Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the sixth report for 2025 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 6 OF 2025

4 September 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Lisa Darmanin (Acting Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet Senator Leah Blyth Senator Ross Cadell

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip) Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 6 OF 2025

The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 3 September 2025 at 7.11pm.

The committee recommends that —

the provisions of the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 and the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 October 2025;

the provisions of the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 October 2025 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 October 2025 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

the provisions of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 October 2025 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).

The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

(Lisa Darmanin)

Chair

4 September 2025

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Defence Amendment (Defence Honors and Awards Appeals tribunal) Bil (Originated in the House of Representatives on Thursday 28 August 2025)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinize this legislation and to hear from stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): September to October 2025

Possible reporting date: 30 OCTOBER 2025

(signed)

Print name: SENATOR WENDY ASKEW 12 I Deferred Bills

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill

(Originated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday 27 August 2025)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinize this legislation and to hear from stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): September to October 2025

Possible reporting date: 23 OCTOBER 2025

(signed)

Print name: SENATOR WENDY ASKEW 13 I Deferred Bills

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill (To be originated in the House of Representatives on Thursday 4 September 2025)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinize this legislation and to hear from stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): September and October 2025

Possible reporting date: 21 OCTOBER 2025

(signed)

Print name: SENATOR WENDY ASKEW 15 I Deferred Bills

I move:

That the report be adopted.

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

GALLAGHER (—) (): I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", and:

(a) the provisions of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 November 2025; and

(b) the provisions of the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 November 2025".

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

I move an amendment to the amendment:

At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of:

(a) "and, in respect of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 December 2025"; and

(b) "but, in respect of the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2025".

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

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

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment standing in Senator Nick McKim's name:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of:

(a) the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 November 2025"; and

(b) the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024, the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2025".

Here we are again, with Labor and the Liberals teaming up one more time to shut down debate, to shut down scrutiny on a cooked bill that punches down on migrants and on refugees. What a surprise!

I do want to associate myself with the comments that Senator Shoebridge has made all along on this horrific, monstrous bill. You just don't get tired in this race with each other on who is going to punish, who is going to crack down on and who is going to strip natural justice from migrants and refugees. No-one wins in this race except racism, unfairness and injustice.

Labor senators stand here and speak about what a great multicultural nation this is. They criticise the anti-immigration rallies. They still don't condemn them, but they do criticise them. They talk about welcoming different races. They talk about humanity and respect. This is what Senator Wong spoke about yesterday. But, in the same breath, you did the exact opposite. You ran through laws that will deport these very same people that you say are welcome here without giving any opportunity for natural justice. You silenced the sector by locking them out of the three-hour inquiry. You didn't accept public submissions, but the Greens have tabled those submissions. You did a secret deal—a $400 million bribe to Nauru—to deport people. It's $2.5 billion now. You are such hypocrites. You are hypocrites of the highest order, talking about multiculturalism on the one hand and then ramming through a racist bill on the other. You praise migrants for what they bring to this country, you eat our food and you enjoy our festivals, but then you stitch up dirty deals with the coalition to demonise us. That is what this bill does—it demonises migrants and refugees. You criticise the likes of One Nation for scapegoating migrants, blaming them for the housing crisis, when you have done exactly the same. You blamed international students for the housing crisis. That's how far right you have gone. I don't know who you have become. Who is the Labor Party now? You talk about a fair go, but then you legislate anti-fairness.

I'll tell you what the Labor Party has become. You have become a party with the most monstrous policies on migrants and people who seek asylum. Your cooked policies would make Donald Trump proud. Do you know what? You have actually won, so congratulations to you. You have actually won this race to the bottom with the coalition on who can be more anti migrant and more anti refugee. You have won it—congratulations! You have sacrificed basic humanity, human dignity, human decency and fairness to push through your racist bill. Shame on you. What a disgrace.

You want to hide your nastiness by completely stopping scrutiny on this legislation. This is the harsh truth which you need to listen to. You have never seen us—people of colour and migrants of colour—as equals. Our belonging to this country, our Australianness, has always been conditional. This bill is just another example of how conditional our belonging is. Shame on you. You are all a disgrace.

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

I just want to put on the record the many concerns I've heard from people in the ACT about the way that the government is rushing through a bill which Senator Shoebridge and Senator Cash methodically proved is not actually urgent. Many Canberrans have very deep concerns about the way that this is happening in our parliament, with a total lack of scrutiny and what seems to be going against the Labor values that we heard about before the last two elections.

