The majority voted against a motion to keep items 584 and 667 of schedule 1 unchanged (i.e., "stand as printed"), which means those items will be removed from the bill. This vote took place in response to Government amendments (35) and (63), which moved to opposed those items.

Text of items 584 and 667

584 Subsection 443(3A)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(c), the FWC:

(a) subject to paragraph (b), must specify a date that will enable the protected action ballot to be conducted as expeditiously as practicable; and

(b) must not specify a date that is earlier than 14 days after the day the order is made.

667 Subsection 7(8) (after table item 12)

Insert:

12A - Malignant mesothelioma - 15 years

Text of Government amendment

(35) Schedule 1, item 584, page 195 (lines 1 to 8), to be opposed .

[industrial action—period for protected action ballot]

(63) Schedule 1, item 667, page 266 (lines 12 to 15), to be opposed .

[firefighters—cancers]

Explanation of amendment

According to the supplementary explanatory memorandum:

This amendment [no. (35)] would remove item 584 from the Bill to restore the FWC’s discretion to determine the timetable for the conduct of protected action ballots. The requirement that the FWC specifies a date for the close of the ballot which will enable the ballot to be conducted as expeditiously as practicable remains in subsection 443(3A).

This [amendment no. 63] would remove item 667 from the Bill so that malignant mesothelioma can instead be prescribed by regulations for the purposes of subsection 7(8) of the SRC Act.

The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading motion "that the bill be read a second time" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea. This means it failed.

These motions don't make legal changes on their own, but they can be politically influential as they represent the will of the Senate.

Amendment text

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:

(a) remove all provisions of the bill which give their trade union donors the power to veto agreements; and

(b) tighten the 'common interest test' under the 'single interest employer stream' to follow the current considerations the Minister is required to follow under the Fair Work Act 2009 as it stands".

The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading motion "that the bill be read a second time" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea. This means it failed.

Motion text

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the bill be withdrawn and the Senate calls on the Albanese Government to:

(a) give the Australian Parliament three months to review these significant changes rather than trying to force through the legislation this year;

(b) amend the legislation to exclude changes to multi-employer bargaining which will lead to more strikes and fewer jobs without increasing productivity or wages;

(c) admit to the Australian people that these extreme industrial relations changes will result in significant red tape and higher costs for small, family and medium businesses;

(d) work with the Opposition, crossbench and other stakeholders to make improvements to the better off overall test and changes to enterprise bargaining as outlined in the former Coalition Government's legislation, introduced in 2020;

(e) abandon the move to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission;

(f) redraft this legislation to ensure matters are dealt with separately rather than as an 'all or nothing' approach; and

(g) in the event the Bill is passed, cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by the Act as soon as practical 12 months after the Bill receives Royal Assent and cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament".

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Queensland Senator Pauline Hanson (One Nation), which means it failed.

Does rapid onset of gender dysphoria exist?

Rapid onset of gender dysphoria in young people does not have clinical support. Despite the lack of evidence, many anti-trans groups continue to argue that it exists and encourage politicians like Senator Hanson to do likewise, as she is in this motion.

On how we've classified this motion

Because this motion cites a harmful and unsupported theory as if it were fact, we are treating this motion as an anti-trans motion and have attached it to the relevant policies.

Rebellions

Four Liberal Party senators crossed the floor to vote "No" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "Yes". They were: South Australian Senator Simon Birmingham, NSW Senator Andrew Bragg, NSW Senator Marise Payne and West Australian Senator Dean Smith.

Motion text

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in March 2023:

The use of puberty blockers in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the causes of the increase in rapid onset of gender dysphoria in children, including friendship groups, peer contagion, gender clinic staff and social media;

(b) the experiences of parents of young people who have been prescribed puberty blockers, including their experience with the medical system;

(c) the experiences of young people who have been prescribed puberty blockers, including their experience with the medical system;

(d) the medical oversight of general practitioners prescribing puberty blockers;

(e) the results of longitudinal studies of young people prescribed puberty blockers;

(f) whether the decision of the England and Wales High Court in Bell v Tavistock [2020] EWHC 3274, which held that it was highly unlikely that a child under the age of 16 could give consent to being prescribed puberty blockers, should apply in Australia;

(g) whether puberty blockers are reversible as claimed;

(h) whether affirming gender dysphoria as a primary condition is always helpful in the absence of investigating prior trauma, mental illness and other conditions; and

