The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time. This means they can now discuss it in more detail.

Why are the major parties split on how to vote?

This was a free vote (also known as a conscience vote), which means our senators voted according to their own beliefs rather than voting along party lines.

What does this bill do?

According to the bills digest:

• The Bill proposes to remove the restrictions currently preventing the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory from passing legislation which would allow for voluntary assisted dying (VAD).
• These restrictions were introduced in 1997 through the passage of a private member’s Bill introduced by Mr Kevin Andrews MP.
• There have been a number of attempts by parliamentarians to remove these restrictions in previous Parliaments.

In other words, the purpose of the bill is to remove the prohibition on legalising euthanasia so that the Territories can introduce their own laws on the subject.

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Tasmanian Senator Wendy Askew (Liberal) on behalf of Victorian Senator Bridget McKenzie (Nationals), which means it was successful.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for production of documents no. 55 (the order) agreed by the Senate on 26 October 2022, requiring the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to table correspondence, requests for, or approval of, Australian Government funding for projects or programs in the 2022-23 Federal Budget, has not been complied with,

(ii) the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, in his 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, and

(iii) the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is yet to respond to the order;

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government noting that:

(i) 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

(ii) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from a state or territory government; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to comply with the order by no later than midday on 28 November 2022.

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Tasmanian Senator Wendy Askew (Liberal) on behalf of Victorian Senator Bridget McKenzie (Nationals), which means it was successful.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for production of documents no. 50 (the order) agreed by the Senate on 25 October 2022, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to table documents in relation to the Hahndorf Township Improvements and Access Upgrade Project, has not been complied with, and

(ii) the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in her 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;

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, noting that:

(i) 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

(ii) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from the South Australian Government; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to comply with the order by no later than midday on 28 November 2022.

Notice of motion altered 22 November 2022 pursuant to standing order 77.

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Tasmanian Senator Wendy Askew (Liberal) on behalf of Victorian Senator Jane Hume (Liberal), which means it was successful.

Motion text

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than midday on Monday, 28 November 2022:

(a) a copy of the Budget Process Operational Rules used in the formation of the 2022-23 October Budget (BPORs);

(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 22 May 2022; and

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

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Tasmanian Senator Wendy Askew (Liberal) on behalf of NSW Senator Andrew Bragg (Liberal), which means it was successful.

Motion text

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday 29 November 2022, the following documents in relation to the consultation on 'Crypto asset secondary service providers: Licensing and custody requirements', commenced by the Treasury on 21 March 2022:

(a) all briefings provided to the Assistant Treasurer by the Treasury relating to the Treasury consultation, received between 21 May and 29 November 2022;

(b) all documents detailing any policy options that have been recommended to the Assistant Treasurer by the Treasury relating to the Treasury consultation, received between 21 May and 29 November 2022;

(c) any draft legislation that has been developed by the Treasury to implement the policy recommendations specified in paragraph (b), between 21 May and 29 November 2022;

(d) all documents and/or correspondence between the Assistant Treasurer and the Treasury detailing a determination on why submissions to the Treasury consultation have not been uploaded to the Treasury website received between 21 May and 29 November 2022;

(e) all submissions provided to the Treasury consultation; and

(f) all documents, briefings and/or correspondence detailing meetings between the Assistant Treasurer and the Treasury regarding this Treasury consultation, between 21 May and 29 November 2022.

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Tasmanian Senator Wendy Askew (Liberal) on behalf of NSW Senator Andrew Bragg (Liberal), which means it was successful.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for production of documents no. 52 (the order) agreed by the Senate on 25 October 2022, requiring the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer to table any briefing notes, file notes and emails received by the Assistant Treasurer from superannuation industry representatives in relation to changes to the superannuation industry payment disclosure requirements, has not been complied with, and

(ii) the Assistant Treasurer, in his response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis of privacy, citing concerns individuals and organisations have a reasonable expectation that representations made to the minister are not put on the public record without proper consent and consultation;

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Assistant Treasurer on the grounds of privacy, noting that:

(i) claims that information has been collected on the condition that it would be treated as confidential, and therefore cannot be disclosed, is not in itself a ground for a public interest immunity claim,

(ii) it must be established that some harm may occur because of the disclosure of the information sought by the order, and

(iii) any specific harm could be overcome by disclosing information in general terms without the identity of those to whom it relates; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on 28 November 2022.

