Mehreen Faruqi

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (11) on sheet 1828 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 10), after "paid workforce", insert "or from eligible postgraduate work".

(2) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 1), after item 13, insert:

13A Section 6

Insert:

eligible postgraduate work: see section 35AA.

(3) Schedule 1, item 58, page 23 (line 23), omit "or taken enough paid leave", substitute ", taken enough paid leave or performed enough eligible postgraduate work".

(4) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 19), after item 61, insert:

61A After paragraph 31AA(2)(c)

Insert:

(ca) on that day the person is performing no more than one hour of eligible postgraduate work; and

(5) Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 9), after item 75, insert:

75A Section 32 (at the end of paragraph (b) of note 1)

Add "or eligible postgraduate work".

(6) Schedule 1, item 86, page 28 (lines 19 to 21), omit the item, substitute:

86 Paragraphs 33(2A)(a) and (b)

Omit "primary claimant", substitute "PPL claimant or special PPL claimant".

86A Paragraph 33(2A)(b)

After "paid work", insert ", or eligible postgraduate work,".

86B Paragraph 33(2A)(c)

Omit "primary claimant", substitute "PPL claimant or special PPL claimant".

(7) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 2), after item 90, insert:

90A After paragraph 34(1)(a)

Insert:

(aa) the person performs at least one hour of eligible postgraduate work;

(8) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 4), after item 91, insert:

91A After section 35

Insert:

35AA When a person performs eligible postgraduate work

A person performs eligible postgraduate work on a day if, on that day:

(a) the person is enrolled in a course of study or research for a doctoral degree; and

(b) the person performs study or research for the purposes of that course;

whether the enrolment is with an institution, or the study or research is performed, within or outside Australia.

(9) Schedule 1, page 30 (after line 4), after item 100, insert:

100A Subparagraph 36A(b)(ii)

After "paid work", insert "or eligible postgraduate work".

(10) Schedule 3, item 3, page 59 (line 28), before "Sections", insert "(1)".

(11) Schedule 3, item 3, page 59 (after line 30), at the end of the item, add:

(2) However, paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the PPL Act, as inserted by Schedule 1 to this Act, applies in relation to a claim for parental leave pay for a child born on or after 1 July 2023.

1828-EM

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022

(Requests for amendments to be moved by Senator Faruqi, on behalf of the Australian Greens, in committee of the whole)

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (2) to (11)

Amendments (2) to (11) are framed as requests because they amend the bill to expand the class of people who can claim paid parental leave to include certain postgraduate doctoral students.

As this will increase the number of people eligible for paid parental leave, the amendments will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010.

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is consequential to amendments (2) to (11).

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (2) to (11)

If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.

Amendment (1)

This amendment is consequential on the requests. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on amendments framed as requests may also be framed as a request.

As I said earlier in my second reading speech, a key shortcoming of this bill is that PhD students are not included in the Paid Parental Leave scheme. They, despite often conducting research on a fulltime basis, cannot access the same parental leave entitlement as other working parents. Currently the PhD students don't qualify for the scheme because their activities are counted as study through a scholarship or other award or financial aid and that blocks them out of this act as it stands currently. There is no good reason for this, and this has to change.

The Greens' amendments actually go towards changing this by including a new entitlement to paid parental leave for someone doing eligible postgraduate work. That is, a person who performs postgraduate work and is enrolled in a course of study or research for a doctoral degree and performs study or research for the purposes of that course, whether the enrolment is within an institution or the study or research is performed with or outside Australia. The amendments also expand the work test in the Paid Parental Leave Act to include eligible postgraduate work.

If we are actually serious about achieving gender equity and promoting the health and wellbeing of all parents and children in Australia, then the scheme must extend to PhD students because anything less will be a gaping oversight by the government. I commend the amendments.

Don Farrell

I thank Senator Faruqi for her contribution but indicate that the government continues to oppose this amendment. Can I say this: I don't think there's ever been a government in the history of this country that's so committed to achieving gender equity. I just look at my colleague here, Senator Gallagher, and the wonderful work that she's been doing in every aspect of this government's decision-making process.

