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

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

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 8 OF 2025

6 November 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Lisa Darmanin (Acting 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 Tony Sheldon (Government Whip)

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 8 OF 2025

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 5 November 2025 at 7.08 pm.

2. The committee recommends that the provisions of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 December 2025 (see appendix 1 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 Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 but was unable to reach agreement.

(Lisa Darmanin)

Chair

5 November 2025

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Copyright Amendment Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders about the importance of this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date(s): November to December 2025

Possible reporting date: 19 December 2025

(signed)

I move:

That the report be adopted.

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

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

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

(a) the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 February 2026; and

(b) the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025, the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2026".

And just to aid the chamber, the amendment to Senator Grogan's motion has two parts. One is that the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 February 2026, and that the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025—which I do note for the chamber is actually a private senator's bill standing in the name of Senator Barbara Pocock—be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2026.

In regards to that second matter, I will very briefly say that we are disappointed that, as we understand, the chamber is not going to support that amendment today. It has been a precedent in this Senate that, unless there are extraordinary reasons why a private senator's bill should not be referred for an inquiry, that private senators' bills are referred to an inquiry. We intend to continue to prosecute our case that the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025 be referred to an inquiry. It is a critical issue. And being a private senator's bill, I express in advance our ongoing disappointment should the Senate continue to block this private senator's bill from going to an inquiry.

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

The government won't be supporting the amendment moved by Senator McKim. I move:

At the end of the motion, add: ", and: the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 not be referred to a committee;

This amendment would ensure that the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill not be referred to a committee. The reason for that is that the treaty has been considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. They provided the recommendations of that committee to ratify the treaty on 29 October, as is practice across the parliament. We do not then normally start a Senate-only inquiry into a bill that's already been considered by a joint standing committee. So that's the reason why.

On the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025, this bill was introduced yesterday. In discussions across the chamber, the position the government has put to the Greens is that we just want—it was introduced yesterday. We want to consider it before we make a decision about whether or not to refer. This is very similar to the way that the Greens approach government bills when they are for consideration for referral too. I think it's really a matter of timing. We can deal with that once we've had the appropriate time to have a look at what was introduced yesterday and take advice across government.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support Senator McKim's amendment in relation to the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill. Today, what we're seeing is Labor and the Liberals joining forces to delay action on an issue that matters to millions of Australians out there—the right to work from home. My bill would give workers the right to work from home for up to two days a week—a modest, sensible reform. It's already a reform that's been adopted and pushed by people around the country and governments. It's a sensible reform that reflects how Australians actually do want to live and work. It's in the media every day. We see Westpac trying to roll back that right and being held to account in the Fair Work Commission. We see banks put on notice that they must honour those work-from-home provisions in agreements and make sure they look after workers.

This is a very live issue right now for millions of Australians. Instead of debating its merits, both major parties have voted to defer the decision to send this important bill to inquiry. This is extraordinary. It's a longstanding Senate convention that private senators' bills, especially those from the crossbench, are sent to inquiries so they can be properly examined. Stakeholders, experts and the public get to have a say. It begs the question: why have the major parties teamed up to delay this right for workers? The coalition has a long history of eroding workers' rights and siding with the bosses—no surprise there. But Labor is supposedly the party of the workers, yet here they are, standing in the way of expanding the rights and improving the lives of workers in this country, especially women, especially parents, especially carers and many others who also want the chance to work from home and have a protected right to work from home. Yet here they are, standing in the way of expanding those rights and improving the lives of workers. So, who benefits from this delay? Who is Labor working for in delaying it?

Let's be clear. They can't claim this work-from-home policy came out of the blue, as, Minister, you have just said. We gave plenty of warning about this, and we moved this very proposal as an amendment to the government's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill six weeks ago. There's nothing surprising here. That is not an explanation for why Labor is doing what it's doing. Workers deserve a fair go, and that includes the right to flexibility, a protected right to work from home. Deferring this bill isn't just procedural, it's a slap in the face of every worker, every woman, every carer, every person who wants to work from home and have a fair go to access that right.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I endorse that contribution from my colleague, Senator Pocock. It is hard to comprehend why this special rule is being rolled out only in relation to the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill. I'd urge the Senate to also endorse the position put by Senator Pocock.

I also rise to speak to the referral of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill. When we proposed referring this bill to inquiry, we were told that there was a rule that we didn't refer these treaty related bills off to inquiry. There's some rule. We've been hunting for that rule, just like the rule that you can't bring the United States alliance into domestic politics, which is a rule we were told about by Senator Wong the other day. We've been hunting for that rule, and we can't find that rule either. When we were looking for the rule that says you can't question the United States alliance or decisions made by people with gold braid in dark, smoky rooms, we couldn't find that rule written down anywhere either. Now we're told that there's a rule that says, 'No, this is an AUKUS related bill that's going to give some tariff relief to UK weapons manufacturers under the so-called Geelong treaty.'

Apparently, there's a rule somewhere—I'm not sure where—that we can't refer this off to an inquiry either. Well, we've hunted for those rules, and, apparently, those rules are only given to you if you go on a CIA funded fact-finding education trip to Washington. None of the Greens have been on those CIA funded fact-finding trips to Washington, so we haven't got a copy of the rule book that both Labor and the coalition have that says you actually can't investigate or look at these AUKUS related, United States alliance related bills.

Not being in possession of the rule book that's been given to Labor and the coalition, we're moving that this bill go off for an actual inquiry. Why should it go off for an inquiry? It should go off for an inquiry because the Geelong treaty is like a fairytale or a dystopian Minister Marles Disneyland tale. It suggests we're going to have a 50-year-long partnership with the United Kingdom to produce nuclear submarines for Australia. The UK can't keep their own submarines in the water! Last time I checked, I think they had one out of five in the water, and that was only allowed to go out to get the bows wet and then come back again. Their own auditor has said that they can't produce nuclear reactors and won't produce nuclear reactors for the AUKUS project. They can't deal with their own nuclear waste. They've got dozens of rusting hulks of their former nuclear submarines, chock-a-block with tonnes and tonnes of highly enriched uranium, just sitting there in ponds because they don't know what to do with them. They're spending billions of dollars a year keeping an eye on their rusting hulks. The UK is the sick person of Europe when it comes to defence expenditure. They literally can't keep their own defence force running. They can't put an aircraft carrier in the water, because they can't surround it with protection. They can't put their nuclear submarines in the water, because they can't maintain them. They can't build a new nuclear reactor, because they haven't got the money and Rolls-Royce, who Australia is giving billions of dollars to, won't produce a reactor.

We say we should look into this before we sign another treaty. What the war parties of Labor and the coalition say is, 'Actually, no, there's a rule. There's a rule, and you can't look into this.' They've got a CIA based rule book that we haven't got access to. Well, we say: bugger the rule book; we want this to go to an inquiry.

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher to Senator McKim's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

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

I will now deal with Senator McKim's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report.

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

I seek leave to make a very short statement.

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

Leave is granted for one minute.

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

Now that that amendment has been successful, that means that part (a) of my motion has been changed so that the Geelong treaty implementation bill will not be referred. Obviously that's not our position, so I'm now going to ask that the question be split on the two parts, (a) and (b).

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

The question is that part (a), as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that part (b) of Senator McKim's amendment be agreed to.