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.

The majority voted in favour of an amendment introduced by Warringah MP Zali Steggall (Independent), which means it will now be included as part of the bill.

What does the amendment do?

Ms Steggall explained that:

...the intent of the amendment is to ensure that the future of targets and emissions budgets is informed by science—something which for far too long has not really been the source of the debate in this place. This is achieved through requiring the minister to seek the advice of the Climate Change Authority in advance of lodging a new nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement. This is important because we know the world is moving towards net zero, and we need to ensure that we are compliant with our obligations under the Paris Agreement and are focused on the ultimate goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to achieve limiting global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees as possible. This amendment also clarifies that future greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets are required for 2035, for 2040 and for 2045. This provides a very clear road map to net zero.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 15, page 10 (after line 2), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) The Commonwealth must only communicate a new nationally determined contribution in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement that first includes a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2035, 2040 or 2045 if:

(a) the Climate Change Authority has given advice under subsection (1) on the target; or

(b) the Minister, after consultation with the Climate Change Authority, is satisfied that the new nationally determined contribution needs to be communicated urgently to further the matters set out in Article 2 of the Paris Agreement.

Note: This requirement does not apply to adjustments of nationally determined contributions. Such adjustments must represent an enhancement of Australia's level of ambition under subsection 10(6) and advice on such adjustments may be requested under paragraph 15(1)(b).

The majority voted in favour of an amendment introduced by North Sydney MP Kylea Tink (Independent), which means it will now be included as part of the bill.

What does the amendment do?

Ms Tink explained that:

The amendment I am moving today relates to part 4 of the bill, which outlines the advisory functions of the Climate Change Authority. The Climate Change Authority is charged with giving the minister advice that relates to the minister's preparation of an annual climate change statement. By amending clause 14, page 9, of the Climate Change Bill 2022 I am seeking to strengthen the parliamentary transparency over this advice. The amendment would have the effect of causing the written advice the Climate Change Authority prepares to the minister to be tabled within 15 sitting days, rather than simply being put on a website somewhere at an unspecified time, or, worse still, potentially being lost in a minister's tray.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 14, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "must publish a copy of that advice on its website.", substitute:

must:

(a) publish a copy of that advice on its website; and

(b) cause a copy of that advice to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister.

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.