Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the first report of 2026 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. 1 OF 2026

5 February 2026

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Leah Blyth

Senator the Hon. Matt Canavan (Nationals Whip)

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. 1 OF 2026

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 4 February 2026 at 7.22 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 March 2026 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral),

(b) the provisions of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2026 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral),

(c) the Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 2026 (see appendix 3 for statements of reasons for referral), and

(d) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 March 2026 (see appendix 4 for statements of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bill 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

5 February 2026

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025

Originated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday 26 November 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:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

FEBRUARY TO MARCH 2026

Possible reporting date:

16 March 2026

(signed) Wendy Askew

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Independence and accountability of Commissioner

Scope of inquiry powers granted

Family inclusion and accessibility provisions

Possible submissions or evidence from:

RSL

Department of Veterans Affairs AMA

Families of veterans guild Julie Anne Finney

Women in defence association

The National Servicemen's Association Defence Force Welfare Association Trojans Trek

GO2 Health

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

FADT

Possible hearing date(s):

23 April

Possible reporting date:

7 May

(signed) Nick McKim

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Impact of the job-ready graduates fee hikes, possible policy alternatives to current student and Commonwealth contribution levels, concern of students and sector over cost of degrees

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Universities Australia, Innovative Research Universities, Regional University Network, Australian Academy of Humanities, National Union of students, National Tertiary Education Union, Group of Eight

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education & Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Early May (noting a number of ongoing EEC inquiries)

Possible reporting date:

Thursday 25 June 2026

Nick McKim

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025

Originated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday 26 November 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:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

FEBRUARY TO MARCH 2026

Possible reporting date:

4 March 2026

(signed) Wendy Askew

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", and the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024 not be referred to a committee".

The government's view is that this doesn't need to be referred to a committee and that there has been plenty of time for these issues to be examined and further examined. The committees have a number of references that are currently before them. I don't think that another reference of this order needs to be sent to the committee. There is plenty of work that has gone into this issue and been examined by the Senate, and I hope that we are able to get support for that amendment.

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

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

Omit "not be referred to a committee", substitute "be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 June 2026".

Frankly, the gall of this government to block a bill that implements the previous recommendations of a Labor committee to put a ban on gambling advertising is just outrageous. This government seems to have forgotten everything it stands for. The government had made a previous commitment to reform gambling advertising in this country. Yet, three years down the track, they have done nothing. Today, they are in this chamber blocking a bill that does what they have previously called for from going to a proper legislative inquiry to make sure it does what it says it should do. I heard the argument from the minister that there's already been enough time spent on this issue. Yes, there has—but we still see nothing from the government.

Because the government has not acted, the Greens are. Because the government haven't done what they said they would do, it's been up to us in the Australian Greens to draft the legislation and put it to the chamber. When you're serious about getting a piece of legislation passed in the Senate, you put it to a legislative inquiry to make sure it does all the things that it needs to do. That is the purpose. It is proper governance. It's proper scrutiny. It's proper governing, something that this government could take a few lessons on. The whole idea of this gambling advertising amendment bill is to put a ban on gambling advertising, because we know that this is what's needed if we want to stop the suffering and to stop lives and families being destroyed by the insidious gambling industry.

There is nothing in this bill that says you're not allowed to gamble, by the way. It just says the big gambling industry can't advertise it, just like big tobacco can't advertise, because they're trying to sell a dangerous product. There is nothing more dangerous to so many Australian families, particularly young people and young men, than the insidious, harmful advertising that is thrust down their throats by the gambling industry. There are inducements that young people get on their mobile phones—even if they're known gambling addicts—begging them to get back on and have another bet.

The only people who want to stop this bill from going to an inquiry and then passing this parliament are the people making money off gambling addicts: the greedy, nasty parasites in the gambling industry. And who's doing their dirty work for them? Who's been the shill for the gambling industry? It's the Labor Party. Of course, when we move on these motions and they go to a vote today, we will see the Liberal Party doing exactly the same thing. I don't have much time for Peter Dutton—I don't have much time for him at all—but, at one point in time, he actually thought curbing advertising from the gambling industry was a good idea. Now, the Liberal Party seem to have forgotten that that was even a party policy. Why? Because the gambling industry pays millions of dollars in donations to both the Labor and Liberal parties. They have them by the neck, and the Labor and Liberal parties are as addicted to the gambling industry as some of the gambling addicts who desperately need help.

