Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the seventh 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. 7 OF 2025

30 October 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Sean Bell (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 Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 7 OF 2025

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 29 October 2025 at 7.18 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2025 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 January 2026 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2025;

(d) the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Ban Unethical Contractors) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 March 2026 (see appendix 3 for statements of reasons for referral); and

(e) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2025 (see appendix 4 for statements of reasons for referral).

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

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:

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair

29 October 2025

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

(a) the provisions of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2025;

(b) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 and a related bill not be referred to a committee;

(c) the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 not be referred to a committee; and

(d) the provisions of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 not be referred to a committee.

For those who haven't seen it, the amendment that the government is moving to this report from the Selection of Bills Committee seeks to refer immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee the provisions of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, which has just been introduced into the House of Representatives. We're seeking a report from that committee by 24 November 2025. There are a number of other amendments that we're moving, but I'll just speak to the amendments to the EPBC legislation.

Unfortunately, the 'no-alition' is back—the 'no-alition' that slowed down, got in the way of, blocked and obstructed housing reform, environmental reform, health measures and all sorts of other reforms that the Albanese government sought to achieve in our first term. They enjoyed the experience so much that they've decided to do it all over again when it comes to environmental reform. I am surprised that they enjoyed the 'no-alition' as much as it appears they did, because the Australian people didn't enjoy it very much. The Australian people had their say about the 'no-alition' at the last federal election, where we saw both the coalition and the Greens pay an electoral price for the 'no-alition' and for consistently obstructing and blocking progress that the Albanese government was seeking to achieve.

I have made no secret of the fact that we believe, and I believe, the Australian people want changes and amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act made now—not in another five years, not in another few months, not when we get around to it after the 'no-alition' breaks up temporarily, but now. The reason we need to act now and have a Senate committee report come back enabling debate of this bill in the last sitting week of the year is that, with every day, every month and every year that the 'no-alition' blocks these reforms, we see our natural environment decline and we see housing, renewables and other important projects held up in the red tape of the provisions of the current act that we are seeking to amend.

The bills that we have introduced into the House of Representatives today put forward a balanced package of reform that deliver real gains for nature and for approvals processes that business is desperately seeking. The reforms in the bills also dramatically improve the transparency and accountability of decision-making when it comes to the environment in this country, in particular through the creation of Australia's first-ever National Environment Protection Agency—a proud Labor achievement and something that we have taken to two federal elections in a row and that has been endorsed by the Australian people two elections in a row but that has been blocked, yet again, by the 'no-alition' of the coalition and the Greens.

It's about time that the coalition and the Greens recognise that continued frustration of these reforms is leading to a decline in nature. The Greens Party—well, some of them—say that their reason for being is to protect the environment. Some of them say it's just about having protests outside electorate offices, but some do say that their reason for being is to protect the environment. They have an opportunity to do that right now with the Environment Protection Reform Bill, which has been introduced into the House and which we're seeking to have referred to a Senate inquiry to report back by the last sitting week so that we can get on with it and pass these reforms.

The coalition have an opportunity to listen to the voices of business—who they say back them, but, half the time I'm not really sure that's right—who desperately want changes made to the processes that are strangling investment, strangling productivity, strangling housing developments and strangling renewable energy and other economic projects. This week we saw the business community oppose the actions by the opposition leader, Sussan Ley, when she called for the bill to be split. She couldn't even get business groups to back her in on that. She was trying to split a bill to avoid a split in her own party room. That's what we saw from Sussan Ley this week.

We have the opportunity to move now. It is five years since Graeme Samuel tabled his review for the then environment minister, Sussan Ley, which recommended changes for nature and changes for business. It has been five years. Since then, we've been spinning wheels and seeing attempt after attempt to pass these laws blocked by the 'no-alition'—and they're back at it. We should get on with it and we should get a Senate inquiry happening now.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and six related bills, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 March 2026".

