Sue Lines

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3617 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment

(1) Schedule 1, page 42 (after line 18), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 8 — Burning or desecrating the Australian flag

Criminal Code Act 1995

67 After Subdivision B of Division 80 of the Criminal Code

Insert:

Subdivision BA — Burning or desecrating the Australian flag

80.1AD Burning or desecrating the Australian flag

A person commits an offence if the person burns or desecrates the Australian National Flag (within the meaning of the Flags Act 1953).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the bill be now read a second time.

Sue Lines

Pursuant to the order agreed to yesterday, the time allotted for debate on this bill has expired. I will now put the question before the chair, and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. The question before the chair relates to the second reading amendment, on sheet 3607, moved by Senator McKenzie. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Penny Wong

I move:

That further time be allotted for the remaining stages of the bills listed in the motion agreed to earlier today, as follows:

Commencing from 3.30 pm until 5.00 pm.

I also move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion to close the debate as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Duniam, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2026:

The illegal tobacco crisis in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the scale and nature of the illegal tobacco market, including the volume and value of illicit tobacco trade; sources, distribution channels and methods of smuggling or illegal cultivation; and the involvement of transnational serious and organised crime (TSOC) groups;

(b) the impact of illegal tobacco on public health and on government revenue, including smoking rates and the loss of Commonwealth excise and customs revenue;

(c) law enforcement, intelligence and regulatory responses, including the adequacy of:

(i) penalties and deterrence measures,

(ii) the strategy and effectiveness of onshore and offshore disruption activities, and

(iii) the current legislative and regulatory frameworks and the current levels of inter-government and inter-agency co-operation;

(d) the social and economic impacts, including on legitimate retailers, especially small businesses in regional and rural areas; the public health implications arising from the spread of unregulated tobacco products; and the safety implications for communities affected by illegal operations;

(e) forecasts, modelling and plausible future scenarios concerning the potential evolution of the illicit tobacco threat, including the prospect for increased violence and the effect of illicit tobacco on the wider TSOC threat;

(f) options for reform, including potential amendments to existing policies and to taxation, customs and/or criminal laws; and

(g) any other related matters.

Sue Lines

The question is that business of the Senate No. 9, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

Anne Ruston

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bills without limitation of time.

What we've seen here today, for the people who are watching, is that the government has done a dirty deal with the Greens under the cloak of darkness. None of us should really have been particularly surprised by this, because it is not the first time it has happened. This week we saw the minister, who I would have liked to think would be standing behind a piece of legislation he believed in, just point around the chamber and say, 'Well, I'll do a deal with you, or I'll do a deal with you,' knowing darn well that the issues of concern to the coalition were completely different to the issues of concern to the Greens. But he didn't care; he just wanted his deal.

Really, the question that Australians should be asking today is, 'What does this government really believe in when it comes to our environmental protection act?' They were prepared to do a deal with anybody just so they could get this bill through. This is an absolute hallmark of this government—avoiding scrutiny. We had no bills pass this place until midday yesterday, when eventually they got the first bill of the week through. They have passed nothing since, and then this morning they come in with a guillotine of nine bills.

Nine bills will receive no scrutiny at all. We have nine bills this afternoon, some of which are very significant bills that have very significant impacts. There will be no scrutiny at all of any of these bills. Instead, we will have extremely shortened scrutiny on a series of a bills—seven of them, with 1,500 pages in the primary bill—in the next hour or so. But no-one should be surprised, because this government thinks that the guillotine is actually a standard part of it doing business. In the last parliament alone, 230 bills were guillotined by this government. They don't even seem to care about the processes, the procedures, the conventions or the reports of committees. We found out that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills have serious concerns about the lack of scrutiny undertaken on this series of bills.

As I said, there are many thousands of pages of bills being put forward here. Firstly, the primary scrutiny body of this parliament has expressed concerns about this series of bills, and the government is completely ignoring those concerns. Secondly, the secondary scrutiny body of this parliament, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, has also raised concerns about the fact that so much of what would normally be considered in primary legislation has been delegated to subordinate legislation. This is a government that is absolutely allergic to scrutiny. They are more than happy to bring bill after bill after bill into this place, with all of the headlines in them, but there is absolutely nothing in any detail. Who knows what might be coming. As we stand here today, we don't even know the details of the amendments that have been agreed with the Greens in order to get their support for this bill or what they mean. Of course, there is absolutely no scrutiny at all of these bills.

I remind the leader in this place that just a few weeks ago, on 6 November, she said:

What I would say to the chamber is that we shouldn't forget history. The committee system has been a really important part of our parliament.

There's no committee system and no committee report, and the two really, really important committees have been ignored when it comes to scrutiny. The thing that is really interesting here is the hypocrisy of what's going on. Senator Wong, back in 2021, said:

This is really undemocratic to turn up and say, 'We're going to roll over the Senate program.' … I am quite astounded at this way of managing the chamber. I am quite astounded that the government thinks it can just rock up with a few minutes notice … and say: 'We've got the numbers. We're going to ram this through.' … What sort of way is this to run government? I hope that for once you might actually tell us what the dirty deal is; usually we have to try and grab it out of you.

So what is the dirty deal that has been done with those at the other end of the chamber? Is it a new party room or something more that they have been offered in order to get their deal? I think the idea that the Leader of the Government in the Senate can come in here in this hypocritical manner and choose to do what she herself has condemned others for doing—this is absolutely a culture that is running rampant in this place. You would sell your soul for a headline with no regard for the consequences. Quite frankly, if you believe the rumours of a wedding on Saturday, I hope the PM hasn't prioritised the fitting of his tuxedo over scrutiny of these very important bills.

Penny Wong

That was an unnecessary personal gibe.

Opposition Senators

Opposition senators interjecting—

Penny Wong

No, there are some things that are beyond politics, and that should be one of them. But what I would say is this: the coalition have had an opportunity over many months to be in negotiations with the government, but the reality is they couldn't negotiate because that would require them to take out time from their favourite pastime, which is fighting amongst themselves. I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion moved by Minister Wong be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question now is that 1(d)(x) of the motion be agreed to.

Penny Wong

I move the motion as circulated:

(1) That today:

(a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment;

(b) the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business at the following times:

(i) from 9 am till the question on the second reading is resolved, and

(ii) from the conclusion of formal motions or 12.15 pm, whichever is earlier, till 1.30 pm;

(c) the question on the second reading of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills be put at 11 am;

(d) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at

3.30 pm:

(i) Environment Information Australia Bill 2025

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025 Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025

National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025,

(ii) Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 2) Bill 2025,

(iii) Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025,

(iv) Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025,

(v) Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025,

(vi) Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025,

(vii) Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025,

(viii) Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025,

(ix) VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025, and

(x) Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025;

(e) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded;

(f) once consideration of the bills has concluded, the following may be considered:

(i) committee membership,

(ii) messages from the House of Representatives;

(iii) a motion to be moved by a minister relating to the next meeting of the Senate and leave of absence for senators; and

(g) the Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister.

(2) Paragraphs (1)(c) and (1) (d) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142.

Nick McKim

Could I ask that you please put the question separately in relation to 1(d)(x), the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill?

Sue Lines

I will put the rest of the motion first and then 1(d)(x) that you referred to. The question is that the motion, as moved by the minister, without 1(d)(x), be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the procedural motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

Penny Wong

I move:

That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the question be now put on the procedural motion moved by the minister.