I start by reiterating my earlier comments. We went to the election with a proposal, that proposal was endorsed by the Australian people, and we're here today to implement that proposal. The work test supports the intent of the scheme and provides financial support to working parents who have an attachment to the workforce. Therefore, PhD students who are not also engaged in paid employment are not eligible.

The current work test is flexible enough to encompass workers in both full-time and part-time employment and workers on casual, temporary or fixed-term contracts. To meet the work test, a person must have performed qualifying work for 10 out of the 13 months prior to the birth or the adoption of their child and worked for at least 330 hours in that 10-month period with no more than a 12-week gap between consecutive working days. The hours worked requirement equates to just over one day a week. The person is also considered to be performing qualifying work on a day if they have taken a period of paid leave of at least one hour. Should a PhD student undertake paid work in addition to their studies, such as tutoring at university, this could count towards the work test. Just from my knowledge of this area, I'd say that there are a lot of PhD students who would fit into that category. PhD students who are employed at the university may also be eligible for the university's Paid Parental Leave scheme for employees. Many PhD scholarship programs offer paid parental leave to eligible students who have held their scholarship for at least 12 months. Of Australia's top 20 universities, 16 provide paid parental leave to students on PhD scholarships at an average of 12 weeks. A PhD student who is not eligible for paid parental leave may be eligible to receive the newborn supplement and the newborn upfront payment. The government also provides significant funding and support to students. In the October 2022-23 budget there is costed expenditure on higher education at $44.63 billion over four years, including $485.5 million over four years for 20,000 additional Commonwealth supported places at universities and other higher education providers.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the chair is that requests (1) to (11) on sheet 1828, moved by leave together by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan

Honourable senators, with the concurrence of the Senate, the statements of reasons accompanying the requests circulated for this bill will be incorporated in the Hansard immediately after the requests to which they relate. There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Larissa Waters

Before moving to the Greens committee stage amendments, I would like to ask the representing minister a handful of questions. We just saw the chamber vote against paying superannuation on paid parental leave entitlements. This used to be Labor policy, and the minister even quoted the relevant minister in his contribution, saying, 'When we can afford it, we'd like to do it.' This is a government crying poor, and women are missing out because of that poor judgement call.

My first question to the representing minister at the table is: super used to be your policy on PPL. Why did you just vote against it?

Don Farrell

I thank Senator Waters for her question. I can remember when superannuation was limited to a very small number of people, generally males, generally in white-collar occupations and, more specifically, in managerial roles. It was under the leadership of Paul Keating, particularly with Bill Kelty, as part of the development of the accord to deal with some of the economic problems this country faced in the eighties and nineties, that they developed the concept of universal superannuation. So, to be honest, Senator Waters, I won't be lectured by the Greens about the role the Labor Party has played in creating the current superannuation scheme, in developing that scheme, in protecting that scheme from all of the things the Liberals and Nationals would have done to it in government if they'd had the chance.

If we fast forward from the time when Keating and Kelty developed the concept of universal superannuation, it's now a scheme that's the envy of the entire world. There's no country that has a better superannuation scheme than Australia. That's because Labor governments have worked in conjunction with the union movement in this country to develop this world-class superannuation scheme.

Why are we here today? We're here today because that terrific minister, Minister Rishworth, has brought forward this bill to expand the availability of paid parental leave. That's what we are doing here today. Unfortunately, when we came to office we discovered what? I want to put this into some perspective. When the Gillard government lost in 2013 we had a national debt of around $300 billion. When Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister nearly 12 months ago—

Raff Ciccone

How much?

Don Farrell

You asked the question, Senator Ciccone. We had a debt of $1 trillion. So in the nine years that the conservatives were running this country into the ground we trebled our debt from $300 billion to $1 trillion. That's the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. What has the government done? It took a policy to the last election in respect of paid parental leave. We told the Australian people what we would do in terms of paid parental leave. What was the first thing we did in our first budget to implement that policy? We did exactly what we said we were going to do, and that's what we're asking the Senate to do on this occasion. The bill has passed the House of Representatives, and we're now asking the Senate to say: 'Look, we accept that you went to the last election with this proposal. Here it is for you to vote on—no more and no less than what we said we would do. We're asking all of the people in this place to support what we took to the Australian people last year at the election.'