I've circulated an amendment to Minister Watt's amendment to give this bill the scrutiny it deserves and needs—to send this to an inquiry where the Australian people can have a good look at the stitch-up that this government has done with the big business lobby, the miners and the loggers. We know that the legislation that's been tabled in the House of Representatives today has big business's, the miners' and the loggers' grubby fingerprints all over it. There are more loopholes. There are more get-out-of-jail-free cards for the business lobby, the miners and the loggers. There are, however, no guaranteed protections for our forests, for our climate. There are no guaranteed protections for our endangered species.

This bill—this package of bills, seven bills, hundreds of pages—does not do what it says on the tin. It is no wonder that 'Mr Murray in a hurry' wants to ram this legislation through this place with a short inquiry, because he's done a deal with the big businesses, the big polluters and the big loggers, and he doesn't want anyone to know about it. There's only one thing that drives a government to truncate the process of the Senate, and that's when they're trying to hide what's really going on. When they don't want the community to know, when they don't want their own voters to know, when they don't want their own backbench to know what's really going on, the government moves things as fast as they can, rams legislation through and hopes no-one will notice, or, if they do, it will all be too late.

That's why they don't want a genuine Senate inquiry today, but we are going to move to make sure that this chamber has the ability to do its job. There are hundreds of pages of this legislation. The weasel words have grown and grown. In fact, it was just up until yesterday that the department and those in the minister's office were finalising how many more weasel words would be in this piece of legislation. The government itself wasn't able to settle on exactly what would be in this package until the last minute. If they expect the Senate just to roll over, rubberstamp this and ram it through, they've got another thing coming.

For far too long, we've had big business, the big logging companies and the big miners write the laws in this country. In the one package that is meant to be about protecting the environment, you'd think they'd do what it says on the tin. Imagine if the environment minister actually talked about, and put forward, legislation that protected the environment. Do you think BHP would be cheering it on? Do you think Chevron would be saying, 'Ram it through'? Do you think the Minerals Council would be telling the Senate to get out of the way? No, they would not. Why are they all lining up today to tell Senator Watt, the Minister for the Environment and Water, to get this all done quickly before anyone notices? It's because it's good for their business. It's good for their mining. It's good for their pollution-pumping projects. Of course, because it does nothing to stop native forest logging, the trees will keep falling, the animals will keep dying and the pollution will keep growing. That is what is on the table, and the community deserves to know.

I know that this makes the government terribly nervous, because there are people within their own backbench who are alarmed at what is in this package. I say to the backbenchers of the Labor Party: here is your chance. Here is your chance to get behind the rest of the community, who want strong environmental protections, our forests saved, the pollution to stop and a natural environment that is protected for the next generation, for our kids. If you want to take this opportunity, now is the time. Now is the time to have a backbone. Now is the time to find your voice and use this process to do it. Otherwise, this package of bills, written by the business lobby for the loggers and the miners, will sail through. Who knows what the coalition will do? They're totally divided. But the idea that a Labor government would ram through legislation, beg the coalition for a deal and then have the gall to call it 'environmental protection'—you know it stinks. The people know it stinks. It absolutely stinks, and that's why it needs scrutiny.

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

We will be supporting the Greens' amendment, regarding a reference of the bills to a committee. The minister came in here to tell us that we need to pass this legislation today because this is their true form—get it through; ram it through. As Senator Hanson-Young says, there are seven bills as part of this package. There are 700 pages of legislation and an EM which, I understand, is 700 pages long as well. They were tabled today, incomplete, with elements still not finalised. Senator Watt tells us the business community are sending strong messages. If you talk to the business community, they say they want time to scrutinise this as well because it's all been rushed.

Let's go back over the history of what's happened here. Senator Watt tells us it's been five years since the Samuel review was tabled. What happened for the last three years was that you had an environment minister—Tanya Plibersek, the member for Sydney and former environment minister—sacked at the end of the last term because she couldn't do her job, so much so that, now, she doesn't even represent the environment minister in the other place. You'd think the former minister would have that job over there, in the other place, to represent the environment minister in the Senate. No—they don't even trust her with that, so badly did she handle this portfolio and squander three years of opportunity.

