The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by NSW Senator Mehreen Faruqi, which means they succeeded.

Motion text

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 8 December 2022, any modelling, costing or analysis that has been conducted by the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Education in relation to modifications to and/or the removal of the Child Care Subsidy activity test since 1 January 2022.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "that the bill be read a second time", which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill.

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest:

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 aims to make numerous changes to industrial relations legislation with the intention of:

• encouraging and facilitating enterprise bargaining, and multi-business enterprise bargaining in particular
• simplifying the bargaining and approval processes for enterprise agreements, including simplifying the better off overall test (BOOT)
• improving job security and gender equity, including by limiting the use of fixed term contracts and prohibiting pay secrecy clauses
• improving workplace conditions and protections by providing an enforceable right to request flexible working arrangements
• abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and making the Fair Work Ombudsman the workplace relations regulator for the building and construction industry
• abolishing the Registered Organisations Commission and transferring its functions to the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission and
• enacting other measures not examined in this Digest.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by NSW Senator David Shoebridge (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 15 December 2022, all correspondence, emails, briefings, notes, meeting agendas and minutes, and other records of interactions between the Attorney-General or the Attorney-General's Department and New South Wales or Queensland authorities responsible for prisons since 1 January 2022 in relation to:

(a) the visit to Australia by the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture in October 2022; or

(b) the implementation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture.

(2) For the purposes of this order, 'New South Wales or Queensland authorities responsible for prisons' includes but is not limited to:

(a) ministers of the New South Wales or Queensland governments;

(b) the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice;

(c) Corrective Services NSW;

(d) the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General;

(e) Queensland Corrective Services; and

(f) individual prisons, mental health facilities or other places of detention within New South Wales or Queensland.

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by ACT Senator David Pocock (Independent) and NSW Senator David Shoebridge (Greens), which means it failed.

What does the amendment do?

Senator Shoebridge explained that:

This amendment would provide for the oversight committee when it's considering just two critical issues, which are the appointment of the commissioner and the appointment of the inspector. It would provide that the oversight committee could only make that decision by a simple majority of members—not a super majority but a simple majority of members. It also provides that when determining that majority the provisions that provide for a casting vote of the chair do not apply. So, in other words, 50 per cent plus one of the members in attendance of the committee have to agree to the appointment of a commissioner or an inspector. Why is that important? It's important because it's hard to think of a more critical job for the oversight committee than determining who the commissioner and inspector of the NACC will be. On the current drafting, where the committee is six members of the government chosen from both houses and six non-government members—four of the opposition and two of the crossbench—chosen from each house, if there is an equality of votes then the government chair gets to determine the outcome. That effectively hands complete control to the government of the day in that critical decision about the appointment of a commissioner.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 178, page 150 (after line 17), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) If the proposed recommendation is for the appointment of the Commissioner or the Inspector:

(a) the decision to approve or reject the recommendation is to be determined by a simple majority of members of the Committee; and

(b) paragraph 173(5)(b) does not apply in relation to a vote on a decision to approve or reject a proposed recommendation.

The majority voted against amendments by NSW Senator David Shoebridge (Greens), which means they failed.

What do the amendments do?

Senator Shoebridge explained that:

Taken together, these amendments will expressly empower the oversight committee to request draft estimates—the draft budget, effectively—for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. They will then require the NACC to provide those draft estimates to the committee and then allow the committee expressly to make recommendations to both houses of parliament and to the Attorney-General on those draft estimates. In other words, if there's not enough money in the kitty for the NACC, if there's not enough money being provided for them to do their job, then the committee can recommend what the level of funding should be during the budget process.

As I said before, and I won't repeat the submissions we made about how this already works for the National Audit Office, these amendments seek to draw from that experience and the longstanding provisions for the National Audit Office. It simply repeats those workable, functioning provisions for the National Audit Office for the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Amendment text

(7) Page 147 (after line 12), after clause 176, insert:

176A Committee may request draft estimates for NACC

(1) The Committee may request the Commissioner to submit to the Committee draft estimates for the NACC for a financial year before the annual Commonwealth budget for that financial year.

(2) The Commissioner must comply with the request in time to allow the Committee to consider the draft estimates and make recommendations on them before the budget.

(8) Clause 177, page 148 (after line 18), after paragraph (1)(f), insert:

(fa) to consider draft estimates for the NACC submitted under section 176A;

(fb) to make recommendations to both House of Parliament, and to the Attorney-General, on draft estimates referred to in paragraph (fa);

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by NSW Senator David Shoebridge (Greens), which means it failed.

What did this amendment do?

Senator Shoebridge explained that:

This amendment seeks to remove the restraint on the National Anti-Corruption Commission in terms of holding public hearings.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 73, page 70 (lines 20 to 24), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.

The majority voted against amendments introduced by ACT Senator David Pocock (Independent), which means they failed.

