Sue Lines

Pursuant to the order agreed to yesterday, the time allotted for debate on this bill has expired. I will now put the questions before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. I will deal first with the second reading amendments, starting with the amendment moved by Senator Payman and also on behalf of Senators David Pocock, Lambie, Thorpe and Tyrrell.

Nick McKim

On behalf of the Australian Greens, I request that part (a) be put separately to part (b). I confirm that we will be voting differently on those two parts.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment on sheet 3612 be agreed to. The Greens have requested the amendment be split. We are dealing with part (a).

Sue Lines

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment to the motion that the report from the committee be adopted be agreed to.

S enator David Pocock 's , Senator Lambie 's , Senator Payman 's , Senator T horpe 's and Senator Tyrrell 's circulated amendment—

At the end of the motion, add "and the provisions of the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 March 2026".

David Pocock

by leave—President, I just want to note my opposition to 3594, 3597 and 3602.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3592 and 3606 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3592

(1) Schedule 2, page 77 (after line 10), after Division 8, insert:

Division 8A — Jacketed hollow point ammunition

Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956

202A After regulation 4F

Insert:

4FA Importation of jacketed hollow point ammunition

(1) The importation of jacketed hollow point ammunition is prohibited unless the importation passes the specified person test set out in item 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 6.

(2) To avoid doubt, this regulation applies despite regulation 4F.

(3) In this regulation:

jacketed hollow point ammunition means ammunition that is or involves a bullet that expands or flatten easily in the human body, including a bullet with a hard envelope that does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.

_____

SHEET 3606

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 7), after item 4, insert:

4A After subregulation 4F(3A)

Insert:

(3B) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after the end of each quarter, cause to be prepared a written report on the importation by a law enforcement agency during the quarter of a firearm, a firearm accessory, a firearm part, a firearm magazine, ammunition, a component of ammunition or an imitation of an article to which an item in Part 2 of Schedule 6 applies.

(3C) A report under subregulation (3B) must include the following in relation to each article imported:

(a) the name and type of the article;

(b) the name of the law enforcement agency that imported the article;

(c) the date on which the article was imported.

(3D) The Minister must table a copy of a report under subregulation (3B) in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

4B Subregulation 4F(4)

Insert:

law enforcement agency means:

(a) the Australian Federal Police; or

(b) the Police Force of a State or Territory.

quarter means a period of 3 months ending on 31 March, 30 June, 30 September or 31 December.

Question negatived.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senators David Pocock, Lambie, Payman, Thorpe and Tyrrell. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3609 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock 's , Senator Lambie 's , Senator Payman 's , Senator Thorpe 's and Senator Tyrrell '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 19), 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 operation and appropriateness of the mandatory minimum sentences in table items 1AA, 1A and 1B in the table in section 16AAA of the Crimes Act 1914 for offences against the following provisions in the Criminal Code Act 1995:

(a) subsection 80.2BE(1) or (2) (advocating force or violence through causing damage to property);

(b) subsection 80.2H(1) (public display of prohibited Nazi symbols or giving Nazi salute);

(c) subsection 80.2HA(1) (public display of prohibited terrorist organisation symbols).

Consultation requirement

(3) The review must provide for public consultation, including providing for public submissions over a period of at least 2 calendar months.

Expert panel conducting the review

(4) The review must be conducted by an expert panel comprised of 3 members appointed by the Minister.

(5) The Minister must ensure that the members of the expert panel collectively possess experience or knowledge in all of the following fields:

(a) firearms regulation and law enforcement practice;

(b) policing;

(c) criminology;

(d) national security;

(e) intelligence;

(f) agriculture;

(g) invasive species management;

(h) cybersecurity;

(i) administrative law.

(6) A member of the expert panel must not be any of the following:

(a) a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999;

(b) a serving member of the Australian Defence Force, the Australia Federal Police or an Australian intelligence agency;

(c) a current or former member of the Parliament, or a current or former member of a Parliament of State or Territory;

(d) any other person who has a material conflict of interest in relation to this Act.