(i) any other related matters.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Tasmanian Senator Wendy Askew (Liberal) on behalf of Victorian Senator Sarah Henderson (Liberal), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) at the estimates hearing of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee (Committee) on 8 November 2022, the Managing Director of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) was asked to provide information relating to the remuneration of highly paid ABC staff,

(ii) the Managing Director made a claim of public interest immunity in relation to the information, with reference to staff privacy, work health and safety, the statutory independence and role of the ABC and the commercial interests of the ABC, and

(iii) there has also been correspondence and Clerk's advice in relation to this matter, which has been published on the Committee's webpages, including information that the Committee has upheld the claim of public interest immunity, noting that not all members of the Committee supported the acceptance of the claim of public interest immunity;

(b) rejects the claim of public interest immunity made by the Managing Director, noting that:

(i) as a statutory authority, the ABC is accountable to the Senate for its expenditure of public funds,

(ii) the Privacy Act 1988 does not restrict the disclosure of the requested information to the Parliament,

(iii) the commercial interests of the ABC in not disclosing this information are outweighed by the acute public interest in disclosure,

(iv) work health and safety and the statutory independence and role of the ABC are not recognised as grounds on which to make a claim of public interest immunity,

(v) in 2017, the Committee determined it was in the public interest to publish details of executive remuneration at Australia Post,

(vi) it must be established that some specific harm may occur because of the disclosure of the information sought,

(vii) the ABC has not offered to disclose the information sought in more general terms,

(viii) reflecting the need for greater transparency, since 2016 the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has been required by law to disclose the annual pay of staff earning more than £150,000, which exposed discriminatory wage practices and led to a landmark gender pay inequality case resulting in the BBC apologising and paying compensation for underpaying a former BBC employee, (See 'The ABC of gender pay parity: no transparency leaves women powerless', https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/11/22/abc-gender-pay-parity-transparency-women/ published 22 November 2022), and

(ix) the public interest in the Senate being able to effectively scrutinise the expenditure of the ABC through the provision of the requested information outweighs any other impact that release of the information may have; and

(c) orders that there be laid on the table by the Managing Director of the ABC, by no later than midday on Friday, 9 December 2022, the following information relating to the remuneration of highly-paid ABC staff for this financial year and the previous financial year:

(i) the name and title of each ABC employee, contractor, subcontractor or other worker who has or is being paid total remuneration (as defined in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 that is equal to or greater than $230,000 per annum (highly paid staff), and

(ii) the amount of total remuneration per annum paid to each highly paid staff including a breakdown of this remuneration into the following categories:

(A) base salary,

(B) performance pay and bonuses,

(C) other benefits and allowances (including overtime),

(D) employer superannuation contributions,

(E) long-service leave,

(F) other long-term benefits, and

(G) termination benefits.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Tasmanian Senator Wendy Askew (Liberal) on behalf of Victorian Senator Sarah Henderson (Liberal), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) at the estimates of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee (Committee) on 8 November 2022, the Managing Director of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) was asked to provide information relating to the roles, gender, place of work and remuneration bands for ABC employees,

(ii) the Managing Director of the ABC made a claim of public interest immunity in relation to the information, with reference to staff privacy and work health and safety, and the statutory independence and commercial interests of the ABC, and

(iii) there has also been correspondence and Clerk’s advice in relation to this matter which has been published on the Committee’s web pages including information that the Committee has upheld the claim of public interest immunity, noting that not all members of the Committee supported the acceptance of the claim of public interest immunity;

(b) rejects the claim of public interest immunity made by the Managing Director, noting that:

(i) the Privacy Act 1988 does not restrict the disclosure of the requested information to the Parliament,

(ii) as a statutory authority, the ABC is accountable to the Senate for its expenditure of public funds,

(iii) there is an acute public interest in transparency about the role, gender, place of work and remuneration band of ABC employees as well as how various departments, divisions, programs and offices are resourced, particularly with regards to gender pay equality and the adequacy of funding for ABC offices in regional Australia,

(iv) the ABC has not been requested to identify any person and the salary information requested is confined to a broad salary band in $40,000 increments, and

(v) the public interest in the Senate being able to effectively scrutinise the expenditure and operation of the ABC through the provision of the requested information outweighs any other impact that release of the information may have;

(c) orders that there be laid on the table by the Managing Director of the ABC by midday on Friday, 9 December 2022 tabulated information in relation to each current ABC employee:

(i) position title or job description, categorised into departments, divisions, programs, offices or other applicable working groups,

(ii) for the purposes of subparagraph (i):

(A) if a department includes multiple programs or divisions, each separate program or division must be specified, and

(B) if an ABC employee works across multiple programs, division, offices, or other applicable working groups-the name of the entity to which the employer is currently assigned should be provided; and

(iii) gender (where such information is available), place of employment, and total remuneration per annum (as defined in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014), provided in terms of salary bands, starting at $00.00-$40,000, and increasing in increments of $40,000.

