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).

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with a motion to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - to let another vote take place. This means that second vote won't happen. It was introduced by Dickson MP Peter Dutton (Liberal).

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 the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed to be bringing a higher standard of accountability, transparency and integrity to Government;

(b) the Prime Minister said on 8 July that "Well, what we need is transparency. I want politics to be cleaned up. And that's why we will have strict adherence to the Ministerial code of conduct";

(c) at least three Ministers have disclosed that they own shares, when the ownership of shares is specifically barred under the Ministerial Code;

(d) the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories has admitted to the House that she was in breach of the Ministerial Code;

(e) the Assistant Minister for Health holds managed funds which have significant shareholdings in health care and private health insurance companies;

(f) the Attorney-General invests in funds which have significant holdings in businesses which he is responsible for regulating, and;

(g) the Prime Minister and other Ministers when asked about these matters have repeatedly dismissed the questions and claimed that 'there is nothing to see here'; and

(2) and therefore calls upon the Prime Minister to either:

(a) live up to his rhetoric and take steps to actively enforce his Ministerial Code, including seeking formal advice from the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to each of the Ministers reported to hold shares or to hold managed funds which hold shares in circumstances which give rise to a conflict of interest; or

(b) admit that this Prime Minister is in fact failing to enforce his Ministerial Code and in turn is failing this critical test of whether his government is demonstrating the higher standards of integrity and accountability that he has claimed to uphold.

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel (Independent) to amend the sessional orders so that crossbenchers (minor party and independent MPs) receive priority to ask questions at an earlier time during Question Time. Sessional orders are temporary procedural rules of parliament that expire when parliament is prorogued (suspended by the Governor-General) or dissolved (dispersed for new elections), allowing MPs to try out new rules before deciding whether to make them permanent.

Previously, crossbenchers received priority for questions to ministers on the 5th, 13th and 21st questions of Question Time, as agreed to at the start of the 47th Parliament. This motion changed that rule so that crossbenchers get priority on the 5th, 13th and 17th questions instead. Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel (Independent), the mover of the motion, argued that:

As I said in moving urgency, the intention of the sessional orders agreed at the beginning of the 47th Parliament was to provide the crossbench with three questions in question time. It has not worked. In five of the seven question times since the 47th Parliament began, the crossbench has only been able to ask two questions and not the agreed three.

There appears to have been the deliberate use of points of order to waste time to deny the crossbench the 21st question. For members of the crossbench, asking questions without notice is a key tool to hold government to account. Such tactical approaches to reducing the agreed number of questions is cynical and thwarts the agreement between the government, crossbench and, indeed, the opposition on questions. The agreement is not being treated with good faith by the opposition.

This amendment is designed to restore the original intention of the sessional order that would be in line with the numbers in the House—the government, opposition, Greens and crossbench. This may seem like a small numerical change, but, if we are to be truly representative, it'll make a big difference for the communities that this crossbench represent. All of us on this crossbench may wish for greater reform of question time, but this is a start. I commend this motion to the House.

Motion text

That all words in paragraph (a) of sessional order 65A be omitted and the following words substituted:

"(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and seventeenth questions."

Original sessional order 65a(a)

65a Opportunities for crossbench Members

Consistent with the principle that the call should alternate between government and non-government Members and to enable crossbench Members to receive the call in accordance with the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House:

(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and twenty-first questions.

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel (Independent) to suspend the standing orders so as to allow another motion to amend the temporary rules of parliament to be considered immediately. Standing orders are the usual procedural rules of parliament. This means that the House can proceed to debate and vote on that motion.

As this is a motion to suspend the rules without providing advance notice, an absolute majority of the House (i.e. 76 of the 151 MPs) must vote in favour for it to pass (which has happened).

In arguing for the suspension of standing orders, Zoe Daniel said:

The urgency of this matter to justify suspension of standing orders is as follows. The intention of the sessional orders agreed at the beginning of the 47th Parliament was that the crossbench get three questions each question time, in line with increased crossbench representation. Even in the short period parliament has been sitting, this is not the way question time has developed. This is urgent because, now, in five of the seven question times so far during this parliament, the crossbench has received only two questions, and only 18 questions were heard today. Each day that passes, therefore, reflects the denial of the opportunity to question the government on important matters relating to the community that elected this crossbench—the largest crossbench of our time.

It's important that we begin as we plan to continue in this new parliament, rather than allowing poor habits to evolve or simply turning a blind eye to deliberate, mischievous points of order. It is urgent because this is denying crossbenchers the full opportunity to represent our communities in parliament, in one of the few times we get the opportunity to speak up. It is on that basis that I put this motion.

Motion text

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Goldstein from moving the following motion immediately—

That all words in paragraph (a) of sessional order 65A be omitted and the following words substituted:

"(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and seventeenth questions."

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the bills as amended. This means they can now decide on whether to read them for a third time. Note that to give a bill a third reading is to pass it so that it can become law (provided the Senate also agrees).

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 an amendment introduced by Ryan MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Greens), which means it will now be included as part of the bill.

What does the amendment do?

Ms Watson-Brown explained that:

In 2014 the Climate Change Authority produced its progress and targets review, which, guided by temperature thresholds, assessed what Australia's fair share of emissions reduction should be to stay within those thresholds. The Liberals then stripped the Climate Change Authority of its requirement to advise on targets. We welcome the requirement that the Climate Change Authority once again advise on emissions targets, and it is critical that it now again adopts the same approach. This amendment will ensure that when the Climate Change Authority again provides such advice, as is required in this bill, it will follow the same approach as in 2014 and be explicitly guided by the Paris Agreement's temperature goals.

The amendment does this by adding a new subclause 3A to clause 15 of the bill, stating that the advice given by the Climate Change Authority under subsection (1) of clause 15 of the bill must include an explanation of how the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets have taken into account the matters set out in article 2 of the Paris Agreement, including the global goals of (a) holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and (b) pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 15, page 10 (after line 5), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) The advice given under subsection (1) must include an explanation of how the greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets have taken into account the matters set out in Article 2 of the Paris Agreement, including the global goals of:

(a) holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels; and

(b) pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.