Timing of review

(7) The review must commence no later than 2 years after the day this section commences.

(8) The expert panel must complete the review before the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day the review commences.

Minister to be given report of review

(9) The expert panel 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

(10) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

Government response to recommendations

(11) If the report sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government:

(a) as soon as practicable after receiving the report, the Minister must cause a statement setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to each of the recommendations to be prepared; and

(b) within 6 months after the day the report is first tabled in a House of the Parliament, the Minister must table a copy of the statement in each House of the Parliament.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the remaining amendments on sheets 3597 and sheet 3602 and the amendments on sheets 3593, 3594, 3601 and 3603 be agreed to.

National Party of Australia's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3597

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "Parts 1 to 6", substitute "Parts 1 to 5".

_____

SHEET 3602

(1) Schedule 2, item 24, page 23 (line 34), omit "subsections (3) to (5) (about exceptions to subsection (1))", substitute "subsection (5) (about an exception to subsection (1))".

(3) Schedule 2, item 24, page 28 (line 7), omit "Note 1", substitute "Note".

(4) Schedule 2, item 24, page 28 (line 10), omit note 2.

_____

SHEET 3593

(1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 8 (lines 6 and 7), after "to the extent that", insert "subitem (3) applies to the compensation and".

(2) Schedule 2, item 3, page 8 (after line 10), after paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) providing for the payment of compensation that:

(i) is at a fair market value for all property surrendered by a person in accordance with the scheme, including for firearms, firearm parts, firearm accessories, ammunition, ammunition components and other equipment; and

(ii) covers administrative costs associated with the surrender of that property, including warehousing and distribution costs; and

(iii) extends to meeting claims made by an entity during the buyback period for the State for loss of business and hardship, including loss associated with the operation of a business becoming untenable or unviable as a result of this Act or the national firearms program; and

(3) Schedule 2, item 3, page 8 (after line 14), at the end of the item, add:

(3) This subitem applies to compensation paid by a State only to the extent that the compensation is paid consistently with a scheme of the State covered by paragraphs (1)(a) to (b).

_____

SHEET 3594

(1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 8 (after line 14), at the end of the item, add:

Participation notices

(4) Despite subitem (2), the AFP Minister may only approve a compensation scheme set up by a State if the State has given the AFP Minister, before the end of 28 February 2026, written notice (a participation notice) of the State's commitment to participate in the national firearms program.

(5) The participation notice must:

(a) be in a form approved by the AFP Minister and be accompanied by any information required by the form; and

(b) set out details of:

(i) the kinds of firearms and other property to be surrendered under the scheme or prohibited by the State in accordance with the national firearms program; and

(ii) the State's measure for reducing the number of firearms in the community, including any restrictions on the number of firearms that may be owned by individuals.

(6) The AFP Minister must make the participation notice publicly available by publishing the notice, before the end of 2 March 2026, on the Australian Federal Police website and in the Gazette.

(7) The AFP Minister may approve a form for the purposes of paragraph (5)(a).

_____

SHEET 3601

(1) Schedule 2, item 212, page 83 (after line 31), after subsection 474.45J(1), insert:

Licenced owners

(1A) Subsection 474.45G(1) or 474.45H(1) does not apply to conduct engaged in by a person in relation to material if:

(a) the person holds a firearms licence that is in force under a law of a State or Territory; and

(b) the material is:

(i) information on reloading ammunition; or

(ii) a firearms manual for a firearm the person lawfully owns; and

(c) the conduct is in connection with the person accessing the material.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3)).

_____

SHEET 3603

(1) Schedule 2, Division 4 of Part 5, page 68 (after line 26), at the end of the Division, add:

171A Operation of amendments

(1) This item is for the avoidance of doubt.

(2) The amendments of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 made by this Division do not have the effect of prohibiting without exception the importation of category H articles.

