Fatima Payman

I move:

That the order agreed to on 27 November 2025 relating to estimates hearings for 2026 be varied as follows:

After paragraph (1), insert:

(1A) That cross portfolio estimates hearings on Indigenous matters and on Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters be scheduled for Friday, 29 May 2026 and Friday, 30 October 2026, but not restricted to those days.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The government does not support this motion. Despite her moving this motion today, I don't believe Senator Payman has ever attended a single cross-portfolio Indigenous matters estimates hearing since being elected in 2022. Senator Payman has not asked a single question to the National Indigenous Australians Agency or any agencies, officials or organisations in the Indigenous Australians portfolio during estimates. We have more than tripled the time dedicated to First Nations issues on the estimates schedule: 23 hours was scheduled for First Nations issues and Closing the Gap outcomes at the February hearings, up from six hours and 45 minutes scheduled at the last cross-portfolio hearing. Indigenous matters are now part of everyday estimates. This is a structural change to reflect that closing the gap is a whole-of-government responsibility, shared by all ministers and secretaries.

Tyron Whitten

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than Thursday, 12 March 2025, the referral decision brief for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation matter 2025/10370—Wind farm in Scott River.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 420, standing in the name of Senator Whitten, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than Thursday, 12 March 2026, any documents and data relating to approval timeframes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), including:

(a) the average (and maximum and minimum) approval times for housing projects under the existing EPBC Act and related rules and expected average (and maximum and minimum) approval times under the new EPBC Act and related rules;

(b) the number of housing projects and associated dwellings that were awaiting approval immediately prior to the August 2025 Economic Reform Roundtable;

(c) the number of such projects and associated dwellings approved since the August 2025 Economic Reform Roundtable; and

(d) the number of housing projects and associated dwellings, awaiting approval as at 4 March 2026.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 415, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

Glenn Sterle

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 393, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

Now, we'll move to part (b) of Senator Ruston's amendment.

Anne Ruston

I move:

At the end of the motion, add " and the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2026".

At the last election, Australians were not presented with this policy—

Sue Lines

Senator Ruston, sadly, the time for debating this has expired, so I have to put the amendment without debate. The question is that part (b) of the amendment standing in the name of Senator Duniam and moved by Senator Ruston to the motion that the selection of bills committee report be adopted be agreed to.

David Shoebridge

I move the amendment circulated in Senator McKim's name:

Paragraph (b), omit "the bill not be referred to a committee", substitute "the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 March 2026".

This legislation, the royal commissions amendment legislation, is designed to implement, or is said to be implementing, some of the recommendations from the interim report of the veterans royal commission to allow people from security agencies to give full and frank evidence to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. What Commissioner Kaldas found in the veterans royal commission was that the Royal Commissions Act is not fit for purpose when it comes to secret information from the ADF and that many people in the ADF felt they couldn't come and speak to the royal commission and tell the full truth about what was happening in the ADF, because of a series of secrecy provisions that apply to members of the military. Commissioner Kaldas and the other commissioners of the royal commission asked the government to fix that during the veterans royal commission, and it did not happen. That was a failure. It's an ongoing failure of the government to not fix it for the veterans royal commission.

It has now become very clear that it's a real impediment. Those same secrecy provisions in the ADF and a raft of other secrecy provisions that apply to ASIO, the AFP and Border Force—indeed, the 850 secrecy provisions that the INSLM said are a significant problem in the Commonwealth space—are a real impediment to people coming and giving evidence to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. So what does the government do? The government works with the coalition to come up with a very partial and imperfect pretend fix to this. The core part of this bill says that, if the royal commission and the heads of the different security agencies come to an arrangement about what information can be shared, how it can be used and how it can be stored—and information is provided in accordance with the arrangements struck between them—then that information and those whistleblowers, those witnesses, are protected and can't be prosecuted under a certain set of secrecy provisions.

But what that does is give a veto power to the heads of all the security agencies to say what the terms of the arrangement are and how the evidence can be used. If there is no agreement—and it requires agreement between the royal commission and the agency heads—then there's no protection. Why would we be giving ASIO, the AFP, and Home Affairs a veto power over what information can be given to the royal commission, the circumstances in which it can be given and the manner in which that information can be used? That's what this bill does. That's its primary part—the immunity. Of course people across the broader community have a sense of anxiety. If we're having a royal commission into ASIO, you can't have ASIO set the terms in which witnesses can come forward and give evidence about ASIO. That's fairly obvious.

Of course we've asked for this to go to an inquiry. We didn't ask for this to go to a long inquiry. In fact, the inquiry we were picturing was one that would effectively be on the papers. We'd open up for submissions today, we'd consider those submissions on Tuesday and we'd write the report next Tuesday—which would largely be just a reflection of the submissions, you would hope. The fact that the coalition and Labor are opposing even that level of transparency on this and are not letting those engaged stakeholders point out the obvious problems with this bill—like how limited the protections will be and how it again privileges ASIO, the AFP and Home Affairs—shows what a partial and grossly imperfect fix this is.

If you want this royal commission to have public support and you want people to feel like it's getting to the truth—this kind of half baked pretend fix that gives the very agencies that should be under investigation a veto on what evidence can be given to the royal commission and how it can be given erodes that public trust in the royal commission. We think this is fixable. We think the government could agree with some amendments and give broad protections for people going to the royal commission. We think it is possible to amend this bill to fix it, but it looks like the stitch-up is in. The coalition and Labor have agreed that this is all they're going to do, and they want to ensure that ASIO, the AFP and Home Affairs can set the rules for this royal commission. That's why we want it to go to an inquiry.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge, standing in the name of Senator McKim, be agreed to.