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. If it had been successful, the amendment would have added the words below.

Motion text

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

(a) is of the opinion that:

(i) building a circular economy is a key component of climate action,

(ii) decommissioning of infrastructure must be undertaken in a way that is environmentally sustainable, and

(iii) the technology to recycle and reuse the components of wind turbines exists now; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) develop robust regulations for the safe and sustainable decommissioning of offshore wind turbine infrastructure, and

(ii) ensure that future regulations prevent the decommissioning of wind turbine infrastructure to landfill".

The majority voted against amendments introduced by South Australian Senator Barbara Pocock (Greens), which means they failed.

What did these amendments do?

During her second reading speech, Senator Pocock explained that the amendments were introduced:

... to increase the spending cap from $200 million to $300 million a year and to require the Future Fund in its management of the Disaster Ready Fund to ensure that the fund is not invested in fossil fuels. It's a rich irony which cannot be lost on so many Australians that the Disaster Ready Fund is invested in the very same coal, gas and oil companies whose activities are causing the climate emergencies that the fund has been set up to mitigate.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 28), after item 26, insert:

26A Section 4

Insert:

fossil fuel financial asset means a financial asset that relates directly to:

(a) infrastructure that is intended to be used wholly or predominantly for extracting, processing (including refining), transporting or exporting coal, gas or oil; or

(b) a person that operates such infrastructure; or

(c) a related body corporate (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) of a body corporate that operates such infrastructure.

(2) Schedule 1, item 105, page 20 (line 21), omit paragraph 34(1)(c), substitute:

(c) $300 million; or

(3) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 4), after item 112, insert:

112A After section 36

Insert:

36A Prohibition on investing in fossil fuel financial assets

(1) The Future Fund Board must ensure that no investments of the Disaster Ready Fund are fossil fuel financial assets.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a financial asset to which section 9A (about transitioning investments of the Emergency Response Fund) applies.

(3) However, if a financial asset to which section 9A applies is a fossil fuel financial asset, the Future Fund Board must realise the financial asset as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section.

(4) This section has effect despite any other provision of this Act.

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Victorian Senator Janet Rice (Greens), which means it failed.

What did this amendment do?

Senator Rice explained that:

This amendment would raise the rate of income support to all income support recipients to $88 a day—to above the poverty line. I know the government is going to say, 'You're just making a political point.' This is not a political point. This is an attempt to improve the lives of millions of Australians who are living in poverty, who are starving, who are suffering from malnutrition, who are suffering from scurvy, who cannot afford to live in a home at the same time as putting food on the table or at the same time as paying their medical bills. We can afford this, and this parliament—this government—should be doing this. While they are not doing this, they are saying, 'We're going to go ahead with the stage 3 tax cuts and give the richest people in our country—the billionaires, the wealthy—$250 billion over the next 10 years.' That's the choice that's being made.

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Queensland Senator Matthew Canavan (LNP), which means it was passed.

Motion text

That, for the purposes of estimates, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee meet on:

(1) Friday, 25 November 2022 from 9 am to 1 pm to examine the following:

(a) Outcome 1, Outcome 2 and Outcome 3 of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts,

(b) Civil Aviation Safety Authority,

(c) Airservices Australia, and

(d) Australian Maritime Safety Authority; and

(2) Friday, 2 December 2022 from 9 am to 12 pm to examine the following:

(a) Outcome 1, Outcome 2 and Outcome 3 of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts,

(b) Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility,

(c) Infrastructure Australia,

(d) National Intermodal Corporation Limited, and

(e) Australian Rail Track Corporation.