Note: For example, in the case of an article covered by item 9 of the table in Part 2 of Schedule 6 to those Regulations, the article may be imported if the importation complies with the sports shooter test, the international sports shooter test, or any one other test mentioned in column 3 of that item.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the Nationals. The first question is that subsections 54E(3) and (4) and subsections 54J(4) and (5) in item 24, division 1 of part 5, and part 6 of schedule 2 stand as printed.

National Party of Australia's__circulated amendment s

SHEET 3595

(1) Schedule 2, Division 1, page 62 (line 2) to page 64 (line 22), to be opposed.

_____

SHEET 3597

(2) Schedule 2, Part 6, page 78 (line 1) to page 79 (line 21), to be opposed.

_____

SHEET 3602

(2) Schedule 2, item 24, page 24 (lines 21 to 32), subsections 54E(3) and (4) to be opposed.

(5) Schedule 2, item 24, page 28 (lines 17 to 28), subsections 54J(4) and (5) to be opposed.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Senator Thorpe.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3614

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

(a) supports National Cabinet's agreement of 6 December 2023 to deliver the outstanding reform arising from the 1996 Port Arthur massacre of the establishment of a National Firearms Register;

(b) notes that:

(i) stolen licensed firearms are a primary driver of the illegal firearms market in Australia, with theft of legally owned guns being the single largest source of illegal firearms, averaging approximately 2000 firearms per year, or one every four hours,

(ii) due to inadequate monitoring and inconsistent reporting requirements across States and Territories, significant data gaps remain regarding the sources of illegal firearms, including potential diversion from law enforcement, private security, correctional services and military armouries,

(iii) including firearms held by law enforcement, private security, correctional services and the military in a national firearms monitoring framework, including full life cycle management covering procurement, expenditure, storage, transfer, loss, theft and disposal, would enable consistent data collection, improved tracing and stronger accountability, and

(iv) monitoring and oversight of these firearms should occur through an appropriate mechanism; and

(c) calls on the Government to:

(i) subject the firearms holdings and armouries of law enforcement agencies, security providers, correctional services and the Australian Defence Force to comprehensive, nationally consistent monitoring, oversight and reporting frameworks,

(ii) establish an appropriate oversight mechanism, including incorporation within the National Firearms Register, a dedicated firearms oversight register, or allocating responsibility for national firearms data integrity, analysis and reporting to an independent statutory body such as the Productivity Commission, and

(iii) publish data, updated in real time where practicable and subject to appropriate safeguards, to support transparency, public confidence and evidence-based policy".

Question negatived.

David Shoebridge

by leave—President, I record the Greens's support for that second reading rather than calling for a division.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Senators David Pocock, Lambie, Payman and Tyrrell. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3611 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's, Senator Lambie's, Senator Payman's and Senator Tyrrell's circulated amendment

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

(a) notes that:

(i) this bill includes complex legislative changes that make significant amendments to the import, control, management and possession of firearms, across a variety of legislation,

(ii) independent senators have had the final text of the bill for less than 24 hours,

(iii) the Government only undertook very limited consultation on the exposure draft legislation, only provided three days for public submissions on the bill and a week for parliamentary consideration and public consultation,

(iv) time for parliamentary debate of this bill has been significantly curtailed with many senators not afforded an opportunity to speak on or ask questions about the bill on behalf of their communities,

(v) concerns have been expressed about potential unintended consequences of the bill, a lack of procedural fairness in elements of the bill and uncertainty around definitions such as 'firearms and explosives manufacture material', and

(vi) firearms reform can and should also help address the scourge of domestic violence; and

(b) calls on the Government to ensure that the buyback schemes under this bill occur at a rate of fair market value, include ammunition, and include compensation for impacted businesses".

Penny Wong

by leave—I move:

That—

(1) On Monday, 19 January 2026:

(a) the hours of meeting be 9.30 am till adjournment;

(b) the routine of business be consideration of a condolence motion to be moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate for Victims of the Bondi Antisemitic Terror Attack only;

(c) following the motion being moved and prior to any debate on the motion, senators be invited to signify their respect and sympathy by observing a minute's silence;

(d) the motion be considered without amendment;

(e) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the motion; and

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

(2) The Senate meet on Tuesday, 20 January 2026.

