What the Senate debated on 5 February 2026: price gouging, defence oversight, and gambling ad reform

The short answer

the Senate debated on 5 February 2026: price gouging, defence oversight, and gambling ad reform

On 5 February 2026, the Senate convened for the first sitting day of the year and dealt with a packed agenda spanning national security, consumer protection, and committee business. The chamber divided on three major pieces of legislation: the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024 was defeated at second reading; the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 passed its third reading; and the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 passed its second reading after extensive debate. The day also saw the tabling of the PJCIS report on the ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, the introduction of five new government bills, and a contentious vote on whether to refer the gambling advertising ban bill to a committee inquiry.

This is a method for assessing public claims, not a verdict on a party or a direction on how to vote. Conclusions should change when the underlying law, data or implementation evidence changes.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

Price gouging bill defeated at second reading

The first substantive item of business was the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024, a private senator's bill introduced by Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens, Tasmania). The bill proposed to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to prohibit excessive pricing in essential goods markets.

Senator McKim moved the second reading at 09:01, arguing that 'billion-dollar corporations have the deck stacked against' ordinary Australians. The bill was part of a sustained Greens campaign on cost-of-living issues, targeting the pricing practices of major supermarkets, energy companies, and banks.

Senator Fatima Payman (Australia's Voice, Western Australia) spoke in support, while Senator Malcolm Roberts (One Nation, Queensland) criticised the bill's drafting. Roberts stated that Coles and Woolworths have 'far too much market power' but questioned whether price gouging legislation was the right remedy, preferring structural solutions to market concentration.

Senator Peter Whish-Wilson (Greens, Tasmania) challenged One Nation's position directly, saying, 'This is a chance for you to stand up for those Australians who are suffering right now in a cost-of-living crisis.' Senator Tyron Whitten (Labor, Western Australia) described the bill as 'socialist dog whistles,' while Senator Matthew Canavan (Nationals, Queensland) expressed scepticism about the bill's likely effectiveness.

The Senate divided at 09:58 and the question was negatived — the bill was defeated at the second reading stage and will not proceed. The vote demonstrated the difficulty of passing private senators' bills without government or opposition support, even on issues with significant public salience.

Evidence review

Administrative Review Tribunal bill clears final stage

The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, a government bill, was considered in committee and then read a third time. The bill formed part of the government's broader reform of the administrative review system, following the abolition of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

During the committee stage, Senator David Pocock (Independent, ACT) moved amendments on behalf of Senator Jacqui Lambie to limit streamlined review processes. The amendments reflected concern from legal and community groups that streamlined processes could reduce procedural fairness for applicants seeking review of government decisions.

The opposition, represented by Senator James Paterson (Victoria), and the government, represented by Senator Nita Green (Queensland, Assistant Minister), both indicated they would not support the amendments. The committee divided at 10:07 and the amendments were negatived.

The bill then proceeded to third reading at 10:12, moved by Senator Green. The question was agreed to on division at 10:16, and the bill passed the Senate. It returned to the House of Representatives for consideration of any Senate amendments before it could receive royal assent.

Evidence review

Defence oversight committee legislated after robust debate

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 occupied the largest portion of the day's proceedings. The government bill proposes to establish a new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence (PJCD), modelled on the existing Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS).

Senator Michaelia Cash (Liberal, Western Australia, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) opened the debate at 10:19, declaring that 'in 2026, Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War' and supporting the bill on behalf of the opposition. Senator Ellie Whiteaker (Labor, Western Australia) spoke in favour of the bill as strengthening parliamentary scrutiny of defence matters.

Senator David Shoebridge (Greens, New South Wales) opposed the bill, labelling the proposed committee a 'secret boys club' and arguing it would exclude crossbench senators from meaningful oversight. This critique reflected broader concerns about the two-party duopoly over national security oversight in the Australian parliament.

Multiple senators — including Jessica Collins (Liberal), Deborah O'Neill (Labor), Dave Sharma (Liberal), Helen Polley (Labor), and David Pocock (Independent) — contributed to the second reading debate. The second reading was agreed to on division at 12:55.