Of course there are a whole lot of things a Labor government would like to do. This proposal by the Greens is just one of the many things that Labor in government would like to do. Can I say, Senator Waters, we intend to be a long-term Labor government—not one term, not two terms, not three terms but four terms.

Sarah Henderson

That's arrogant.

Don Farrell

There's no arrogance there, Senator Henderson. We intend to be a long-term Labor government, and that's the way long-term—

Opposition senators interjecting—

No, no.

Paul Scarr

Two more years! Twenty-four months feels like forever!

Don Farrell

No, not two more years. We intend to, over time, build on the terrific work that the Labor government has done in the past—

How many more years? I can't tell you. I can't forecast just how many years, but I know that under Anthony Albanese we intend to be a long-term Labor government.

Sarah Henderson

How many more broken promises, Senator Farrell?

Don Farrell

No broken promises. We took our paid parental leave policy to the people at the last election. They're endorsing it. We've put it into our budget. We've now put it through the House of Representatives. Our job, as senators, is to say, 'We're doing the final step.'

If we could do everything we wanted to do—if we had an unlimited amount of money—then there are a whole lot of other things that an Anthony Albanese Labor government would like to do. At this point, we're doing what we said we would do. And, as I said in my summing-up speech, there are other things that we want to do and there will be other things that we will do in the future.

But, Senator Waters, we are the government. We were elected by the people to govern this country. We took a set of policies to the people and they endorsed those policies, so what we're here to do is to implement those policies. That's what we'd like this Senate to do, and we'd like you to be part of that.

Larissa Waters

Just sticking with superannuation briefly, before we move to our other detailed amendments, the former government commissioned a retirement income review, which costed paying superannuation on paid parental leave at a mere $200 million. That was for 179,000 recipients. I understand that we're up to about 181,000 recipients now, so it's possible that that $200 million cost might have increased by one or two million. My question, representing minister, given that you say you'd like to do it when you can afford to do it, did you re-cost how much it would cost the budget to pay superannuation on paid parental leave?

Don Farrell

I thank Senator Waters for her question. We don't have an updated cost.

Larissa Waters

From that, I can infer that you're relying on the $200 million cost and you're making the active decision that the women of Australia are not worth the $200 million to pay for superannuation on their paid parental leave despite the fact that that was a 2019 election promise by the then Labor opposition.

I'm going to move some committee stage amendments now. I seek leave to move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1819 together.

Leave granted.

I, also on behalf of Senator Barbara Pocock, move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 13), omit "100", substitute "130".

(2) Schedule 1, item 38, page 13 (line 6), omit "100", substitute "130".

(3) Schedule 1, item 66, page 25 (line 19), omit "90", substitute "120".

(4) Schedule 1, item 66, page 25 (line 31), omit "100", substitute "130".

(5) Schedule 1, item 66, page 26 (line 12), omit "100", substitute "130".

————

St atement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (3), (4) and (5)

Amendments (3), (4) and (5) are framed as requests because they amend the bill to increase the maximum number of days for which paid parental leave can be paid in relation to a child from 100 days to 130 days.

As this will increase the total amount of paid parental leave that can be paid, the amendments will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010.

Amendments (1) and (2)

Amendments (1) and (2) are consequential to amendments (3), (4) and (5).

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (3), (4) and (5)

If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.

Amendments (1) and (2)

These amendments are consequential on the requests. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.

I will make some very brief remarks before asking a handful of questions. Australia is the second-worst country in the OECD for paid parental leave equity. That is an embarrassment. Today is an opportunity to redress that. The international best practice for paid parental leave is 52 weeks. It's not a measly 20 weeks. It's not a three-year wait to get to 26 weeks. It's 52 weeks. Also, it has structured 'use it or lose it' provisions and higher rates of pay. That's international best practice. If this government were to axe the unaffordable and unnecessary stage 3 tax cuts for the very wealthy, it could afford to fund a decent Paid Parental Leave scheme that might put Australia towards the front of the pack of the OECD rather than being the second worst of comparable developed nations.