(3) On Tuesday, 20 January 2026:

(a) the hours of meeting be 2 pm till adjournment;

(b) the routine of business be:

(i) questions without notice,

(ii) notices of motion,

(iii) placing of business, and

(iv) consideration of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 and the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026;

(c) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills;

(d) the questions on all remaining stages of the bills be put as follows:

(i) at 6.30 pm, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, and

(ii) at 10 pm, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026;

(e) paragraph (d) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

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

Jonathon Duniam

I move:

That the Senate—

a) Omit paragraphs (3) (d) and (e); and

b) Amend paragraph (3) (f) as follows: omit "on the motion of a minister" and substitute "once consideration of the bills has concluded".

Sue Lines

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

Sue Lines

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

Question agreed to.

Anne Ruston

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the motion.

Leave note granted.

In the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I move:

That the Senate suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent me from moving such a motion to enable me to amend this motion.

The reason I do that is because this motion has been amended from the 3.30 pm timeframe that put on it because, quite clearly, everybody in this place decided they wanted to go home tonight but then realised that they hadn't left themselves enough time to finish the dirty deal they did with those down the end of the chamber, so they needed more time to get their paperwork in order. We're not going to stand in the way of more scrutiny of this bill, which is the reason we supported the motion put forward by Senator Wong to extend the time. But why can't we extend that time now until 7.30 pm and at least give us some chance for some level of proper scrutiny of this particular bill? We already know, from all of the committees, that absolutely no scrutiny has been able to be done on this bill. So much subordinated legislation has had no scrutiny. At least give us the opportunity of another 2½ hours over and above what the chamber has already agreed to—or do we still all want to get on the plane to go home tonight?

This bill is not being determined by this chamber. Quite frankly, this bill has been determined in the Prime Minister's office. They come in here and completely and utterly disregard this chamber so that we can end up with a deal that's been done in the Prime Minister's office overnight. Who knows what's been promised to the people at the other end of the chamber in other words for this bill to pass. We are not going to stand in the way of scrutiny, but I tell you what: we're also not going to allow the government and the Greens to get away with the fact that they did a dirty deal in the middle of the night and they didn't cross their t's and dot their i's. We find ourselves in here, right now, having to have a motion moved for more time just so you can get your paperwork in order. I think the Australian public deserve better on a bill of such significance. You actually might have got your act into gear. Who knows what else is being mucked up in this bill? We won't know, because we're not allowed to scrutinise it.

So here we are on Thursday afternoon in the last sitting week of the year. We've had a dirty deal done in the middle of the night. They've messed up their paperwork. They've failed to attend to the detail. They haven't done their administration, so they come in here and give us a little more time. Well, don't come in here and pretend you're giving us more time for scrutiny. You're not. You're just fixing up a mistake of your own making. If you're really genuine about applying a level of scrutiny and giving us more time, give us until 7.30 pm. I would ask the Greens, at the other end of the chamber: if you really are genuine about this—I've heard Senator Hanson-Young talk very strongly about the importance of the bill—what's wrong with a little bit more scrutiny?

Maybe we could stay here until 7.30 tonight. No-one's catching a plane home anyway, so why don't we actually do our job that the people of Australia elected us to do: come in here, scrutinise legislation and make sure we get to ask the questions of the government, who have been secretive throughout the entire process of these bills? We've got legislation that is so big, you'd be lucky to high jump over it. Yet we've had no time for scrutiny. This government's track record on scrutiny is obviously something to behold. Never before has there been a government that has lacked scrutiny the same way that this government does. We will not have the Australian public believe that the government has come in here and allowed more time when, quite frankly, it is nothing more than fixing up their own mistake.