The majority voted against amendments introduced by West Australian Senator Michaelia Cash (Liberal), which means they failed.

What do the amendments do?

Senator Cash described her amendments during her second reading speech.

Amendment text

See OpenAustralia.org.au for amendment text.

The majority voted against a second reading amendment introduced by Queensland Senator Gerard Rennick (Liberal), which means it failed.

What are second reading amendments?

Second reading amendments like these don't make legal changes themselves, but instead represent the will of the Senate. They add words to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time", which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill.

Motion text

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that with this policy the Government has failed to:

(i) consider the need to dispose of EV car batteries in an environmentally safe manner,

(ii) address the hazardous by-products of redundant EV car batteries and ensure that toxic substances do not leach into the environment,

(iii) consider the costs of recycling EV car batteries,

(iv) introduce regulatory standards or criteria for recycled EV car batteries to be re-sold to the public,

(b) calls on the Government to outline a plan for EV battery recycling and consider other proposals to cover the costs of recycling and disposal of EV car batteries

The majority voted against a second reading amendment introduced by West Australian Senator Dean Smith (Liberal), which means it failed.

What are second reading amendments?

Second reading amendments like these don't make legal changes themselves, but instead represent the will of the Senate. They add words to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time", which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill.

Motion text

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) with this policy the Government has failed to:

(A) establish clear criteria and metrics of success for the policy,

(B) ensure the expenditure is temporary, proportionate, and linked to tangible productivity gains,

(C) quantify any benefit of the policy to electric vehicle uptake, to emissions reduction, or the budget bottom line,

(D) tangibly address the biggest constraint on electric vehicle uptake, which is supply and infrastructure, and

(E) consult with business and civil society on policy design,

(ii) the legislation does not address the core supply issues of electric vehicles, and will not substantially close the consequent cost gap between electric vehicles and non-electric vehicles,

(iii) the Coalition supports increased uptake of low and zero emissions vehicles and the Coalition government's focus was on enabling consumer choice when it comes to new vehicle and fuel technologies, and

(iv) the Coalition is focused on partnering with industry to support the uptake of new vehicle technologies and creating the necessary enabling environment to support uptake, which includes helping to support the infrastructure roll-out and ensuring that the electricity grid is ready; and

(b) calls on the Government to invest the substantial medium-term cost of the measure in supporting practical electric vehicle infrastructure and cost of living relief for hard working Australians".

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Victorian Senator Bridget McKenzie (Nationals), which means they failed.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 8, page 6 (line 22), after "relevant parties", insert "(including extensive consultation with local communities)".

(2) Clause 8, page 7 (after line 17), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) In performing the functions mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), the Authority must:

(a) arrange for the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure Australia to:

(i) undertake economic assessments and cost benefit analyses; and

(ii) give the Authority a written report of each assessment and analysis; and

(b) publish a copy of each of those reports on the Authority's website within 14 days after the report is given to the Authority.

(3) Clause 16, page 11 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) The Minister must ensure that at least one Board member is a person who is from rural or regional Australia.

(4) Clause 47, page 24 (line 5), after "plan,", insert "the requirement to give progress reports,".

(5) Page 24 (after line 15), after clause 48, insert:

48A Progress reports

(1) After the end of each progress report period, the Board must prepare a report on the performance of the Authority's functions, including the progress of:

(a) the policy development and planning mentioned in paragraph 8(1)(a); and

(b) the construction or extension of a railway mentioned in paragraph 8(1)(b) or (c).

(2) The Board must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the end of the progress report period.

(3) For the purposes of this section, progress report period means:

(a) the period of 6 months starting on the day this section commences; and

(b) each subsequent 6-month period.

Note: This section applies in addition to section 39 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with annual performance statements for Commonwealth entities).