I still don't understand why they're making the decision not to prioritise women. As my colleague said, in another instance, they're robbing Peter to pay Peter, but, in this case, they're just giving yet more money to Peter, and it's Peter who's benefitting because it's men who will mostly be in favour and benefitting from the stage 3 tax cuts. Rather than sticking with that, you could give some money to women and lift the minimum wage; you could pay super on PPL; you could increase the number of weeks that paid parental leave is given to new parents; and, ideally, you could do it at replacement wage or at least look at different models that get it close to replacement wage.

None of that is happening, so the amendments I'm moving today on sheet 1819 will bring forward this promise of 26 weeks. In his closing speech, the minister said that they will legislate that next year, 2024, and it will kick in in 2026. Why are you making women wait? This is good policy. It is a step along the way to, I hope, a 52-week paid parental leave policy, which the ACTU and many other women's groups have been pushing for for years and a move that the Greens would support. Why are you making women wait three more years? Are you crying poor again? It's just not plausible to cry poor when you're handing out those stage 3 tax cuts. People see right through that. They know you are making an active decision to make women wait for three more years. They're not going to like that, I can tell you! Our amendments will ensure that new parents and women, in particular, can benefit from that increase to 26 weeks right away, from 1 July this year, not in three years. I commend the amendment to the chamber.

Long debate text truncated.

Anne Ruston

I'm very pleased to stand today to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. The opposition will be supporting this bill for a number of reasons, and we are glad to see the government has chosen the implement the former coalition government's reforms to paid parental leave which we announced as part of our March 2022 budget. The bill will provide increased flexibility, improve choice and ensure the Paid Parental Leave scheme is fit for purpose for modern families.

The bill increases the total number of weeks of available paid parental leave from 18 to 20 and removes some of the constraints around the two-week period of dad and partner pay and the 12-week/six-week paid parental leave period breakdowns currently in place. We understand the importance of these changes because we know parents make household decisions around caring arrangements to reflect their own personal circumstances, so increasing the number of weeks from 18 to 20, with enhanced flexibility on how those weeks can be shared, reflects this need for choice and flexibility in modern households. It is also important both parents are able to spend the time they choose to spend with their new child, and the increased flexibility encourages both parents to have a period of leave.

The bill removes the notion of primary, secondary and tertiary claimants, taking away some of the rigidity that exists—about who takes the leave, when and how—between the two parents. This bill also expands access to the scheme by introducing a $350,000 income test, which will ensure household income is considered when determining eligibility for PPL, rather than just the individual income of one of the two parents. We strongly support the increased flexibility this bill achieves, which allows parents to use the leave over a two-year period in a way they choose. This allows parents to take leave in one block, in multiple blocks or in whatever way works best for them and their particular family circumstances.

This reform goes to the heart of what the former coalition government sought to achieve in enhancing PPL, which is why we're pleased that our announcements from the March 2022 budget are included in this bill. The coalition has a strong record of supporting government funded paid parental leave, and through my former role as minister for social services I was very proud to be part of a government that made important amendments to strengthen paid parental leave during the last term of parliament. Our PPL scheme gave families flexibility in choosing how they accessed their payments, giving either parent the option, depending on individual households' circumstances, with the last six weeks being able to be shared or taken any time. Importantly, we introduced special circumstances, allowing a parent to meet the work test if they'd been impacted by family and domestic violence, by a natural disaster or by a severe medical condition. We allowed JobKeeper and the COVID-19 disaster payments to count towards the work test for PPL to prove a genuine connection to the workplace, and we introduced indexation on the income threshold for the first time since the scheme was introduced.

As this legislation implements, in the Women's Budget Statement in March 2022 we again underlined our strong commitment to the social and economic benefits of paid parental leave by announcing enhanced paid parental leave. Our enhanced paid parental leave represented an investment of $346.1 million over five years to expand PPL, giving working families full choice and control over how they used their 20 weeks of taxpayer-funded paid parental leave.