I would ask the government: if you really are genuine about this—no-one's going home tonight anyway—why don't we all accept our responsibility as elected members of the Australian parliament and allow some additional scrutiny? When I watched the interrogation of Minister Watt during committee before we came in for question time, Minister Watt was filibustering his own bill to stop us asking questions. If Minister Watt were prepared not only to answer the questions but to not sit there and lecture everybody with a filibuster, maybe we could get some more answers about some of the things that are in this bill, some answers about what's intended and some answers about what the consequences are of this bill instead of him hiding behind the fact that he completely disregards this place.

The deal was done in the Prime Minister's office. This chamber has not decided the outcome of this really important suite of legislation; the Prime Minister in his office has. And I think it is incumbent on this government to allow more scrutiny and to not just hide behind the fact that you made a great big mess and now you're trying to fix it.

David Pocock

I welcome this motion. Clearly, these are big changes that need scrutiny, and we're currently having amendments legislated as we speak and hurtle towards the guillotine. I have questions on offsets, how that system is going to work and why we're replicating a system that has failed in New South Wales and has been called out by the auditor there. I've got questions about the ruling powers and the proposed national interest pathway—'the NACC trap' as it's been described by a member in the other place. I have questions about net gain. I have questions about devolution of powers and questions about standards that we haven't seen yet, so I would welcome more scrutiny of these enormous changes.

I welcome some of the amendments that are currently being circulated, but, again, I would note for the Senate that, as crossbenchers, we haven't had the drafting resources to actually get our own amendments drafted. I had 22 amendments submitted on Friday. We've had six done. Then we had the drafters say: 'I'm sorry. We just don't have time.' They may not be supported, but I feel, as an elected representative of the ACT, that it's my duty to actually listen to experts, listen to Canberrans, get those amendments drafted in good faith, put them to the Senate and be able to make my case in a second reading speech, which I and 20 other senators haven't had the opportunity to do. I may disagree very strongly with some of the views in those second reading debate speeches, but isn't that how this chamber is meant to work? I welcome this additional time, and I would say to Senate colleagues let's actually spend an extra couple of hours looking at this. Let's go through the detail. Let's think about what we're doing. Let's vote on amendments with a clear idea of what they do, what they don't do and what unintended consequences they may actually have.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions, particularly when we haven't seen the Senate committee process actually report. I would note that in the more than 100 submissions to the bill, looking through those and getting someone to actually analyse them, I don't think there was a single submission that said we should pass this legislation as is. Everyone, every stakeholder had a view. Yes, potentially extremely divergent views on what the legislation should look like, but they had a view.

I'm really concerned about the process today and no second reading debate speeches. It's a deal that was done so hastily that they then have to extend Committee of the Whole so they can move their own amendments. That kind of points out that we probably should have had a different approach from the start, and some more scrutiny.

I really welcome this. You can say that it's easy for a senator for the ACT to say, but I care deeply about this and Canberrans care very deeply about environmental laws. They want environmental laws that actually protect nature, that aren't just a thing where we say, 'We've done a great job,' and then, when we're looking back in 10 years time, we're saying: 'What the hell did we do? What did we do? We missed a golden opportunity to reform our broken environmental laws, and we just simply patched it up, put a few little patches on it and said, "She'll be right mate."' We can do better than that. We should do better than that as the Senate. Thank you. I hope that we do actually get a couple of extra hours from this amendment.

Richard Colbeck

The fact that we are even having a debate about additional time at the government's instigation demonstrates how grubby this whole process has been. This is one of the most complex pieces of legislation that will come before this parliament. It affects industry from a whole range of perspectives. The government didn't even allow the committee process to be completed—a process that this chamber decided on. There has been no proper scrutiny of the legislation by this chamber, which is this chamber's job. That process was scrapped by the grubby deal done overnight by Labor and the Greens.