What did these amendments do?

Regarding amendments (1) to (4), Senator Pocock explained that:

These amendments were moved by the member for Indi, Helen Haines, in the lower house. Again, I would like to thank her for her work on this issue over many years.

These amendments make clear that pork-barrelling is corruption. We've seen concerns in communities across the country with the way that public funds have been allocated for political gain. This makes it clear that that can be investigated. I'm also concerned that this bill falls short when it comes to conduct by third parties that could impair public confidence in public administration—in particular, practices of collusive tendering, dishonestly obtaining benefit from public funding decisions and defrauding public revenue. This makes it clear that those are included.

Regarding amendments (5) and (6), he explained:

This amendment will require the minister to table a statement of reasons if they deviate from the recommendations of the NACC joint select oversight committee in relation to the budget. This does not bind the government to giving them that money; it simply provides an extra piece of transparency so that Australians know if we are short-changing the body that is going to be tasked with holding people in these places, public servants and others, who are using valuable Australian resources that should be spent in the best interests of Australians, to account.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 8, page 15 (line 20), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; (e) any conduct of a public official that involves the allocation of public funds or other resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes.

(2) Clause 8, page 15 (after line 20), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that impairs, or that could impair, public confidence in public administration and which could involve any of the following matters:

(a) collusive tendering;

(b) fraud in relation to applications for licences, permits or other authorities under legislation designed to protect health and safety or the environment or designed to facilitate the management and commercial exploitation of resources;

(c) dishonestly obtaining or assisting in obtaining, or dishonestly benefiting from, the payment or application of public funds for private advantage or the disposition of public assets for private advantage;

(d) defrauding the public revenue;

(e) fraudulently obtaining or retaining employment or appointment as a public official.

(3) Clause 8, page 15 (line 21), omit "does not", substitute "and subsection (1A) do not".

(4) Clause 8, page 16 (line 15), after "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or subsection (1A)".

(5) Clause 177, page 148 (line 19), before "to review", insert "at least once every 12 months,".

(6) Clause 177, page 148 (after line 30), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) If:

(a) in a report mentioned in paragraph (1)(g), the Committee makes a recommendation in relation to the NACC's finances and resources; and

(b) the Minister decides not to follow the recommendation;

then:

(c) the Minister must prepare a written statement of reasons for the decision not to follow the recommendation; and

(d) the Minister must cause a copy of the statement of reasons to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after making the decision.

The majority voted against amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 1730 introduced by NSW Senator David Shoebridge (Greens), which means they failed.

What do the amendments do?

Regarding amendment (2), Senator Shoebridge explained that:

Amendment (2) seeks to re-insert a provision that was stripped out by the other place in relation to the definition of 'corruption' found in section 8 of the bill.

Regarding amendment (3), he explained that:

our amendment (3) is simply to put in a notation to the definition of corruption that provides, by way of guidance, that corrupt conduct may include conduct that constitutes pork-barrelling or political donations for the purpose of influencing a decision or policy made by a public official.

Amendment text

(2) Clause 8, page 15 (line 20), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; (e) any conduct of a public official in that capacity that constitutes, involves or is engaged in for the purpose of corruption of any other kind.

(3) Clause 8, page 15 (after line 20), at the end of subclause (1), add:

Note: Corrupt conduct may include conduct that constitutes pork barrelling or political donations for the purpose of influencing a decision or policy made by a public official.

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by NSW Senator David Shoebridge (Greens), which means it failed.

What did the amendment do?

Senator Shoebridge explained that:

This amendment, if accepted, would fill a gap in the bill. The bill as proposed, in its principles and objects, does not contain one key statement of principle, which is that we are establishing an independent national anticorruption commission. We heard in the committee, from witnesses very familiar with the New South Wales commission, that that clear statement of intent in the objects of the bill, stating unambiguously that we are establishing an independent national anticorruption commission, will be important, because, if there is any ambiguity about how the act should operate, and it faces legal challenge, one of the first things a court will do is go back to the objects and say, 'What was parliament trying to establish here?' Surely we can unite on this and say that one of the key objects of this bill is to establish an independent national anticorruption commission.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 3, page 3 (line 7), at the end of clause, add:

; (e) to establish an independent National Anti-Corruption Commission.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by NSW Senator Ross Cadell (Nationals), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023:

The impact of high-voltage electricity transmission infrastructure on agricultural and environmental land, with particular reference to:

a) the effects of using overhead and underground transmission infrastructure on agricultural and environmental assets and the communities they support;

b) the Commonwealth's role in the development of transmission infrastructure;

c) opportunities for the Commonwealth to engage and work constructively with states and territories, private enterprise, and local communities and other stakeholders in order to reduce the potential for transmission infrastructure to negatively impact agricultural and environmental assets ; and

d) any other related matters.