Tony Sheldon

I present the second report of 2026 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 2 OF 2026

5 March 2026

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Leah Blyth

Senator the Hon. Matt Canavan (Nationals Whip)

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 2 OF 2026

The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 4 March 2026 at 7.14 pm.

The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 April 2026 (see appendix 1 for statement of reasons for referral),

(b) the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 March 2026 (see appendix 2 for statement of reasons for referral),

(c) the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 May 2026 (see appendices 3 and 4 for statement of reasons for referral), and

(d) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 April 2026 (see appendix 5 for statement of reasons for referral).

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

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair

4 March 2026

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026

(Originated in the House of Representatives on Thursday 12 February 2026)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

MARCH-APRIL 2026

Possible reporting date:

15 APRIL 2026

(signed)

Print name: Wendy Askew

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment {Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026 (Originated in the House of Representatives on Thursday 5 February 2026)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders

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

Possible hearing date(s): MARCH 2026

Possible reporting date:

25 MARCH 2026

(signed)

Print name: Wendy Askew

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 (Originated in the House of Representatives on Thursday 27 November 2025)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

MARCH-MAY 2026

Possible reporting date:

14 MAY 2026

(signed)

Print name: Wendy Askew

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: to examine detail

Possible submissions or evidence from: industry, consumer groups, department

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications

Possible hearing date(s): April, May

Possible reporting date: 14 May 2026

(signed)

Print name: Nick McKim

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 (Originated in the House of Representatives on Thursday 12 February 2026)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders

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

Possible hearing date(s): MARCH-APRIL 2026

Possible reporting date:

16 APRIL 2026

(signed)

Print name: Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Katy Gallagher

I move the following amendment:

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

(a) Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, the bill not be referred to a committee; and

(b) Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026, the bill not be referred to a committee".

I will just speak briefly to that amendment. On the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, this bill updates the statutory appointment provisions for a number of office holders across the Foreign Affairs and Trade and Attorney-General's portfolios. They're very minor amendments to modernise the provisions. They're sensible and minor, and we would argue a referral is not necessary.

On the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026, the government believes that urgent progression of these amendments is necessary to support the royal commission's work and particularly the delivery of its interim report. The royal commission's work is already underway, and it is critical to ensure that the royal commission has full access to all relevant information. The bill supports this by ensuring that the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion can receive all information relevant to its terms of reference, and this will support the royal commission to make well-informed findings and recommendations. The office of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion has been consulted and has expressed strong support for these measures, particularly given that the amendments facilitate the royal commission's ability to receive critical information, documents and evidence from law enforcement and our security agencies. The passage of these amendments will provide certainty that the relevant intelligence information can be provided to the royal commission without the restriction of secrecy offences. I know briefings have been provided and certainly have been made available, considering the short turnaround time on this bill, but this is something that the royal commission itself supports and indeed seeks. Therefore, we do not support it going to a committee.

I should also say that I understand there is a short inquiry underway through the PJCIS to consider this and that other briefings have been made available, and certainly remain available, for other members who may not sit on that committee.

Anne Ruston

I wish to move an amendment to the amendment moved by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, but I also request that the two provisions be voted on separately. In the first instance, at the request of Senator Duniam, I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of:

(a) the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 March 2026; and

(b) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2026".

Sue Lines

Because there are overlapping amendments, the Clerk has suggested that, at this point, we move only part (a), recognising your other amendments.

Anne Ruston

On that basis, I will speak to only part (a). I move:

Paragraph (a), omit "not be referred to a committee", substitute "be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 March 2026".

The coalition is seeking to refer the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to ensure the proposed governance changes are properly scrutinised and fully understood.

While the bill is presented as a measure to modernise accountability frameworks for statutory office holders, several elements of these reforms, particularly the introduction of minister-set performance standards, appear to be novel and warrant closer examination. A committee inquiry would allow the parliament to test whether these changes are appropriate and consistent with governance arrangements that apply to other Commonwealth statutory office holders. A Senate inquiry will provide an opportunity to clarify whether specific operational and management issues prompted these reforms and whether the government intends to extend similar measures to other statutory bodies into the future.

The proposed reforms allow ministers to set written performance standards that may form the basis for termination. This raises important governance questions, particularly as these standards are not legislative instruments and may not be subject to parliamentary oversight. An inquiry would enable stakeholders and affected agencies to provide evidence on how these performance standards would operate in practice, including whether there are adequate safeguards such as consultation, transparency and rights of reply. The bill also introduces new suspension powers and expanded termination grounds, and the committee process would help determine whether appropriate procedural protections exist for statutory office holders subject to these powers.

Finally, a Senate inquiry would allow affected agencies to provide submissions and evidence to ensure the parliament has a full understanding of the policy, rationale and implications of this bill.

David Shoebridge

I wish to move the amendment in Senator McKim's name—it's probably an amendment to the coalition's amendment.

Sue Lines

Senator Shoebridge, could I stop you there. Because there are overlapping amendments, the Clerk's suggestion is we deal with part (a). You have an amendment that's been circulated, which we can come back to. We're dealing with the selection of bills committee report and we are putting it in sections. The first part we're dealing with is the amendment as moved by Senator Ruston, but we're only dealing with part (a).

Sue Lines

The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 371 standing in the name of Senator Bragg be agreed to.