And the fact that the embarrassment will continue out of the Labor Party's process is demonstrated already by the fact that they themselves have to extend time for the debate in the committee stage of this legislation. It is absolutely shameful that senators stand in this place to say that they haven't had the parliamentary resources to have their amendments for this legislation drafted. How shameful is that? And of course we know what sits behind that. The Greens don't have theirs ready either, which is why we're standing here debating additional time, and the government is put in the embarrassing situation of having to extend time for the committee stage of this legislation.

I have questions that I would have liked to ask during the committee stage before lunch with respect to the standards, particularly around the treatment of the forest industry, which I've worked very closely with over a period of time. But the minister's response to questions and submissions made as part of the debate here belled the cat on the whole show. Labor are about the politics and the deal. They're not about looking after the environment. They're not about looking after Australian communities. And they're not about looking after people in our communities that rely on an effective piece of environmental legislation. They're all about the politics. Every time a coalition senator stood up to make a contribution, the minister's response was all about the politics.

It's absolutely shameful that senators in this place would have to get up as part of this extension debate to say that they are being told by officials of the Senate that they can't get their amendments drafted. How is that a proper process? How does the government and how do the Greens see that as a proper and reasonable process to pass one of the most important pieces of legislation that this parliament will pass—that senators cannot get their amendments drafted? That is a failure of this place, and it's a failure of the way the government is running this place. They should be ashamed. They're not. They think it's a joke. It shows how much they respect this chamber and it shows how much they respect the Australian people. They don't. It is all about the politics and it's all about the deal, and they should all be ashamed.

The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 is a very important piece of legislation. It deserves the proper scrutiny that this parliament gave it through the committee process which was to report at the end of March next year. What we are finding, and what industry and those who are going to have to work with the legislation are finding, is the more we look into it, the more problems we find. This government is going to go through further embarrassment next year when they have to come back with an EPBC Act reform bill, because they're going to have to fix up the mistakes that, to their shame and embarrassment, aren't being dealt with right now. They'll see it as a joke. They'll blame somebody else. But it's their bill; it's their dirty, grubby deal; and they should all be ashamed. They should give this chamber enough time to debate it properly. (Time expired)

Sue Lines

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

Lisa Darmanin

I present the ninth report for 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. 9 OF 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

SenatorLisaDarmanin(ActingGovernmentWhip,Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

SenatorSeanBell(PaulineHanson'sOneNationWhip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Leah Blyth SenatorRossCadell

SenatortheHon.AnthonyChisholm Senator Jessica Collins

SenatortheHon.KatyGallagher Senator Jacqui Lambie

SenatorFatimaPayman Senator David Pocock

SenatorTonySheldon(GovernmentWhip) Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: TimBryant 02 6277 3020

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 26 November 2025 at 7.16 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2026 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral);

(b) the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 March 2026 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2026 (see appendix 3 for statements of reasons for referral); and

(d) the provisions of the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2026 (see appendix 4 for statements of reasons for referral).

1. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

2. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

3. The committee considered the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025 but was unable to reach agreement.

(Lisa Darmanin)

Chair

26 November 2025

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025

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:

Community Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

December to February

Possible reporting date:

26 February 2026

14I Deferred Bills

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Hear from stakeholders about changes to prescribing Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various stakeholders including nurses and nurse representative bodies, other health professional bodies

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

0-1 hearings during week of 16th Feb.

Possible reporting date:

26 Feb 2026

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025

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:

Community Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

December to February

Possible reporting date:

1 March 2026

15 I Deferred Bills

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Hear from stakeholders about registration and safeguarding, as well any other inclusions in the Bill

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various stakeholders including disability representative organisations, members of the disability community, service providers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

2 hearings during 16-27 Feb, month of April

Possible reporting date:

30th March 2026—members of the disability community will require this amount of time to participate fully in the inquiry

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: T

To examine the Bill in more detail and hear from relevant stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from: interested stakeholders.

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Week of 16th February 2026

Possible reporting date:

26 February 2026

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025

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: Education & Employment Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

December to February

Possible reporting date: '

5 March 2026

17 I Deferred Bills

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Jonathon Duniam

I move an amendment to the motion, as circulated:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2026".

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Duniam to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.