It's the Labor Party and the Liberal Party who are addicted to the gambling industry's money and to the greed of the gambling industry. If you want to take money off people who suck money out of the pockets of everyday Australians and feed off their misery, at least admit that's what you're doing.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do appreciate the need for items in this chamber to come under scrutiny. My Nationals colleagues and I will always support the Senate's right to look into things in depth and in detail, so we will support the Greens to seek an inquiry into this issue. But, in saying that, I want to stress that I think the Greens have, once again, taken their usual unbalanced approach to this issue. They simply seem to want to ban everything—any fun, anyone doing anything, anyone wanting to have a punt on the footy or enjoying looking at the odds. It's just too unbalanced and too over-the-top. But we will support this. Yes, let's have an inquiry, because I don't think there's anything to hide here about the Australian pastime of having a punt on the football, the races or whatever it may be.

There is, of course, a major issue with irresponsible gambling. Making sure we promote responsible gambling and have proper restrictions and regulations is a major issue. This is a heavily regulated industry, as it should be, and there should be appropriate restrictions on advertising—when ads are put on, how children are exposed to them et cetera. We support all of those things, and we have no compunction and nothing to hide with it going to an inquiry right now. But we can't simply have an approach here that seeks a blanket ban on all types of behaviour in this country. On other platforms, the Greens are all for consenting adults. They are all for consenting adults exercising their rights to engage in all sorts of activities. I do think adults should be allowed to make those choices. I worry about where the Greens are heading on this. But I don't know why sometimes this chamber is almost afraid of the Greens, in a way—'We can't let them have an inquiry or go on a committee and have a say.' I say: let them talk. Let them go. Give them enough rope. Let them have their say.

So we from the National Party have no problem here in supporting an inquiry into these things because it will expose, I think, the need to have a balanced approach to these issues. It will allow our gambling industry, a responsible industry, to outline what they do to protect against people irresponsibly gambling. I know, having met with many of the industry, that they take these issues very, very seriously, and we should be properly regulating them.

I want to make one more comment in the time I have. I wonder why, at the moment, we seem to be so focused on one form of gambling—on sports betting, in particular. As I say, it's a fairly traditional Australian pastime. But we have ignored the insidious nature of poker machines. All the evidence on problem gambling shows that poker machines are a much, much greater issue. I am a Queenslander. I grew up in Queensland when we didn't have poker machines. I don't think our state is any better for having them. But that's something that we seem to have ignored lately in this obsession over one form of gambling which, yes, can still lead to pain and heartache but on all the statistics is nowhere near the same issue as the gaming machines that have proliferated all throughout our country.

I always welcome scrutiny. We will support this initiative for the Senate to apply that scrutiny, but we will do so, as we always do, in a balanced way. We'll seek to balance all of these concerns and let people have their say, not shut people down, from all sides of the debate, including the industry, which, as I say, takes this issue very seriously. It has to and should take a responsible approach to wagering in this country.

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

I commend Senator Hanson-Young for bringing forward this bill, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements) Bill, to the Senate, to the parliament, in the wake of a tragic and, for so many Australians, devastating lack of action from the Albanese Labor government. They have betrayed Australians who want action on gambling advertising. They have, so far, betrayed Peta Murphy and the incredible work that she did on this area. If you go back and you look at the Murphy review, this was parliament at its best. Just read the foreword. The foreword of the Murphy review will, I think, go down in history as an incredible piece of leadership from someone who clearly believed in what she was doing and was able to actually build consensus in this place that spends 90 per cent of its time bickering. It is well worth the read.

In the context of that, let's go through some facts and figures. We are the biggest losers in the world per capita. In a cost-of-living crisis, Australians lose $32 billion each year. We are in a situation now where gambling has been so normalised by gambling advertising that 16 per cent of 16- and 17-year-olds are already gambling. When we turn to the 18- and 19-year-olds, it's 46 per cent. Almost one in two 18- and 19-year-old Australians are now gambling. Why? Because they think it's a normal part of enjoying sport. Why? Because they have been inundated their whole lives with gambling advertising. More and more frequently over the last couple of years I have been pulled aside at events by young people wanting to talk about gambling advertising, particularly young men saying: 'I'm ashamed to say I have a problem with gambling. It's really having an impact on me and my life, and it's so damn hard to actually stop because everywhere you go you're confronted with gambling advertising. You're reminded, "Just have a punt, chase that win." You get the inducement of the companies saying, "Here are some free bets."'

This was all covered in the Murphy review, yet we have Labor pulling out these ridiculous talking points about how they've done more than anyone since Federation. Good on you; you did some things that the coalition started. You completed them. You did BetStop and you banned credit cards. But not a single thing on the Murphy report. Let's go to Peta Murphy's foreword. I'll quote directly:

Australians outspend the citizens of every other country on online gambling. This is wreaking havoc in our communities. Saturation advertising ensures our future losses. Only online wagering service providers (WSPs), major sporting organisations and media gain from the status quo.