So, once again, the coalition will support this bill, given the vast majority of changes reflect the important reforms that we announced as part of our last budget to enhance the scheme and ensure parents are able to make their own caring arrangements based on their individual circumstances. We will support the government in any sensible measures that seek to support Australian families, particularly where those measures reflect the former coalition government's policies. I'm proud the coalition was a real steward of paid parental leave in government, and our enhancements to the scheme saw it become a mainstay in every Australian life. But, where there are enhancements and improvements that can be made, we will absolutely make sure that we stand with those improvements if they are to the benefit of Australian families.

At its heart, paid parental leave should make it easier for parents to make decisions that work for their particular families, that give them the opportunity to spend important time with their new child, unencumbered by the pressures of work where they choose to do so. The changes in this bill that provide greater flexibility for families to determine how they use those 20 weeks of leave reflect the changes in modern families, but this legislation also maintains what is a timeless aspect of paid parental leave, and that is the need to give parents time with their child. We absolutely understand the importance of paid parental leave in alleviating some of the additional pressures felt by families with the birth of a child, and we know that those pressures are particularly strongly felt at the moment, with cost-of-living pressures only rising under this government.

Of course, we'll support good and sensible reforms to paid parental leave, to ensure families are supported through the scheme to take off some of these significant pressures. We'll happily support this bill, acknowledging that a huge number of the changes and a significant proportion of the increased flexibility that this bill delivers were adopted from the policies of the coalition, who announced these important reforms in 2022. I commend the bill.

Nita Green

I rise to speak on this important bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, and I do so as part of a government filled with so many incredible women. In the week of International Women's Day, it's a pleasure to speak on such an important bill for Australian women and for Australian families. I think back to last International Women's Day and, especially, the one before that, and I think how much things have changed for Australian women—not only for women across Australia but also for women in this place.

Our government took to the election very real commitments that had positive impacts on Australian women, from improving access to child care and making child care cheaper to closing the gender pay gap. Since the election, we've also made commitments to ensure that we end gendered violence within a decade. I know that some of these reforms are ambitious, but our government is committed to delivering them and to bettering the lives of Australian women.

It starts with bills like this one today—bills that level the playing field and make things fairer and more equal for all families. The Albanese-Labor government is getting on with the job of delivering for Australians. The bill is just the start of the largest reform to paid parental leave since Labor introduced it back in 2011. It is really good economic policy to deliver these types of reforms. It will see fairness and equality in the way parents take leave. It will also see more flexibility in how leave is taken and will ease transitioning back to work for parents.

I thought I would share a personal point of view for this bill. It's almost exactly a year ago that my wife and I welcomed our first child into the world. We celebrated her first birthday a few days ago. We had a really beautiful christening and family celebration. It's been a really busy year. It is really a time when you look back and think about those first couple of weeks, those first couple of months, and how important that time is together. When you have a new, little baby, it is an incredibly stressful time, and you want to spend all of your time with this new, perfect human. You don't really want to have to worry about going back to work.

I'm incredibly lucky, and my family is incredibly lucky, that my wife works in a heavily unionised industry with a very good enterprise agreement which already allowed for flexible parental leave arrangements, meaning that she could take maternity leave while also having days that she could return to work. I think it's that open employer-employee relationship that allowed her to stay connected to her colleagues and her role that really made transitioning back to work easier. This transition option helped ease both my, and my wife's, mind in such a new and vulnerable position. I'm so grateful. Some families don't get that opportunity.

People will tell you, time and time again, that babies are only little once and that time spent with these little, tiny humans is so important. It's so important for mums. It's so important for dads. It's so important for every type of family. Most of the time, though, it is mothers who are left without that work connection, deepening the economic gap between men and women in our country. That's why this reform is so important.

We have also heard this, time and time again, across the country, particularly at the jobs and skills roundtables I held in Far North Queensland last year. We held forums in Mareeba, Cairns and Townsville. The No. 1 thing that was coming up was women returning to work—how difficult it was to get childcare places but also how difficult it was to manage the transition between paid parental leave and returning to work. I had women tell me that, even though they were the larger income earner, the system worked against them, making them take leave instead of their partner. We heard it again in the successful national Jobs and Skills Summit our government held last year. We listened and we are acting.