On the broader issue of a deal with Nauru to send people who we have been told are too much of a risk to our community to be released, that we simply cannot release these people into our community for fear of what may happen to Australians, we are happy to pay Nauru to take them. They're a small island nation. We are going to pay them $2½ billion to $7-plus billion over the next 30 years to do that. It doesn't bode well, given the majority they have in the House, if this is the way that the government are going to treat the parliament.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is dangerous and disgusting that, in the same week that Neo-Nazis paraded the streets calling for a white Australia, the Labor government is rushing through harsh anti-immigration deportation laws that will impact—surprise, surprise!—black and brown people the hardest. The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 paves the way for the mass deportation of migrants and refugees with no legal safeguards and no opportunity for protection. Australia's immigration regime is so brutal that even Trump pointed to Australia's system and said:

That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.

Shame! He took inspiration from this colony, from the Labor government, just like South Africa got its inspiration for apartheid from the Aboriginals Protection Act in Queensland.

It is racist laws like these that form the fabric of this colony, and this has been the case since the invasion of our sacred lands. This creates a hotbed for white supremacy. White supremacy doesn't happen in a vacuum. It has been allowed to flourish as racist and divisive laws and attitudes to non-white people are laid into the very foundations of this colony, as we see today. Some might assimilate, and I don't know how they sleep at night.

If the Nazis were in parliament today—or maybe they are—they would applaud—

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

Senator Thorpe, withdraw the comment you made.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'If the Nazis were in parliament today'?

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

There's no need to repeat it. I've asked you to withdraw it.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is wrong with this?

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

Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. I've asked you to withdraw, and I expect you to withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very hard, this violent colony, but I withdraw.

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

I've told you before that you don't put statements with a withdrawal. You simply withdraw the statement.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the statement, master.

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

No. You can withdraw that as well.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

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

Thank you.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, the Nazis would be very happy with the parliament today. They would applaud these laws and shake Albanese's hand, in fact. I wonder who is providing the advice to the Albanese government if it's not the Nazis that we saw on the weekend. Congratulations, Labor. You've managed to impress the white supremacists and the cookers in this chamber who support them and speak at their rallies on—

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

Senator Thorpe, once again, withdraw that comment.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Should I have my speeches checked by you, President?

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

You're not in a debate with me. I've asked you to withdraw; I expect you to withdraw. May I remind everyone in this chamber that we have all signed up to a respectful parliament, and that includes what you say in this place.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can talk about racists and murderers, but I can't talk about—

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

Senator Thorpe, if you don't withdraw, you won't have the call.

Senator Faruqi, I'm simply dealing with Senator Thorpe at the moment. I will happily come to you once Senator Thorpe has withdrawn.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not a withdrawal!

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

Order, Senator Ruston.

An honourable senator: Leave it alone.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't talk about what is the real truth of the country and about the white supremacy that continues to roll out in my workplace. It is not a safe workplace for black and brown people in the Senate or in this building. But let's be clear: this is the Labor Party and the Liberal Party openly continuing a new era of the White Australia policy. Congratulations! Sounds about white.

Bills like these normalise racism and white supremacy in the highest places of power in the colony. The dream of a white Australia is the foundation of this colonial construct: terra nullius, to pretend the land was empty; and genocide, to make sure it would be. Senator Wong publicly condemned last weekend's marches and, in the next breath, rushed through one of the cruellest mass-deportation bills in the world. What the politicians say publicly, on their socials and in the media is very different to what they do in this chamber. Back-door deals—fake, power-hungry, racist politicians.

I want to make clear that no colonial government in this country has the right to say who and who isn't illegal on stolen land. First Peoples do not use immigrants and refugees as political footballs. We make sure that people are welcome and follow the proper protocol of our land. To the people out there who are scared about what this bill means for them and their families: you are welcome here and you are not alone. We know what racism looks like in this country and we see it every day. Stay safe. Look after each other. Together we will continue to resist white supremacy in this country, in this colony and in this parliament.

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

I ask that the question be put separately for paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Greens amendment, as moved by Senator McKim.

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

Thank you, Senator Lambie.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Greens amendment, as circulated by Senator McKim. I think it is appalling that, today, what we see is a stitch-up between the Labor Party—the government—and the coalition to shut down an inquiry into gambling advertising in Australia. Both the Labor Party and the coalition have gotten together today to stop the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024 going to an inquiry because they do not want this issue debated.

