Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the first report of 2025 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. 1 OF 2025

6 February 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Maria Kovacic

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Gerard Rennick

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Senator Tammy Tyrrell

Senator David Van

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 1 OF 2025

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 5 February 2025 at 7.14 pm 2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 March 2025 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(b) the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 April 2025 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2025

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

5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

6 February 2025

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinize this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

February

Possible reporting date:

14 March 2025

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

This is an important bill that deserves proper scrutiny

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Services Australia

Home Affairs

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

7 March 2025

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinize this legislation.

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):

February and March

Possible reporting date:

3 April 2025

(signed)

Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the following amendment to Senator Urquhart's motion:

At the end of the motion, add "and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 and the provisions of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024 not be referred to a committee."

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Duniam?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also would like to move an amendment as circulated in my name.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Separate to—

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, separate.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hodgins-May?

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator McKim, I wish to move the amendment standing in his name that has been circulated in the chamber.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take it that you're moving part (b)?

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Parts (a) and (b).

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator McKim, I don't have your amendment in front of me.

It would be helpful if I had the amendment, but the Clerk has informed me that the amendment that Senator Duniam wishes to move is separate too, so we'll deal with your part (b) because that relates to electoral reform and then we will come back. Senator Hodgins-May, are you speaking to the amendment?

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator McKim, I move part (b) of the amendment standing in his name:

Omit "not be referred to a committee", substitute "be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 June 2025".

We are moving for the government's bills on electoral reform to go to an inquiry. The Greens remain ready to pass the transparency and truth aspects of this legislation, having long campaigned to get the influence of big money out of politics. We want more transparency so the public can see who's paying for what outcome—who's paying to try to seek influence. But we need to make sure that those other funding reforms are not simply a stitch-up for the two big parties, and that is certainly what they look to be.

As we said when the bills were introduced last year, we need a Senate inquiry to hear from experts about the real effect of the funding aspect of the bills, which look to be simply a stitch-up for the two big parties to hamper everyone else whilst they allow unfettered access to their own war chests using nominated entities. We will continue to fight to clean up democracy so that it works for people, not just large political donors. We will always fight to make sure that corporate donors, fossil fuel companies and weapons manufacturers can't buy the policy outcomes that suit them ahead of the interests of the Australian public, and that should seem very simple. We are very keen to continue to try to work on improving our democracy, and then we can actually get the reforms that will kick big money out of politics and protect democracy for the people, not just the two major parties.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that part (b) of the amendment standing in the name of Senator McKim and moved by Senator Hodgins-May, which seeks to amend the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Question agreed to.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I ask that the Australian Greens' opposition to that amendment be noted.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the opposition's amendment:

At the end of the motion, add: "and the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2025".

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move part (a) of the amendment standing in Senator McKim's name that has been circulated in the chamber:

Omit "be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2025", substitute "not be referred to a committee".

The Greens do not support referring the three-day guarantee bill, a bill to remove the childcare subsidy activity test for three days a week, to an inquiry with a report date in March, and, if Labor are serious about their own legislation, they should support our amendment. By pushing off this bill, Labor and the coalition will be betraying families and children right across this country. The Greens will be moving to block this bill from going to inquiry, because we already have the expert evidence. The Productivity Commission has told us that the activity test is punitive and needs to go.

While this bill doesn't completely abolish the activity test, it is a first step that stakeholders and families have been hanging out for after Labor said just this week that they wanted to pass it in this term of parliament and in the next fortnight. We said straightaway: 'We are ready to go. We are ready to work with you. We are ready to get those disadvantaged kids into early education.' We want to see these reforms through the parliament before the end of the February sitting period. We urge Labor: honour your commitment to removing the childcare activity test and to universal child care.

The childcare subsidy test is a Morrison-era relic that unfairly punishes families from the most disadvantaged backgrounds in this country. It locks 126,000 kids out of early education and keeps about 40,000 parents out of work, and we know that those are predominantly women. Parents, families and dozens of organisations, including the Business Council of Australia, have called for the childcare activity test to be abolished. The Productivity Commission and the ACCC both recommended that the test be removed because of its disproportionate impact on First Nations children and kids experiencing disadvantage. Do it today. Come on. Abolishing the childcare subsidy test is a crucial step towards universal education, which the Labor Party tell us that they are committed to. Well, here's a test for you.

While this bill removes it for only three days per week, it is a welcome first step, and the Greens have said that from the outset. The Greens are ready to work with Labor. We're not only ready; we are urging you to work with us to get through in this term of parliament. Get it done this February. We want to see relief for parents and families right across this country delivered before the election. We want to see First Nations children guaranteed access to early childhood education, and it's not just us. The Labor government knows this, and that's why I truly hope that they will support our amendment.

But today implementation of this bill may be delayed by the bill being referred to inquiry if Labor votes against our motion. When we have had two government commissioned reports calling for this test to be removed, and years and years of evidence from parents, children and childcare providers about how punitive the childcare subsidy activity test is, why do we need another inquiry process? This is a completely unnecessary delay, and I appeal to you—the Australian Greens appeal to you—on behalf of families right across this country who are locked out of those crucial early years of education: support our amendment. Let's get this done. Let's get it done this fortnight. Come on, Labor.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the Greens amendment. The amendment moved by Senator Duniam is for a short inquiry, to come back before the budget, on 21 March. As senators will know, the three-day guarantee is Labor policy. It's a decision of the Labor government that we have funded the three-day guarantee, and we have funded it to start from January 2026. We believe that every child has the right to subsidised access to early education and care, regardless of whether their parent is in work, in training or looking for work.

We accept and have led the way on dealing with the activity test. No government has dealt with it. We've come in, we've made investments in early education and care, and we've given early educators a wage increase, which they deserve. The next step is to deal with the activity test, or what we are referring to as the three-day guarantee. That will come into place in January 2026, so we see no reason to stop the coalition having a look at this bill. I think they've already opposed the three-day guarantee—but, anyway, have a look at it and defend any opposition to the three-day guarantee through an inquiry process.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It is not okay to sit in silence because you agree with the speech and then heckle when you don't. I called for order several times. I am putting the question on the amendment. The question is that part (a) of Senator McKim's amendment, as moved by Senator Hodgins-May, to the amendment moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Senator Thorpe, you are out of order.