Right now, the current scheme does not do enough to provide access to all parents, whether they're mothers or whether they're partners. It limits flexibility for families to choose how they take leave and transition back to work. The eligibility rules are unfair to families where the mother is the higher income earner. Our bill fixes these issues. It gives more families access to government payments, it gives parents more flexibility in how they take leave and it encourages parents to share care to improve gender equality.

From 1 July 2023, the bill delivers six key changes. It will combine the two existing payments into a single 20-week scheme. It will reserve a portion of the scheme for each parent to support them both to take time off after the birth or adoption. We will make it easier for both parents to access the payment, by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers—which, I have to say, in a same-sex relationship is something that's quite interesting. But it's a really helpful idea that not one parent is the primary carer because we know both parents play an incredibly important role. We're expanding access by introducing a $350,000 family income test, which families can be assessed under if they exceed the individual income test. We are increasing flexibility for parents to choose how they take leave days. We are also allowing eligible fathers and partners to access the payment irrespective of whether the birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements.

This bill goes a long way for Australian families. Around 181,000 will benefit from the changes in this bill. That's including more than 4,000 people who are eligible under the scheme. While the former government had an attitude of 'let's make some announcements just before the election', the Albanese Labor government are listening to Australians, and we're delivering this change in our first term of government.

We are listening to businesses who are also crying out for these changes to support their employees, including the women in their workplaces. We are fixing and improving our systems that just aren't functioning the best way they can. We want Australians and their families to get ahead and not be left behind. We want parents, especially mums, to have good, secure jobs and families, and not to have to choose between work and taking care of their kids. That's what this bill will achieve.

The changes in this bill send a clear message that treating parenting as an equal partnership supports gender equality. Our government value the care that men do as well, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and our communities. When fathers take a greater role from the start, it benefits mums, dads and their kids. We know this and we know that there are so many fathers out there that will really welcome the introduction of this scheme. The government's Paid Parental Leave reform is good for parents, it's good for kids, it's good for employers and it's good for the economy.

I couldn't be prouder to be part of an Albanese Labor government, with its ambitious yet practical reforms that will change the lives of Australians for the better. It will particularly change the lives of Australian women for the better. It's always Labor governments that bring the country forward. It was a Labor government that introduced Paid Parental Leave back in 2011, and it's a Labor government that is today delivering a fairer and more flexible scheme.

I commend this bill and I thank all senators who will be supporting this bill today. Parents will be better off. Women will be better off. Men will be better off. Employers will be better off. And this is just the beginning of delivering for Australian women.

Long debate text truncated.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Queensland Senator Larissa Waters (Greens), which means it failed.

The motion was to disallow the legislative instruments listed below. Because it failed, these instruments will remain in force. Though note that, despite this vote, all three of these instruments are listed as no longer in force as of 8 February 2023. Perhaps the Government subsequently had a change of heart?

Motion text

That the following legislative instruments, made under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 and the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed:

(a) the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage Projects) Rule 2021 [F2021L01378];

(b) the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Carbon Capture and Storage) Methodology Determination 2021 [F2021L01379]; and

(c) Industry Research and Development (Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Hubs and Technologies Program) Instrument 2021 [F2021L01593].

The majority voted against a motion introduced by South Australian Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That in order to meet the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework agreed to at COP15 in December 2022, including conserving 30% of land and sea and halting extinction by 2030, the Government must put an immediate end to native forest logging and the destruction of habitat for new coal and gas projects.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by West Australian Senator Jordon Steele-John (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 127

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than Thursday, 9 of February 2023:

(a) advice provided to the Governor-General in relation to Australia's decision to deploy members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) into Iraq in March 2003;

(b) advice provided to the Prime Minister in relation to Australia's decision to deploy members of the ADF into Iraq in March 2003;

(c) correspondence with the United States Embassy, the United States Department of State and the United States Department of Defence in relation to decision making to enter Iraq in 2003; and

(d) all instructions given by the Minister for Defence to senior Department of Defence officials and heads of service in relation to general control and administration of the ADF in 2003.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 128

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than Thursday, 9 February 2023:

(a) advice provided to the Governor-General in relation to Australia's decision to deploy members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) into Iraq in March 2003; and

(b) advice provided to the Federal Executive Council in relation to Australia's decision to deploy members of the ADF into Iraq in March 2003.