You had a coalition that wanted to work with the government to get this legislation through, but instead the minister refused to work with us. You had a prime minister who saw sense, and he stopped the minister from doing these dodgy, dirty deals that we knew about. We had documents released under FOI—with big, black swathes across them again, true to form for this Labor government, wanting to make sure no-one knew what was really going on—and deals done between Minister Plibersek, the Australian Greens and, of course, other crossbenchers. Who knows what the detail of those deals was? We will never know, because it was all part of this secret arrangement this government wants to keep going in this place, and we've seen that again this week. The idea of scrutiny is abhorrent to them.

Australian Labor Party senators aren't in their seats and continue to interject, of course, because they've got a lot to say about the need to back in a minister who wants to rush this bill through the Senate, avoid scrutiny and avoid any accountability, like they do every other day of the week. Can I tell you, we in this place have had enough of this government seeking to just run the show in accordance with their own tune and not seek any input from anyone else.

We're happy to work with the government on the nature of this legislation and to get a good outcome for this country. We've laid down some key markers about what we think needs to change in this legislation, and the shadow minister, Ms Bell, has been very clear about that. Of course, the government, doing what they do and attacking everyone else rather than actually working constructively with them, will take issue with that. We are ready to work with the government, but we're not going to just rush it throughout at your demand. This is a democratic institution.

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

Five years!

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

I'll take the interjection from the minister. Three of the five years that we've had since Samuel tabled his report were wasted by you. You could have had this done in the last term, but you chose not to. You had your dark, smoke-filled rooms over there and you were doing deals with the business lobby, the green groups or whoever it was. We don't know, because there were all these nondisclosure agreements signed. Again, a hallmark of this government is a lack of transparency. All of these Labor senators think it's funny to deal with the public good and the environment and providing investor certainty is just a laughing matter. Well, I'm sorry, but it's not.

That's why this Senate needs to do its job. That's why we are holding this government to account today. We will be ensuring that there is scrutiny applied to this legislation, as is required, not just bowing to the minister's demands, acquiescing, rolling over and being compliant. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. This legislation will come out the other end looking much better than it's gone in, and we will actually see what this government intends to do for this country, whether it's serious about wanting to do a good job for the environment and business. At this point, we don't know, because what's been tabled in the other place isn't even complete. Lobby groups are telling us they need the time. Both environmental and business groups want to look at this legislation properly. So we will support the extension for this inquiry because it's important to have this scrutiny, but we're not going to roll over. We're sick of being told what to do by a government that doesn't know what it's doing.

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

Those remarks from Senator Duniam really were a way to let the Senate know that—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Brilliant remarks!

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

Senator Henderson, you don't have the call and you are not in your chair.

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

Order! I will make this point now. Prior to this matter coming on, we had had a vote and so many of you are not in your correct seats. It is absolutely against the rules to be interjecting when you are not in your seat, so the silence will continue. Thank you, minister.

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

It was about why environmental reform cannot be progressed this year—again, another year where environmental law reform doesn't progress. I know how many meetings Senator Watt has had with members of this place and with other stakeholders to ensure that this bill has the smoothest or quickest passage through, with appropriate scrutiny. The minister has been working on this and working with colleagues since May, and he has outlined the arguments to this chamber. But we accept that the view of those on the opposition benches, the Greens and others is that they want to delay the passage of this bill. That's what's happening here this morning on the environmental law reform.

On the other bills—and I note there are a number of amendments that are going to be moved across a number of bills—I just want to take the opportunity to outline the government's position outside of environmental protection reform. We would like a short committee process to report on that by 24 November. But there are a number of other pieces of legislation, including on payday superannuation. Again, it is unsurprising that the opposition are seeking to delay the passage of this bill. The ATO estimates that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in the 2021-22 year. That's $100 million every week that workers did not get put in their accounts. This bill seeks to address that. I would have thought that was a pretty important job—for the Senate to be dealing with that bill so that workers are getting the superannuation they are entitled to as soon as that bill is able to be passed. That is why we are suggesting that that bill not be referred to a committee. We are moving an amendment to that degree. I hope that people will support that amendment.