…   …   …

Australians do not like being flooded by messages and inducements to gamble online and worry about the effect this is having on children and young people. Most believe that gambling is harmful for society and that it has become too easy to gamble in Australia.

…   …   …

I am proud to say this Committee has delivered a unanimous report that says, "enough is enough". The Committee has made 31 recommendations that apply a public health lens to online gambling to reduce harm across the whole Australian population.

…   …   …

Online gambling companies advertise so much in Australia because it works. Online gambling has been deliberately and strategically marketed alongside sport, which has normalised it as a fun, harmless, and sociable activity that is part of a favourite pastime. Gambling advertising is grooming children and young people to gamble and encourages riskier behaviour. The torrent of advertising is inescapable. It is manipulating an impressionable and vulnerable audience to gamble online.

We've had silence for almost three years from the Albanese government on Peta Murphy's report. Now, when we have a bill that contains the recommendations of report, the Labor government and the Liberals won't even allow that report to go to a committee. That is frankly disgraceful. We have to do better for the communities— (Time expired)

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

I want to acknowledge the support for the Greens amendment from the Nationals and also from Senator David Pocock, although I was much more enamoured of Senator Pocock's contribution than I was of Senator Canavan's. I want to make two fundamental points here in support of our amendment.

Firstly, what Labor is doing here is moving that a private senator's bill from the crossbench not be referred to a committee for inquiry. Now, that is a very unusual approach from the government and from Labor. It leads to the inescapable conclusion that there is a political reason for Labor not wanting this particular bill under the name of Senator Hanson-Young to go to an inquiry. Ask yourselves, colleagues, why it might be that the Labor Party doesn't want a bill that simply proposes a ban on gambling advertising—not a ban on gambling itself, I might add. Why is it the Labor Party doesn't want that legislation to go to inquiry? The answer is abundantly clear. Firstly, Labor doesn't want a platform to be created that would expose their mediocrity and their gutless failure to act on this issue and address the manifest harms caused by gambling advertising that were spoken about so eloquently by Senator David Pocock and by Senator Hanson-Young. Labor doesn't want a platform that would expose Labor's culpability in allowing this egregious social harm to continue to be perpetrated against so many Australians by a greedy, parasitic gambling industry. And Labor doesn't want to be exposed as the recipient of political donations from big gambling corporations in this country. It is an inescapable conclusion to this position of Labor that they are ashamed of their failure to act.

I want to say to Labor: if you are ashamed of your failure to act on gambling advertising—and you should be—the solution is clear. Join with the Greens and put in place a ban on gambling advertising, as proposed by Senator Hanson-Young's legislation, because the numbers are there in both houses of this parliament. With Labor having a majority in the House and Labor plus the Greens making a majority in this chamber, the numbers are there in both houses of this parliament to ban gambling advertising and to mitigate the massive social and personal harms caused to so many Australians by the parasitic actions of the greedy gambling operations. The numbers are there. There's only one thing stopping action, and that one thing is the Australian Labor Party.

So we have an opportunity, folks, to act. Now is the time. It's the perfect opportunity. The mood of the people is with us and the numbers are there in the parliament. What we are asking for today—just to be clear—is not your vote in support of this bill but simply your vote to send the bill to an inquiry so that people can come in and have their say. I think that is what Labor is fundamentally afraid of here. They don't want people to come in and share their stories, as Senator David Pocock has done, about the harms gambling advertising has inflicted on them. They don't want those stories told, because they know that when those stories are told the argument for change becomes inevitable and the argument to ban gambling advertising becomes too strong to resist.

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

The question is that Senator McKim's amendment, as moved by Senator Hanson-Young, to the motion to adopt the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

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

This debate finishes at 11.46, but the standing orders allow that all amendments be put. The question is that the amendment moved by Minister Gallagher to the motion for the adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

(a) the provisions of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2026; and

(b) the provisions of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 March 2026".

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

I ask that the two elements of Senator McKenzie's amendment be put separately.

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

For senators who don't have the amendment in front of them in the chamber, I advise the chamber that it consists of part (a) and part (b). It's my intention now to put the question on Senator McKenzie's amendment part (a).

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

Which bill is part (a) and which bill is part (b)? I don't have the amendment in front of me.

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

Part (a) is the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025, and part (b) is the provisions of the Coalmining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.

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

And you're going to put them separately?

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

Yes, as requested by the opposition. The question is that amendment part (a) moved by Senator McKenzie to the motion for the adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

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

The question is that part (b) of Senator McKenzie's amendment to the motion for the adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

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

The question is that the amended motion for the adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Question agreed to.