) risks to Australia from climate change impacts, such as those relating to Australia’s environment, biodiversity, health, infrastructure, agriculture, investment, economy or national security.

(2) Clause 14, page 8 (line 24), after “subsection (1)”, insert “in relation to the first annual climate change statement”.

(3) Clause 14, page 8 (after line 25), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) In considering advice to be given to the Minister under subsection (1) in relation to:

(a) the second annual climate change statement; or

(b) a subsequent annual climate change statement;

the Climate Change Authority must make provision for public consultation.

(4) Clause 14, page 9 (line 5), after “website”, insert “no later than the day the annual climate change statement to which the advice relates is tabled in a House of the Parliament in accordance with subsection 12(3)”.

(5) Clause 14, page 9 (lines 7 and 8), omit “Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister”, substitute:

Parliament:

(i) within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister; and

(ii) no later than the day the annual climate change statement to which the advice relates is tabled in that House in accordance with subsection 12(3).