In (c) of the amendment moved by the government, it states:

(c) the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 not be referred to a committee …

This bill would allow the government to list the IRGC, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as a state sponsor of terrorism, consistent with the PM's announcement in August. There has been a lot of discussion around that. We think it's very important that that bill be passed as soon as possible and not referred to a committee, especially as we know the advice from our intelligence agencies about the involvement of people aligned with that group in relation to attacks here on our own soil that have aimed to put fear into the community. This bill deals with that. Again, I hope that we get the support of the chamber not to refer that to a committee. 'The provisions of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 not be referred to a committee'—this important bill will allow the establishment of a committee to provide increased transparency on AUKUS and allow the parliament to continue to scrutinise this important project. This is going to be done through this bill, and we again would urge the chamber to not refer that to a committee.

The final point I want to make is in relation to Senator Robert's amendment that's foreshadowed to be moved in this part, which is on the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025. Senator Roberts seeks to move that to a report by 27 February 2026. The government does not support that. This bill will provide clarity and consistency about eligibility for paid parental leave. The bill uses existing definitions that already apply to unpaid parental leave in the Fair Work Act and government funded paid parental leave in the Paid Parental Leave Act. The loss of a child is one of the most devastating things a parent can experience. It has a profound and long-lasting impact on parents, families and their communities. These are very difficult circumstances for workers and employers to navigate. We feel this bill provides certainty, and we are—as we have heard in speeches in the other place—deeply disappointed that a very small minority have tried to hijack this bill and pretend it is about something that it is not. On those grounds, the government will not be supporting Senator Roberts amendment and don't support the inquiry until the end of February next year that he's proposed.

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

Senator Whish-Wilson.

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

It's Senator McKim.

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

I beg your pardon!

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to take the call, President!

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

It's flattering to at least one of you! Senator McKim, my apologies.

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

I'm going to leave that where it is. Thank you for that dorothy dixer, President. I'll tell you what the Australian Greens are not going to cop. We are not going to cop a lecture on environmental protection from Labor's so-called Minister for the Environment and Water, Murray Watt, who is part of a government that is approving every coal and gas project it possibly can as fast as it possibly can while the planet is cooking and our ecosystems are crumbling around us. We're not going to cop a lecture on environmental protection from a so-called minister for the environment who is cheering on as our native forests are being flattened and burned by the logging industry in this country. We're not going to cop a lecture on environmental protection from a government that continues to subsidise the burning of fossil fuels from the public purse while our climate is breaking down around us. We are not going to cop a lecture from 'One Watt' Murray, who has spent the last few months sitting in the corporate boardrooms of mining corporations and logging interests drafting up these laws. Make no mistake—these laws have been written for big business. They have been written for the loggers. They have been written for people who want to destroy our environment. That's what so-called environment minister Murray Watt has spent the last few months doing, and we see right through what he is up to.

Who is cheering on the Labor Party to get these laws through the parliament quickly? Let's have a look. The Business Council of Australia wants these laws passed quickly. The mining lobby wants these laws passed quickly. The loggers want these laws passed quickly. The Labor Party wants these laws passed quickly. That tells us everything we need to know—every simple thing that we need to know. The Greens have got a message for the Labor Party, particularly the so-called minister for the environment, who is actually masquerading in that role because he's a minister for big business, Murray Watt. That message is this—do not take the Greens for granted in this place. These laws do not protect our precious, beautiful carbon-rich forests that are home to so many spectacular and beautiful creatures. They do not protect the climate. Because they don't protect forests and they don't protect our climate, they're not worth the paper they are printed on. We are not going to vote for laws that take environmental protection backwards in this country. And I say this to the Australian people: you know you can trust the Greens to fight for the environment. Our party was founded to protect nature. Our party was founded to protect forests, to protect the wild rivers, to protect our coastlines, to protect our oceans and to protect our terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. It is in our DNA, and we have fought, since we were founded, to protect nature. We're doing it today, and we will continue with every fibre in our being to protect and defend nature. We will fight hard to do that in this place and we will fight hard to do that in the forests, in the oceans and on the streets if we have to. We take pride in our history, and the Australian people know that they can trust us on nature. They can trust us on the environment. They can trust us on forests. They can trust us on climate, and they can trust us on ecosystems.

