Katy Gallagher

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Varun Ghosh

The question is that this bill be read a third time.

Penny Allman-Payne

I move:

(1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 31 (line 21), omit "20 September 2003", substitute "1 July 1991".

Statement pursuant to the order of   the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the period during which debts may relate for resolution payments under the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme. This expands eligibility for resolution payments, in turn increasing expenditure under the appropriation proposed by Schedule 4 to the bill.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant__to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation proposed by Schedule 4 to the bill, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

Claire Chandler

The question is that the Greens request for an amendment on sheet 3490 be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3489 together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 22 (lines 6 to 29), omit the item, substitute:

1 Paragraph 101(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

(2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 23 (lines 2 to 25), omit the item, substitute:

2 Paragraph 199(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

(3) Schedule 2, item 3, page 23 (line 27) to page 24 (line 19), omit the item, substitute:

3 Paragraph 1237AAD(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

(4) Schedule 2, item 4, page 24 (line 21) to page 25 (line 7), omit the item, substitute:

4 Paragraph 43F(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

Claire Chandler

The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3489 be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the deferred vote relating to a proposed reference to the Senate Economics References Committee moved by Senator Roberts. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Bragg, I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 275 in the terms circulated.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Thursday, 27 November 2025, all documents related to the funding agreements secured and/or agreed concerning round 2 of the Housing Australia Future Fund.

Jess Walsh

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jess Walsh

The government will not be supporting this motion. Negotiations with states and territories and other housing delivery stakeholders are underway and are commercial-in-confidence—

Andrew Bragg

More secrecy!

Jess Walsh

It's very important that you listen. This OPD would compromise those negotiations. Furthermore, the original OPD had a compliance date of 7 pm tomorrow, Wednesday 26 November. Senator Bragg has amended the motion at the last minute to provide an additional 17 hours, which does not make a material difference to the unreasonableness of this motion. The short timeframe of this OPD means it would not be possible to comply with it. The number of OPDs has also doubled since the 2022 election, and the scope of these requests has expanded significantly. The Senate has agreed an average of four OPDs per sitting day—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I think people want me to slow down; that's what I'm hearing—in the 48th Parliament, double the average of two per sitting day in the 47th Parliament and almost four times the average in the last term of the coalition government. On 27 August the Senate agreed to 14 OPDs in a single day.

Sue Lines

Order, Senator Bragg! I've said 'Order!' three times. Not only are you incredibly disrespectful; it's an even bigger offence to call out and interject when you're not in your correct spot. That goes for people on my left, too, who were also interjecting. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 275, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, as amended, and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Hume, I move general business notice of motion No. 270:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on 1 December 2025, all ministerial submissions provided to the Minister for Industry and Innovation by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, from 1 June 2025 to date which contain the phrase 'Tomago'.

Jess Walsh

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Paul Scarr

In relation to the request for leave, I wonder if the statement can simply be tabled or incorporated by reference, instead of us listening to the same statement again and again.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jess Walsh

The government will oppose this motion. A briefing has been offered on this issue that I understand has not yet been accepted. The OPD has an extremely wide scope and covers too many documents to comply with by this date. The number of OPDs has also doubled since the 2022 election, and the scope of these requests has also expanded significantly. I inform the chamber that the Senate has agreed an average of four OPDs per sitting day in the 48th Parliament, double the average of two per sitting day in the 47th Parliament and almost four times the average in the last term of the coalition government. On 27 August the Senate agreed to 14 OPDs in a single day.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 270, standing in the name of Senator Hume—

Senator McKenzie, can you just be quiet?—and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

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

Katy Gallagher

I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

Sue Lines

The question is that government business No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.

Katy Gallagher

At the request of Senators Green, Shoebridge, David Pocock and Scarr, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes with deep concern the recent escalation of violence in Sudan's Darfur region, including reports of large-scale atrocities, including mass killings, starvation, rapes and other violent crimes;

(b) acknowledges the profound grief and anguish felt by the Sudanese-Australian community, some of whom have lost family members to the violence and fear for the safety of loved ones still missing or detained;

(c) expresses solidarity with all members of the Sudanese-Australian community during this time of fear, mourning and helplessness; and

(d) expresses its sincere hope that international partners work urgently and cooperatively to secure humanitarian access, safe passage for civilians and a sustainable peace for Sudan.

