Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the second report of 2025 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 2 OF 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Maria Kovacic

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Gerard Rennick

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Senator Tammy Tyrrell

Senator David Van

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 12 February 2025 at 7.42 pm

2. The committee recommends that-

(a) the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025 (No. 2) be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 August 2025 (see appendix l for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(b) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the provisions of the AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2025 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee considered the following bills and, noting that they had been referred to committees on 12 February 2025, makes no further recommendation:

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

13 February 2025

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025 (No. 2)

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Law Council, Bar Associations, Integrity Civil Society Groups, whistleblowers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

TBA

Possible reporting date:

31 August 2025

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program} Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinise this legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

February

Possible reporting date:

21 March 2025

(signed) /

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Public scrutiny of bills

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Migration Institute of Australia

Human Rights Law Centre

Civil Liberties Australia

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

March 2025

Possible reporting date:

21 March 2025

(signed) /

Nick McKim

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to move an amendment:

At the end of the motion, add "and the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 April 2025".

In speaking to this amendment, I just want to make the point, which was actually helpfully highlighted by the last government speaker, that this legislation has nothing to do with the problems being faced by Australian people—the households and businesses, of course, that are struggling under the cost of living. The last government speaker on the legislation we are now seeking to refer to a committee had nothing to do with addressing the problems being faced in this country. Again, this is why we should send this legislation to a committee for an inquiry—so stakeholders, including Australian households, who are paying more for electricity, can have their say about this legislation, which does nothing to address the problems being faced by Australian households. The cost of living is something that again, as predicted, did not feature in the contribution by the Australian Greens on this debate.

This is why it's important. As demonstrated by what is happening here today—led by the Australian Greens cheerfully pushing their agenda and supported by the Australian Labor Party blindly following this ideological road to economic destruction, to households not being able to pay their power bills, to people being out of jobs—this is another step in that pathway. As I said before, it is a preview of what is to come. We have seen it here in the ACT at the territory level. We have seen it in Tasmania at a state level. We have seen Labor-Green governments and their agenda around legislation like this, which does require scrutiny. If the last government speaker in the substantive debate on this legislation was happy to point out that this has nothing to do with the cost of living then tell us exactly why this is good legislation. Tell us why we need to do it. Justify it to the community through the process of transparency.

Let's not of forget, of course, that it was the Prime Minister who said this government would usher in a new age of transparency. I don't know who the usher is, but they're doing a terrible job, because there is no transparency. Here we are again, at the end of this week, at the end of this parliamentary term, in probably the last sitting day before we go to the polls, Australia, with this government rushing through this legislation. Now, I could understand if it were legislation to do with the problems being faced by Australian households and businesses—that is, legislation that would assist with the cost of living—but apparently, according to the government, this has nothing to do with the cost of living. So, again, the government should be justifying to the Australian people why this legislation should pass. They should be justifying to this Senate why this legislation should pass and not rush it through. That's why Senate committees, like we are proposing today, should be able to look at the legislation, interrogate this and ask the government if there's any modelling that's been done about what this would do to the cost of living, what this would do to grid reliability, what this would do to manufacturing jobs in this country, what this would do to their flimsy, glossy, Future Made in Australia agenda. Of course, on one hand, they are strangling our economic drivers—small business, manufacturing—with things like the safeguard mechanism; their ridiculous nature-positive agenda, which has failed, thankfully; and all of the rest of the antibusiness, antijob, pro-Greens agenda that this government has been running. That's why the coalition would desperately love to see this legislation sent to committee for inquiry. If the Prime Minister and others are to be believed, we've got time for this. We're going to be back for estimates; there'll be further sittings of the Senate, so let's send this off. Let's have a discussion.

Why rush this through? It is unbelievable that this government would lock in behind the Australian Greens to rush this through when it does nothing to assist Australian households and businesses. Again, it demonstrates this government's tone-deaf approach to dealing with the issues being experienced by households and businesses across this country. They've been crying out for solutions. If the government wants to tell us that this legislation is the solution to the problems being faced by the Australian people, then let us do that through a Senate inquiry process. Come and justify what it is you're trying to rush through this place. Don't jam it through in here today just because your coalition partners, the Greens, want that to happen. Australians know something is up, because they're the ones who are paying higher power bills. They're the ones whose employers are saying: 'Times are getting tough. We are not able to compete with overseas imports because electricity is too expensive.'

Tell us how this legislation is going to help with any of that. Tell us how this is actually a solution. Tell us how it honours the promise made by the Prime Minister that power prices would go down by $275—a promise he made 97 times. Tell us how it actually honours your agenda, and we'll back it in.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn't going to speak, but that performance from the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate warrants me to reply, just briefly. I think it is very interesting that the party that's proposing nuclear reactors around the country as their response to delivering energy security in this country, which will cost $600 billion and drive up power prices by $1,200 for every household, would come in here concerned about the price of electricity and energy for households. Seriously!

This bill is important. It is largely to address some technical issues that have arisen and to ensure there is a consistent licensing scheme in operation for offshore wind projects. We are not going to take lectures from those opposite about the cost of energy, when their solution to that is more coal generation for longer, fewer renewables and some far-out nuclear fantasy of dotting seven nuclear reactors around the country in the 2040s as some solution to people's household bills right now. We're just not going to take it.

I'm sure Senator Duniam might not have seen some of the information that's come out today from the Clean Energy Council.

Well, okay, you're not interested in hearing from them, but the information that they've released today is:

Australia has seen its best year for large-scale renewable energy investment since 2018, finishing the year strong in 2024 with $9 billion in total capital investment committed to projects that will help Aussies keep the lights on, according to new figures released by the Clean Energy Council today.