Wherever those ecosystems are—local in communities or at a global level—the Greens are here to protect nature and to demand Labor do better, demand that our forests are protected, demand that we have climate action and demand that Labor stop sitting down with the big polluters, the loggers, the miners and the fossil fuel corporations; get out of those board rooms; get out of those back rooms; and actually work with the Greens to deliver reform through this Senate that actually does what it says on the tin—protects nature, protects forests and protects climate.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One Nation supports Senator Hanson-Young's amendment. This bill will have far-reaching impacts on Australia. It's not to be rushed through the parliament. One Nation is the party of the natural environment and the party of the human environment. We want to give Australians a say. Workers, employers and small businesses—the parliament needs to listen to these people and give them a say.

I'd also like to now move my amendment to the Selection of Bills report as circulated in the chamber.

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

Senator Roberts, you can't. We are dealing with Senator Hanson-Young's amendment at this point. You can speak to your motion if you wish to, but you can't move it.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I will speak to it now, and that'll save us time later. One Nation has moved to send the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 to committee. The bill, as worded, allows employer paid parental leave for the parents of a baby who has been born still as a result of a termination or of a live birth abortion. Loss of a child due to natural circumstances is crushing, but where a child is terminated and born alive that child is cast away into a cold steel tin and left inhumanly to die from neglect in a bucket of cold steel. This is what's going on our country. Alone, scared and suffering, the child dies a slow and terrifying death.

This happens every few weeks in a hospital somewhere in Australia. The mother's employer or the taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for 26 weeks paid leave for an aborted baby or neonatal murder—they should not. This is too important an issue to wave through parliament for social media likes and gender warfare points. A committee inquiry is needed to review this position and allow the public their say. The people of Australia need to have an opportunity to have their say, and we need to listen.

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

I think you've got about three minutes, Senator Pocock.

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

That's all I need. I have real concerns with the Albanese government proposing a 3½ week Senate inquiry to look at seven different bills and almost 1,500 pages of legislation on the biggest environmental law changes in a generation. It doesn't do this important issue the justice that it deserves.

Like many Australians, I am a first-generation migrant and have fallen in love with this incredible place, this continent we call home, and the incredible natural beauty. We are doing a pretty shocking job of looking after it. We're the world leaders in mammal extinctions. We all know that. We all know that the status quo is not going to turn things around. Even if you don't necessarily care about numbats, potoroos, Tassie devils, spotted-tailed quolls or whatever it might be, as senators, I think we should care about something in this bill which I think is a huge red flag. Minister Burke, when introducing it in the other place, said:

This package of bills remains faithful to our commitment to follow the spirit of the Samuel review …

One of Graeme Samuel's biggest issues was the powers that the environment minister had. He said that they should be scaled right back, and yet the Labor government is handing the executive even more powers. They're handing the environment minister even more powers. That is directly opposed to what the Samuel review said. And, like they're doing with FOI and robodebt, where robodebt said, 'Don't do this to FOI,' the government is doing that to FOI and trying to use robodebt as justification—the exact same thing is happening with the Graeme Samuel review. We cannot continue to give the executive more and more power. You add, on top of that, this national interest exemption where projects can essentially just get the green light, even if they're in a no-go zone, even if they will potentially cause the extinction of a species. On top of that, they may not even be subject to offsetting or the pay-to-destroy model, because they're in the national interest. This all needs some very serious scrutiny.

If we are going to turn this extinction crisis around, which I believe the vast majority of Australians want us to do, this bill deserves scrutiny. It deserves strengthening. It deserves consultation. We've seen a number of groups come out and say they were not consulted on the 1,400 or so pages in this. I thank Senator Hanson-Young for putting forward this extension, and I thank the coalition—despite disagreeing with some of the direction that you're taking on this—for giving the Senate extra time to look at it.

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

The time for this debate has expired.

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

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

I move the amendment, as circulated by the opposition, relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 and the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2025".

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

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

I move the amendment that has been circulated in my name:

Omit paragraphs (c) and (d), substitute:

(c) the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2025; and

(d) the provisions of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2025".

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

The question is that the amendment standing in the name of Senator McKim be agreed to.

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

The question now is that the motion moved by Minister Watt, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to the motion on the adoption of the Senate Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills report, as circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add:

"but, in respect of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 February 2026".

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.