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Queensland Senator Penny Allman-Payne (Greens), which means it passed.

Motion text

That the Senate

(a) notes that:

(i) order for production of documents no. 69 (the order) agreed by the Senate on 27 October 2022, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to table documents in relation to The Gabba Stadium project and impacts on East Brisbane State School has not been complied with,

(ii) the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in their response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, citing concerns that disclosure of the information would harm the Commonwealth's ongoing relationship with a state government on this and future infrastructure arrangements;

(iii) on 24 November 2022, the Senate rejected the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government,

(iv) on 29 November 2022, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government maintained the same public interest immunity claim which was rejected by the Senate,

(v) when a claim of public interest immunity is made on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, the agreement of the states to disclose the information should be sought and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection, and

(vi) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from the Queensland Government;

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to attend the chamber immediately prior to proposals being considered under standing order 75 on 8 February 2023, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and why the Government has not complied with the motion (no. 92) concerning compliance with the order, which states 'the public has a right to know the details of, and deliberations on, infrastructure projects such as the Gabba Stadium project and impacts on surrounding infrastructure';

(c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and

(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Victorian Senator Jane Hume (Liberal), which means it passed.

Motion text

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 8 February 2023:

(a) a copy of the current Budget Process Operational Rules (BPORs) used on the formation of the 2023-24 Budget;

(b) any briefings, minutes or advice provided to the Minister for Finance by the Department of Finance relating to the BPORs and amendments to the BPORs since 18 June 2022; and

(c) any letter, email, communique or other document that accompanied the BPORs when they were issued after 17 June 2022 as advice to agencies.

The majority voted against 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. Had it been successful, this amendment would have added the following words:

At the end of the motion, add “, but the Senate calls on the Government to abandon the inflationary Morrison Government stage 3 tax cuts for billionaires and the ultrawealthy, and instead raise income support payments above the poverty line”

The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a third time.

What does the bill do?

The bill was put through parliament so quickly that the parliamentary library has not had time to summarise what it does. The explanatory memorandum - which is prepared by the Government, who introduced the bill - describes it like this:

Schedule 1 to the Bill inserts Part IVBB into the CCA [Competition and Consumer Act 2010] to create an overarching framework to enable the Government to regulate the gas market. Two kinds of legislative instruments will underpin the new framework; gas market codes and gas market emergency price orders. These instruments are collectively referred to as gas market instruments.

First, the Governor-General may, through regulations, make gas market codes. Gas market codes may prescribe a broad range of matters relating to the supply and acquisition of gas commodities, including:

• regulating dealings between persons who supply or acquire a gas commodity, including negotiations between them; and

• dealing with and resolving disputes or complaints between persons who supply or acquire a gas commodity.

Second, the Minister may make gas market emergency price orders regulating the terms on which gas commodities are supplied or acquired, specifically including price. A gas market emergency price order is designed to provide short-term relief from the current energy crisis. The Minister’s power to make gas market emergency price orders sunsets 12 months after the commencement of any order, or 12 months after commencement of the enabling provision in Schedule 1 to the Bill if no order is made. The Minister must consult the ACCC [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission] prior to making a gas market emergency price order, and an order is automatically repealed after 12 months. Gas market emergency price orders provide the basis for emergency price regulation of gas, primarily to reduce domestic prices and address the current energy crisis.

Schedule 1 to the Bill includes a range of mechanisms that are aimed at detecting, deterring and addressing non-compliance with Part IVBB and gas market instruments. The ACCC has the power to require the production of certain information and documents, investigate suspected non-compliance and utilise a range of sanctions that are appropriate and proportionate to the non-compliance.

The consequences of contravening relevant provisions of Part IVBB or a gas market instrument include civil penalties, infringement notices, warning notices and orders under Part VI.

Schedule 1 to the Bill prohibits avoidance schemes that are designed to avoid the application of a civil penalty provision of a gas market instrument.