During the committee stage, amendments were moved by Senator Shoebridge (to expand membership to include crossbench senators) and Senator Roberts (to guarantee One Nation representation). The government, represented by Minister Jenny McAllister, opposed both amendments, and both were negatived on division. The debate highlighted deep disagreement over whether the new committee would genuinely broaden scrutiny or simply entrench two-party control over defence oversight.

Evidence review

Selection of Bills Committee: gambling ad inquiry blocked

The Selection of Bills Committee's first report of 2026, presented by Senator Tony Sheldon (Labor, Chief Government Whip), became the vehicle for a significant procedural fight about gambling advertising reform.

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens, South Australia) moved an amendment to refer the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024 to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 June 2026. The bill, if passed, would implement a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising, implementing a recommendation of the late Peta Murphy's parliamentary inquiry into online gambling.

Senator David Pocock supported the amendment, characterising the government's inaction on gambling advertising as a 'betrayal' of Australians. Senator Matthew Canavan (Nationals) indicated his party would support the Greens' push for an inquiry, creating an unusual alignment between the Greens and Nationals on the issue.

The government and opposition voted against the inquiry referral. Senator Hanson-Young later noted that Labor and the Coalition had voted against a gambling inquiry 'for the second time in less than an hour,' referring to a deferred vote from earlier in the week. Senator Bridget McKenzie (Nationals) also moved amendments to refer provisions of the Telecommunications Amendment Bill to committee.

The gambling advertising issue has been a significant point of political contention, with crossbench senators and public health advocates accusing both major parties of delaying action in deference to the gambling industry and commercial media interests.

Evidence review

New bills introduced and committee reports tabled

Five new bills were introduced and read a first time, covering a diverse range of policy areas. The Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025 would establish a regulatory framework for digital assets and cryptocurrency. The Copyright Amendment Bill 2026 addressed copyright law. The Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 and its companion Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 related to alcohol taxation.

The Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025 dealt with pharmaceutical prescribing arrangements, and the Translating and Interpreting Services Bill 2025 addressed language service provision. All were read a first time and had second readings moved.

The Senate also tabled the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. The PJCIS report was a significant document that would inform the Senate's subsequent consideration of ASIO's compulsory questioning powers.

Reports were also tabled from the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee, the Human Rights Joint Committee, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, and the Privileges Committee. The volume of committee reports tabled on a single sitting day reflects the extensive committee system that operates alongside the chambers.

Evidence review

Questions Without Notice and statements by senators

During Question Time, senators questioned ministers on a broad range of topics spanning fiscal policy, cost of living, defence properties, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, trade, climate change, renewable energy, the Capacity Investment Scheme, schools, and aged care.

Senator Katy Gallagher (Finance Minister) provided an additional answer on the Capacity Investment Scheme, which is the government's mechanism for underwriting renewable energy generation and storage projects. The capacity investment scheme has been a significant element of the government's energy policy.

In the statements by senators period, Senator Leah Blyth (Liberal, South Australia) spoke on energy prices, Senator Charlotte Walker (Greens, South Australia) raised the Make-A-Wish Foundation and Cricket Australia, and Senator Penny Allman-Payne (Greens, Queensland) addressed cost-of-living pressures facing families returning to school.

Other topics raised during senators' statements included the Albanese Government's record, the Two-Way Taxi Trucks South East Rally, domestic and family violence, and illicit tobacco crime. The senators' statements period, which typically runs for 30 minutes at the start of each sitting day, allows senators to raise issues of concern without needing to fit within a debate structure.

Evidence review

Budget and adjournment matters

Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements for the 2025-26 financial year were tabled, providing updated expenditure projections across government portfolios. Additional estimates are a mid-year budget update process in which parliamentary committees examine proposed changes to department and agency funding.

In the adjournment debate — the final item of business before the Senate rises — senators raised matters including a Growing Regions Program grant in New South Wales, the Liberal-National Coalition's record, domestic and family violence in the Northern Territory, superannuation policy, and early childhood education and care.

The adjournment debate is a distinctive feature of parliamentary procedure: senators may speak on any topic for a limited time, and ministers are not required to respond. It serves as a forum for raising local and constituency issues that may not find a place in the structured legislative agenda.

The breadth of topics raised in the adjournment — from infrastructure grants to superannuation to domestic violence — illustrates the diversity of issues that senators bring to the chamber from their states and territories.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer