Sue Lines

I will now deal with the National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by One Nation. The question is that amendments on sheet 3661 be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 8), at the end of the Schedule, add:

2 Subsection 9B(7)

After "unless", insert "the vaccine has been tested against an inert saline placebo to international standard ICH E6(R3), titled Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, adopted by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use on 6 January 2025, and".

3 At the end of subsection 9B(7)

Add:

Note: The text of Guidelines adopted by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) could in 2026 be accessed through the ICH's website (https://www.ich.org/).

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the amendments to the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3515 and 3516 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3515

(1) Clause 29, page 18 (lines 15 to 21), omit subclause (3), substitute:

Composition of the Commonwealth Parole Board as a whole

(3) In recommending the appointment of the members of the Commonwealth Parole Board, the Minister must ensure that both the Chair and the Deputy Chair are enrolled as legal practitioners (however described) of a federal court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory and have each been so enrolled for at least 5 years.

_____

SHEET 3516

(1) Clause 23, page 12 (lines 29 to 32), omit the clause, substitute:

23 Commonwealth Parole Board must conduct interviews

(1) For the purposes of making a decision about a federal offender, the Commonwealth Parole Board must conduct:

(a) an interview with the offender; and

(b) any other interview required by the guidelines.

(2) Interviews must be conducted in accordance with the guidelines (if any).

(2) Page 13 (after line 30), at the end of Part 3, add:

24A Rules of procedural fairness

(1) The Commonwealth Parole Board must observe the requirements of procedural fairness in making a decision about a federal offender.

(2) This section has effect despite the guidelines and anything else in this Act.

24B Legal representation

A federal offender may be represented by a legal practitioner in relation to any matter before the Commonwealth Parole Board about the offender.

Question negatived.

I will now deal with the amendments to the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 circulated by the opposition.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (after line 13), after section 19AKC, insert:

19AKCA Attorney-General may object to decisions to make parole orders

(1) Before the Commonwealth Parole Board decides to make a parole order for a person, the Commonwealth Parole Board must give the Attorney-General written notice of the Commonwealth Parole Board's intention to do so.

(2) The Attorney-General may, within 14 days of receiving the notice, object in writing to the Commonwealth Parole Board deciding to make the parole order for the person.

(3) The Commonwealth Parole Board cannot decide to make the parole order for the person (despite paragraphs 19AKB(1)(a) and 19AKC(1)(a)):

(a) before the end of that 14-day period; or

(b) if the Commonwealth Parole Board receives an objection from the Attorney-General under subsection (2) within that 14-day period.

(4) In making an objection under subsection (2), the Attorney-General must have regard to the purposes of parole as set out in section 19AKA.

(5) An objection under subsection (2) must set out the Attorney-General's reasons for making the objection.

(2) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 29), after item 15, insert:

15A After subsection 19AP(7)

Insert:

(7A) Before the Commonwealth Parole Board grants a licence under this section, the Commonwealth Parole Board must give the Attorney-General written notice of the Commonwealth Parole Board's intention to do so.

(7B) The Attorney-General may, within 14 days of receiving the notice, object in writing to the Commonwealth Parole Board granting the licence.

(7C) The Commonwealth Parole Board cannot grant the licence (despite anything else in this section):

(a) before the end of that 14-day period; or

(b) if the Commonwealth Parole Board receives an objection from the Attorney-General under subsection (7B) within that 14-day period.

(7D) In making an objection under subsection (7B), the Attorney-General must have regard to:

(a) whether there are any exceptional circumstances that may justify the grant of the licence; and

(b) the matters set out at paragraphs (4A)(a) to (c).

(7E) An objection under subsection (7B) must set out the Attorney-General's reasons for making the objection.

The question is that the amendments on sheet 3655 be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3654 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

(1) Clause 40, page 22 (line 24) to page 23 (line 26), omit subclauses 40(1) and (2), substitute:

The Governor-General may, on recommendation of the Minister, terminate the appointment of a member at any time.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with Committee of the Whole amendments to the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, starting with the amendments circulated by government.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 24, page 13 (lines 1 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

24 Sessional member may participate as Chair or Deputy Chair of the Commonwealth Parole Board in specified circumstances

(1) This section applies if:

(a) the Chair or the Deputy Chair is required by rules made for the purposes of section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 not to be present during the deliberations in a meeting, or to take part in any decision, of the Commonwealth Parole Board with respect to a particular matter; or

(b) the Chair or the Deputy Chair is not readily available to attend a meeting or participate in making a decision of the Commonwealth Parole Board, whether because of a vacancy in the office or for any other reason; or

(c) the Chair considers it appropriate for any other reason to make a request under subsection (2) in relation to a meeting of, or the making of a decision by, the Commonwealth Parole Board.

(2) The Chair may request that a sessional member participate, in the capacity of the Chair or the Deputy Chair, in the meeting, or in making the decision.

(3) For the purposes of a sessional member participating in a meeting, or making a decision, in the capacity of the Chair or the Deputy Chair as permitted by subsection (2):

(a) the sessional member may exercise a power or perform a function of the Chair or Deputy Chair, as the case requires, in accordance with the request of the Chair in relation to the meeting or decision; and

(b) the sessional member is taken to be the Chair or Deputy Chair, as the case requires, for all purposes in relation to the meeting or decision.

(2) Clause 43, page 24 (lines 23 to 27), to be opposed.

I understand the minister has a document to table.

Katy Gallagher

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025.

Sue Lines

Thank you. The first question, being amendment (2) on sheet GJ118, is that clause 43 stand as printed.

Murray Watt

The government does not support the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026. The bill is poorly drafted and ill conceived and will have unintended consequences. It reeks of desperation from a new leader of the opposition who is chasing headlines, not solutions. The reality is that this bill does not seek to address the cohort of people that the opposition have been claiming to want to target. This is a political stunt. It's not a serious proposal from a serious party of government. The Australian people are seeing through the Liberals and Nationals and their lack of serious approaches to challenges the country faces.

The bill, as currently drafted, is absurdly broad in its scope. The number of people that could potentially be committing criminal offences in the circumstances contemplated in the bill would be significant, from commercial pilots, baggage handlers, aid workers and members of the clergy to even our allies in the region. It is wildly inconsistent. For example, there is an inconsistent application of knowledge elements across the offences. For some limbs it is recklessness. For others it is actual knowledge. And, finally, it contains redundant provisions which refer to terrorism offences already covered by other sections of the bill. This entire bill is an absurd contribution from an opposition that has given up on good policy and retreated into the madness of right-wing populism. Ultimately, this bill would actually do very little to address the policy issue those opposite claim it would address—namely, the return of Australian citizens in Syria. The government's position on this issue is clear and longstanding. We are not providing assistance and we are not repatriating individuals from Syria.

National security is not political theatre. We follow the advice of our security agencies and we follow the law. If any one of these individuals finds their own way to return to Australia, our agencies are prepared and will be able to act in the interests of community safety. That is how we keep Australians safe, not through political stunts like this bill. On that basis, I strongly urge the Senate to oppose this bill.

Malcolm Roberts

I thank Senator Duniam for this bill, which One Nation will support. The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 amends the Criminal Code Act 1995—the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new offence into part 5.5 of the Criminal Code to criminalise the organisation or facilitation of the entry into Australia of certain persons who have engaged in terrorism related conduct—unless these actions occur with the prior written permission of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The offence applies where a person organises or facilitates the entry into Australia of another person from a foreign country and where, at the time of organising or facilitating the entry, the other person has engaged in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) of the Criminal Code—namely, entering or remaining in a declared area—or another terrorism offence as defined under the Crimes Act 1914; the first person knows that the other person intends to engage in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) or another terrorism offence before entering Australia; or the other person is or has been a member of a terrorist organisation. They're the three criteria.

The offence does not apply to conduct in which a Commonwealth authority is engaged or to conduct on behalf of a Commonwealth authority, which lets Minister Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides. I'll say that again: it lets Mr Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides.

The bill extends the sunset date for the declared areas regime in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030. These amendments are intended to ensure that decisions concerning the repatriation to Australia of persons who have entered or remain in declared areas, who have committed any other terrorism offences or who are members of terrorist organisations occurs with appropriate Commonwealth authorisation.

The return of the wrongly named 'ISIS brides' inspires this legislation. The term 'ISIS brides' is, of course, a misnomer. So-called Australian ISIS brides are women who travelled to Syria and Iraq, of their choice, to join or marry fighters for the Islamic State group, often referred to as the caliphate. These women were involved in hijrah—immigration to the Islamic State—as wives and mothers to 'breed the cubs of the caliphate' and to support jihad efforts. ISIS propaganda itself targeted Western women, with roles as supporters, militarised mothers and wives—or even, when needed, fighters. They are not brides; they're Islamic terrorists who travelled to a war zone, a proscribed area, to fight against the West and fight against Australia. They encouraged their men to kill and do other unspeakable things. They brainwashed their own children. Yet we're supposed to bring them back here—and what? Condone their behaviour? There can be no condoning of the treachery they've committed.

This bill will not stop the return per se. It will force their return into the open, where the voting public will be able to clearly see that the Labor government was responsible for their return, and the people will hold the Labor government accountable. That's what we want—openness. For clarity, Labor did that, returned them, through an intermediary from the Muslim Brotherhood, a device that Minister Burke thought would insulate the government from the fallout coming from returning these terrorists. It did not.

Western countries allowing in, or back in, terrorists committed to overthrowing our way of life and installing sharia law has a name. It's called suicidal empathy. Let's quote one of Minister Burke's ISIS terrorists, who, while in Syria, said this: 'Attack the US, Australia, the UK. Kill them. Stab them. Poison their food.' That's charming—really charming. It's suicidal empathy indeed.

These women went to a war zone in Syria to fight a war for the caliphate against Australia. Syria is now a caliphate. Their side won. So why do they want to come back to Australia? Are caliphates not as appealing as Australia? Now, that's telling. Or do they aim to help make Australia a caliphate?

As I said yesterday, Shady Alsuleiman is president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wissam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, 'Islam will enter every home in Australia.' And he does not mean to do your dishes; he means to convert you to Islam—or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in. The government is bringing these people in. To these female terrorists, we say this: you got you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in it.

Sarah Hanson-Young

Well, the cruelty that is on display from the coalition and One Nation in relation to the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 and the hypocrisy of the Labor government: the women and children who are left stranded in Syria, many of whom were trafficked and coerced as young women, as children themselves, have been left stranded now because of a total lack of courage and compassion. What a stark difference from the leadership of even somebody like Scott Morrison, who showed compassion to those who needed to come home after being left in the war-torn country. It beggars belief, that I'm standing here today to point out that Scott Morrison had more compassion and courage on the issue of human rights and protecting women and children than our current prime minister does! It just beggars belief.

Anthony Albanese said that these children made their own beds. Let me remind the Prime Minister that some of these children are four or five years old. Even if they were here in Australia they couldn't make their own beds. They are children. What has happened to our humanity? The stories of these women and their children over the past number of years—one of these mothers was 14 years old when she was trafficked to Syria, forced into marriage. The hypocrisy of the conservatives on this side of the chamber: they go on and on about extremism, about how extremists treat women, demean women, coerce women. And now, the very women they purport to care about they are leaving for dead, politicising them and using them as political footballs.

I'm not going to sit in this chamber and be lectured to with this false outrage of care, compassion or morality. You're a bunch of hypocrites—a bunch of misogynist hypocrites—and you don't give two damns about the rights of these children, innocent kids. One of the things that makes this country a great country and a place where we proudly, on the international stage, know it's the best country on Earth is the value of a fair go, of treating people equally, of looking after each other, of looking after our mates—but only when it suits you, it seems, on the conservative side. If there's a political point to be made or if there's somebody to punch down on in order to suck up to somebody else, the conservative side of politics just takes it; they can't help themselves.

The rank hypocrisy reeks in this place. It has all week. It has all fortnight, whether it's talking about wringing your hands about the impacts of what the war in the Middle East has meant for petrol prices while backing the slaughter and the bloody carelessness of your mate Donald Trump who started the damn thing or pretending that you care about Iranian women, when, for years, you have left them locked up, rotting in immigration detention—the very same women and young girls who fled this horrible, misogynistic, terrifying regime.

Now we see you doing exactly the same thing with the very women that you say should have been protected here in Australia by Australian law and by Australian values, children who were trafficked and coerced. Now you're leaving them for dead. My advice to those women and children in Syria: join a soccer team. Form a soccer team because maybe then the Prime Minister will care about you. Maybe then the Leader of the Opposition will think that you're good enough to come home. It is revolting—human rights for some, rule of law for some. But, if you're weak enough, you're vulnerable enough and you're able to be punched down upon without having anyone speak up for you, then you're fair game. If you're a young woman who's had a child in a refugee camp after being trafficked and coerced by a misogynistic regime, you're left for dead.

This is not who we are as Australians. These are innocent children, and you want to make political points and use the lives of these kids and these women for your own political pointscoring in a race to the bottom on racism and immigration in this country. And who's leading the charge on all of this? One Nation and Pauline Hanson, of course—the chief racist of all. Where is the courage to stare this rubbish down and say, 'This is not who we are'? Rather than doing that, we have you trotting along behind, hoping that no-one points out the hypocrisy, the inconsistencies and the inhumanity of it all.

This bill is only about rank politics. It's nothing about protecting Australians, because these women, these children, are Australians. They are Australians. They've got Australian passports. They were used and abused by the men who forced them to go to Syria, and it is now time that we allowed them to come home. These kids do not deserve to be part of your political games, so we'll be voting against this racist, rubbish piece of legislation. Using innocent children for your race-baiting is as low as you can get, and the whole thing should be knocked off.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

The question is that the remainder of Senator Chandler's second reading amendment, parts (b) through (g), be agreed to.

Don Farrell

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Today the Albanese Labor Government is introducing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026.

This Bill will deliver temporary and targeted support to Australian motorists and truckies in a responsible way.

The war in the Middle East is battering the global economy.

Supply chains have been disrupted, equity markets have been volatile, and inflation is creeping up across the globe.

Oil prices today are around twice what they were at the start of 2026 as a result of the conflict.

All of this is flowing through to prices at the bowser, and Australians have been left picking up the tab.

That is why we are taking steps to help shield them from some of the impacts of the war.

As we announced yesterday, this Bill will temporarily halve the fuel excise for petrol and diesel and facilitate changes to the heavy vehicle road user charge to allow for it to be reduced to zero temporarily.

Halving the fuel excise will cut 26.3c a litre off the cost of petrol and diesel.

Including the reduction in the GST component, this will cut the cost of a 65-litre tank of fuel by nearly $19.

Reducing the Heavy Road User Charge to zero will save truckies around $130 on a 400-litre tank of fuel.

This decision has been welcomed by the trucking industry, with the Australian Trucking Association saying it "is the lifeline that small trucking businesses need."

This temporary support will come into effect from tomorrow—although it may take a week or two to flow through to retail prices—and will end on June 30.

Australians understand that this is a short-term measure to deal with immediate challenges.

The scheduled 6 per cent increase in the Road User Charge will also be deferred, and we have called on relevant states to reflect this delay in their registration fees.

By calibrating these measures in a temporary way, we will provide relief while also taking pressure of the entire economy.

Treasury estimates these steps may reduce headline inflation by 0.5 of a percentage point through the year to the June Quarter.

And while it will incur a cost to the Budget, the overwhelming majority of Australians will agree that it is money well spent.

This Bill will also grant the Minister for Transport powers to vary the Heavy Vehicle Road User Charge for the next two years, where necessary.

This will ensure the Minister has more flexibility to make temporary changes, allowing the heavy vehicle road user charge to be reduced to zero for three months from 1 April 2026 to help truckies and the transport industry.

Following discussions at National Cabinet yesterday, the States and Territories have also indicated they are willing to give back some of the extra GST revenue that will flow from higher fuel prices.

There are some complexities around how to put that undertaking into effect.

While discussions with the States and Territories are ongoing, the Bill also provides additional flexibility to make further adjustments to the rate of excise if needed to give effect to the undertaking from the States on GST.

The steps we are taking in this Bill today are in addition to all of the actions we have already taken to date, including:

My message to Australians is clear.

We hear you and we are working to make your life a bit easier right now.

The global situation is changing rapidly, but Australians can be assured their government's focus is on easing cost of living pressures, securing our fuel supply, and getting it where it's needed most.

I commend this Bill to the House.

Claire Chandler

():  I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026, a bill that comes before the Senate only because Australians have been pushed to the brink of a fuel crisis and the government has acted too late. The opposition supports this legislation because fuel prices sit at the centre of the cost-of-living pressure. In these circumstances, temporary relief through fuel excise is necessary, and that is why the opposition will not stand in the way of a measure that provides direct, immediate assistance to Australians who are already doing it tough.

Let us also be clear about how we arrived at this point. It was the coalition that led on this policy. Last week, the opposition publicly proposed temporarily halving the fuel excise and cutting the heavy vehicle road user charge. The Leader of the Opposition formally wrote to the Prime Minister, outlining these measures, recognising the urgency of this situation and the pressure facing households and transport operators across the country. The government's initial response on Friday was not to act but to dismiss. The Prime Minister said he would not rush into fuel tax cuts. The Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy echoed that position, insisting the focus should be on supply chains rather than excise relief despite price volatility and distribution pressures. This government says that ships are arriving. If so, why are service stations running dry? Why were Australians being told that there was no problem while businesses on the ground were already feeling the impact of fuel shortages and rising prices?

Yet, after a National Cabinet meeting with the states and territories on Monday, the government reversed course. Suddenly, the pressure was too great to ignore, and the Albanese Labor government agreed to temporarily halve the fuel excise and cut the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero for three months. This happened because of the mounting pressure from households and businesses; the consequences of doing nothing had become too obvious. It happened because the coalition applied pressure, showed leadership and forced the government to act.

However, while the government has now adopted the coalition's policy, it has failed to adopt the coalition's fiscal discipline. When the coalition proposed this relief, we identified offsets to pay for it. We think that that is important. That is responsible budget management. This government offered no such plan at the time of adopting our policy and still has offered no plan to offset this expenditure. When asked how it would be funded, the Treasurer offered no offsets at all, instead saying that the cost would be absorbed. Well, if that is the government's idea of responsible economic management, then the bar has been set alarmingly low.

The confusion didn't stop there. Fuel excise interacts directly with GST, yet, when the government announced the cut, it hadn't settled the GST consequences with the states. Within 24 hours, we saw conflicting statements about who would bear the cost, what agreements were required and whether the arrangements were even resolved. Australians were left watching a government announce a major tax change first and work out the details later. This is unfortunately becoming a pattern from this government. One day they are saying there is not a fuel supply problem in; the next we are told that we are in a national fuel crisis. One day the government dismisses excise relief, then the next day, or a few days later in this case, it adopts it without a funding plan and without clarity for the states. This lack of consistency and coordination undermines confidence, and Australians cannot afford that in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, let alone in the middle of the fuel crisis that we are currently experiencing.

The opposition supports this bill because Australians need relief now. We have been very clear and consistent and responsible in articulating that position, but, because of that, we feel the need to make the facts abundantly clear through a second reading amendment to this bill that we are debating this evening, which I will move. This amendment makes clear that this policy originated with the coalition, that the government delayed in acting, that it failed to provide offset and that uncertainty remains around GST arrangements and fuel security. This amendment is about transparency and accountability. It's about ensuring that the record reflects what actually occurred.

Australians deserve leadership now that anticipates problems, not a government that stumbles into action once the damage is already done. While we support the bill, we do so critically and with an amendment that sets the record straight on the delay, the fiscal failure and the lack of serious planning behind this measure.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:

(a) the reduction in fuel excise and corresponding reduction in heavy vehicle road user charge reflects a policy first proposed by the Opposition;

(b) the Government initially denied there was a fuel supply problem in Australia and by delaying taking action to ensure distribution of fuel to where it was needed, exacerbated price pressures and supply shortages;

(c) the Government delayed acting on cost-of-living relief despite mounting pressure on Australian households, small businesses and transporters;

(d) the Government has failed to provide any budget offsets or outline how this measure will be funded, increasing the risk of additional inflationary pressure—where the only fuel guaranteed is for inflation, not for farmers or families;

(e) within 24 hours of the announcement, the Government's proposed GST arrangements have already fallen into disarray, raising further concerns about fiscal credibility and coordination;

(f) uncertainty remains regarding fuel supply security and the risk of heavy-handed market interventions; and

(g) Australians deserve timely leadership and responsible economic management during this national fuel crisis".

Karen Grogan

Senator Chandler, your time has expired. We'll go to Senator O'Neill.

Deborah O'Neill

It's hard to fathom the invective and negativity that are embedded in the contributions in the chamber today by those opposite. Given the real pain people are experiencing when they approach their local to fill up with fuel in the way they normally do and that they are managing their finances to figure out how they can either keep the business going or keep their car on the road—families will be thinking about kids' commitments to sport and rep sports. All of these things are pressing on the minds of Australians. The last thing they need is the carping and negativity that have characterised so much of this debate in this place.

I want to put on the record what actually happened yesterday. Instead of the one-state-against-the-other border ignoring that went on so that people in Albury and Wodonga were fighting across borders, the Australian Labor government has carefully calibrated a response and invited in, at the earliest possible point, all of the leaders from all the states around the country to make sure that we have a well calibrated and well coordinated response. The reality is it was just yesterday when the First Ministers acknowledged that the conflict in the Middle East is a vital part of the ecosystem that is seeing this heightened volatility in global energy markets and the flow-on impacts for our domestic supply chains and prices.

The parliament has just passed a piece of legislation that is going to allow cargos of fuel, in this unbelievably volatile environment, to be able to be underwritten by the government, so we make sure that the supplies that are out there are not disappeared from the market in the way that is against Australian interests. This is a government that's serious—not whingeing and carping, but determined to take the necessary, sensible action to ensure fuel supply. In addition to ensuring that fuel supply and supporting our businesses to continue to do what they do and bring in the fuel that we need in this country, the Prime Minister, in his discussions yesterday with the states, showed great leadership about what needs to happen to assist Australians who are very challenged by this sudden, unpredicted rise in the cost of fuel.

It's not just householders, it's not just farmers and it's not just families or small businesses that are feeling this. It's the providers of the heavy machinery that builds this nation, that's putting all the essential infrastructure in for the housing development that we want and that's building the roads that we need for the productivity gains that this country deserves. The government has got to have a mind to all of those things, and we need to keep afloat the businesses that are building our nation. So it's a very important decision from this government to halve the fuel excise, reducing the cost of fuel by 26.3c per litre. If you've got an average sized car and you put about 65 litres in a tank, that will save $19. And that saving of $19, every time you fill up between 1 April and 30 June, will make a difference to families. It'll also make a difference to businesses.

In addition to that, Australians know, because of our experience with COVID, that keeping our trucks on the road is actually a vital part of making sure our country continues to function until this real challenge of international disorder passes. The heavy vehicle road user charge has been reduced to zero for a period of three months. This is critical to help truckies continue their vital work for our nation.

One of many items of action that the government has undertaken is to provide a plan for what might happen as we move forward—a careful four-stage calibrated plan. Right now, we're making sure the fuel keeps coming in and, with a reduction in the fuel excise, we're making sure Australians aren't hurt at the bowser.

Long debate text truncated.

Tammy Tyrrell

by leave—I note my opposition to the amendments on sheet 3757.

Slade Brockman

The question is that One Nation's amendments, on sheet 3759, be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendments

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4".

(2) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) Without limiting the matters that may be considered when conducting the review, the review must consider the potential for conflict with other legislation, including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Regulations 2011;

(b) the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Rule 2015;

(c) the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

(d) the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007;

(e) the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Safeguard Mechanism) Rule 2015.

Timing of review

(3) The review must commence as soon as practicable after this section commences.

(4) The person or persons who conduct the review must complete the review before the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day the review commences.

Minister to be given report of review

(5) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review as soon as practicable after the review is completed.

Minister to table report of review

(6) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

Paul Scarr

I will now move to amendments. I will first deal with amendments circulated by the opposition, and I refer to those amendments on sheet 3760 and 3766. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3760 and 3766 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3760

(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 3), after item 14, insert:

14A Section 23C

Repeal the section.

_____

SHEET 3766

(1) Schedule 1, page 13 (before line 2), before the heading specifying Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1901, insert:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

47A Paragraph 87(5A)(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

Malcolm Roberts

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by 12 May 2026:

The appropriateness of amending standing order 35 to reduce witness filibustering and deflection in committee hearings, with particular reference to:

(a) the appropriateness of adding the following provisions to standing order 35:

"(4) A questioning senator may at any time interrupt a witness and take back the call from the witness for the purpose of either pressing for an answer or to ask another question.

(5) The witness must cease speaking whenever a senator reclaims the call.

(6) Any interjections after a senator reclaims the call are to be ruled disorderly by the chair.

(7) Witnesses are entitled to write to the committee furnishing any relevant additional information that was unable to be presented because of a senator reclaiming the call."; and

(b) any other related matters.

Sue Lines

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, be agreed to.