It also goes on to say that the projects that are under construction now will help with over 10,000 construction jobs. This idea that people are losing jobs is just wrong. We have created 1.1 million jobs, and many of those new jobs are coming from delivering large-scale renewable projects across the country. Senator Duniam is wrong. He's wrong on cost, and he's wrong on the work that's underway around how we are shifting to more renewables.

Renewables are the cheapest form of energy. You can keep dancing around about your nuclear fantasy without providing costings and telling people how much that will cost them, including to keep coal operating. The biggest risk to our energy system at the moment is coal-fired power stations breaking down, and they're doing it regularly. So we need more investment in renewables to make sure that we can support households with this transition. Supporting offshore wind is part of that. Making sure we have a licensing scheme that works is part of that, and that is what this bill does.

But we understand that those opposite want to take us way back—20 years—to ruin all the work that has been done with capacity investment, Rewiring the Nation and the renewable projects that are underway. We know that that is what you are promising, but it's the wrong way. And I think most Australians understand that, because they have solar panels on their roofs and they want batteries at their homes. This is where the future is going. You may not like it, and you might want to fuel it with some far-fetched plan for nuclear energy in 30 years time, but the reality is that that's what households understand because they want help right now with their energy bills. You opposed our energy bill relief. That was a decision you took when we tried to help households with the increasing cost of energy. We helped them. You opposed it.

We want to support households with that transition, and that involves supporting large-scale renewables, it involves supporting storage and it involves supporting investment through things like the Capacity Investment Scheme. All of that has been put in place by Minister Bowen and this government, and you are threatening to unwind it all.

So it's no surprise that you oppose this legislation and you want to kick it off to a committee instead of just allowing these important projects to continue with the legal certainty that they require. We are seeing incredible investment in this country in renewable energy projects, and you want to rip that all up. That is going to cost households. It will cost households in their bills, and it will cost our energy security. So we do not support this amendment. It's just another way for those opposite to take us way back, 20 or 30 years, in energy policy, and we won't support it.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think what's incredible today is that we're in a cost-of-living crisis and you promised us at the last election that our power prices would go down, and you have failed to do that. You have failed to do that. As a matter of fact, the best thing you could do is send out $75 relief to us each quarter to try and keep us believing that is going to happen. You failed to fulfil that promise, and that's where we are.

We have a cost-of-living crisis, and right now we need everything on the table. We need this to go to a Senate inquiry, and that's what the people of Australia expect. Any other time you want something to go, it goes to a Senate inquiry; whenever the Greens want something, it goes to a Senate inquiry—but not when it's not in your best interest.

We can come and remind you every day of the week that, between the Greens and the government of the day, you have failed to do what you promised the Australian people at the last election. You have not reduced our power prices, and that's all that matters today. Between the Greens and the government, the Labor Party failed to reduce what they promised to at the last election. They failed to reduce your electricity bills. That is what's happened today, and that's all that matters. We are in a cost-of-living crisis, and today in here they're still trying to tell me there's nothing wrong and our power prices aren't going up. That's where we're at. So, instead of gaffer-taping us every time it's not working for you guys and making you look good, these things need to go to an inquiry. We've waited three years for you to reduce our prices. You have failed. So what's another four or five weeks so we can do this properly? What is wrong with that?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Duniam:

Omit "17 April 2025", substitute "25 March 2025".

I voted against this guillotine earlier, despite supporting the WGEA bill and this bill. I think it's a great shame that, on what I'm hearing might be the last day of parliament, we yet again have a bill introduced into the parliament at the last minute and not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny. We have a sitting week in March. We have a prime minister who's told us that he's going full term, and he's told us that he's a man of his word. So I take him at his word and I believe that we will be back in March. This will allow us to have a short Senate inquiry to delve into the issues. As Senator Cash often reminds us, the devil is in the detail, and that's what the house of review is here for. We saw last night a deal to ram through the biggest electoral reforms in 40 years, with no Senate scrutiny, and the crossbench—

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, come on! There's been inquiry after inquiry into electoral reform.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Gallagher.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's convenient for the government to say that JSCEM made broad recommendations and that the government are simply implementing those. It's very inconvenient for the government that JSCEM recommended additional Territory senators, and it was in the Labor Party platform to have delivered extra Territory senators. Then, last night, the Labor Party voted against that, despite there being the numbers on the crossbench to support additional representation for the territories. But I digress after the interjection from Minister Gallagher.

I don't understand why we have Labor trying to ram through more legislation today without any parliamentary scrutiny. Let's have some respect for the Senate. I think there are legitimate reasons to support guillotines when there has been scrutiny and some debate, and the Senate just needs to deal with things. We've seen in that past that, during these big guillotines, a lot of the bills don't even go to a division, because the Senate has largely worked through the bills. Some may even be noncontroversial but have been hanging around for a while. I don't think this is the case with this bill.

Again, whilst I support what I've seen of this bill from Mr Bowen and have said to him myself that I support it in principle, I do think a short Senate inquiry would be worthwhile. I do not buy some of the rhetoric coming from the coalition on their stance on nuclear. We've heard from other former Liberals who are very open about it just being a front to continue the use of coal and gas. We do need to get on with transitioning not just our electricity sector—that's very important—but genuinely transitioning. So I give the government credit; they are committed to 82 per cent renewables, but they're also committed to expanding the fossil fuel industry, continuing to export gas and using Japan as an excuse to export gas. Well, we now know that Japan are exporting more gas than we export to Japan, which doesn't make a lot of sense. We hold them up as the reason we need to make life a lot harder for young people and future generations. On this one, I'm going to stick to my principles. I'll be supporting a referral here. I hope the Senate will look at this for a few weeks and come back in March, and the government will certainly have the numbers to pass it.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator David Pocock to Senator Duniam's amendment be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Duniam to the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.