I don't know what has happened, between the Peta Murphy report recommendations being handed down and today, that has made the Liberal Party and the Labor Party so scared of the gambling lobby, so scared of the gambling companies and so scared to do anything that was recommended by the Peta Murphy report, which said the single most important thing you could do is stop the advertising of this harmful product. Gambling addiction kills. It ruins lives. It ruins families. It bankrupts businesses. Gambling advertising pushes a dangerous and deadly product, and it is pushing it down the throats of our children, our young people and, in particular, young men across the country.

We have heard expert after expert talk about how insidious and dangerous the advertising of gambling is. We've heard from parents who are crying out for regulation and help because gambling companies are getting straight into the hands of their young boys and their teenagers. We've heard directly from children themselves and from young addicted people about how hard it is to get away from being induced and bombarded by gambling advertising. We've heard the sorrows and the pain from families who have lost sons, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers because of the death that gambling addiction brings.

If you can't bring yourselves to stare down the gambling industry and to stop them from pushing this toxic, deadly product into the hands and faces of our children, you do not have the courage required to lead. It is time to stop the excuses, to do something to stop these gambling companies ruining our children's lives, ruining our families and bankrupting our community. Australians lose more money in gambling per capita than anywhere else in the world. We are addicted to the gambling industry. It takes political courage to do something about it.

The Prime Minister has a supermajority in the House. We've heard the opposition say that they care about this issue, that they are worried about the pain this is bringing to families. Well, stop dragging your feet. Today's blocking of this bill going to an inquiry just shows the lack of courage that both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have. Stop being scared. Stand up for the Australian people and for the safety of our children.

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

We've just heard the Australian Greens talking about teaming up to block scrutiny of legislation and hiding things from the gaze of this parliament. So it's probably a good opportunity to remind ourselves that not so long ago did the Australian Greens team up with the Australian government, the Labor Party, to stop scrutiny of legislation around actually making sure that this parliament could function. If we want to talk about dodgy deals and people teaming up to prevent scrutiny, why on earth were we not allowed to have scrutiny of legislation that would ensure crossbenchers and the opposition in this place would be appropriately resourced to ensure we that we can do our jobs properly to scrutinise legislation, as the speaker from the Greens just said?

We know exactly why. I think my colleagues on the crossbench, the Independent senators, know it's because of the 'buy now, pay later' arrangement that was entered into by the Australian Greens for their sumptuously appointed, beautifully furnished new party room down the end of the building here in return for their silence on these arrangements around staff. So they come in here and they feign outrage about the lack of scrutiny and terrible deals between the government and the opposition. What about exposing what we saw last week when it came to that crowd, the Australian Greens, who'll happily sell out for all of these sorts of arrangements in order to prevent us from having a proper discussion around resourcing for non-government parties in this place except for the Australian Greens? They're the ones who did alright out of this. Not only do they get to keep their staff but they get that beautiful room. We've all seen the pictures. A million dollars worth of taxpayers' money was put into this and it means no scrutiny. If we want to talk about deals done between parties, there is the best one I've seen so far. It's tangible, clear to see for all and something that I think we should not forget about when it comes to this discussion around deals done between parties.

Whether you want to call it 'buy now, pay later', 'quick and collect', 'frequent shopper' or 'frequent flyer upgrades', that's what the Australian Greens are in it for here. Whatever the price is, they will happily accept it and they will do it in order to get whatever it is they want in any transaction in this parliament. So I will not have them come in here and talk about the hypocrisy of parties when, in fact, they are the worst offenders when it comes to this sort of thing.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are seeing here is the continuation of a decade-long collusion between the Labor Party and the coalition to destroy the lives of people who seek asylum in this country. We have seen it for decades, and we have seen literally thousands of lives destroyed by this lockstep in cruelty, this deliberate demonisation of people who seek asylum in this country. And as someone who visited the detention centre, the offshore prison, on Manus Island many times—the so-called Lombrum detention centre, the Lombrum offshore prison—let me tell you categorically how many white people there were locked up in that prison: absolutely none. Every single one of the well north of a thousand people who went through was black- or brown-skinned.

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

Thank you, Senator McKim. The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Faruqi, standing in the name of Senator McKim, part (a)—bearing in mind Senator Lambie's request to split (a) and (b)—be agreed to.

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

I'll now put part (b) of that amendment. The question is that part (b) of the amendment as moved by Senator Faruqi on behalf of Senator McKim be agreed to.

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

The question now is that the government amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Report, as amended, adopted.