David Pocock

I seek leave to make a short one-minute statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

David Pocock

I would like to acknowledge Amad Mohamed—a proud Canberra and co-founder of the Sudanese-Australian Advocacy Network—along with other members of the Sudanese community in the gallery today. I thank you for your tireless advocacy and for continuing to speak out on this humanitarian tragedy. We stand with you in this time of tragedy for your community. I also wish to thank senators across this chamber for their constructive engagement, particularly Senators Scarr, Shoebridge and Green. I would really like to extend my sincere thanks and acknowledge the government and Minister Wong's office for their efforts, and I commend the announcement overnight of Australia's $10 million in humanitarian assistance for the people of Sudan.

Malcolm Roberts

by leave—I move an amendment that has been circulated in the chamber:

That the Senate—

(a) notes with deep concern the recent escalation of violence in Sudan's Darfur region, including reports of large-scale atrocities, including mass killings, starvation, rapes and other violent crimes;

(b) acknowledges the profound grief and anguish felt by the Sudanese-Australian community, some of whom have lost family members to the violence and fear for the safety of loved ones still missing or detained;

(c) expresses solidarity with all members of the Sudanese-Australian community during this time of fear, mourning and helplessness;

(d) expresses its sincere hope that international partners work urgently and cooperatively to secure humanitarian access, safe passage for civilians and a sustainable peace for Sudan; and

(e) condemns the escalating terror campaign against Christians in Nigeria by Islamic terror organisations Boko Haram, Islamic State of West Africa Province and Fulani Militants which has resulted in more than 20,000 deaths of innocent civilians for their religious beliefs.

Paul Scarr

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Paul Scarr

I would also like to acknowledge the importance of this motion in terms of our wonderful Sudanese Australian community. What is happening in Sudan is a human catastrophe. Millions and millions of people have been displaced. Famine is having a devastating effect across Sudan, and the images we saw coming out of Sudan last week were absolutely horrifying. This is an issue which should be on the international agenda, and it is fit and proper that this parliament, this Senate, stands in solidarity with our wonderful Sudanese Australian community at this time of great pain. I was very, very pleased to have the opportunity to co-sponsor this motion.

Katy Gallagher

by leave—I want to say that we won't be supporting Senator Roberts' amendment. We had tried to reach agreement but have been unable to reach agreement. I would like to acknowledge the ACT Sudanese community leaders here today in the chamber—welcome to your parliament—and also place on the record the government's concern and our preparedness to provide assistance to support civilians in Sudan, where the world's largest humanitarian and displacement crisis is taking place, with more than 30 million people in need of urgent support due to ongoing the conflict. This includes approximately 11 million people who are internally displaced and another three million people who have fled to neighbouring countries. Australia's assistance, including the amount that was announced overnight of $10 million, will be directed through the United Nations and NGO partners. It will provide food, clean water and shelter and support to victims-survivors of gender based violence.

David Shoebridge

I seek leave to make a very brief contribution.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

David Shoebridge

I want to note on behalf of my party, the Greens, that we're grateful to see the whole chamber coming together to support this consensus motion. We've all been so horrified by what we've seen happening in Sudan and el-Fasher, and I want to speak to the Sudanese community not just in the ACT but across the country. I met with representatives in Melbourne on the weekend. There is fear and anxiety in families being out of contact and not knowing what is happening. There's escalating violence. To be clear, this is not a conflict driven by the Sudanese people themselves. This is a proxy war driven by countries who seek to increase their wealth, increase their access to Sudanese resources, and the Sudanese people are paying the price of that. Our hearts and our minds and hopefully the actions of this government go out to the Sudanese people right now. We don't support the amendment because it simplifies a far more complex conflict. (Time expired)

Sue Lines

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

Karen Grogan

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

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

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

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

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

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.