Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) | Hansard source

I rise to support the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026, and I accept at the outset that the words 'regulatory reform omnibus bill' are unlikely to start a stampede in the public gallery. They do not sound like the beginning of a great national moment. They sound like something you might be prescribed if sleep has become a problem. But for anyone who has run a business, worked in a trade, dealt with a government form, waited on a refund or had to tell the same thing to three different parts of the same system, this bill is real and matters more than I think anyone will fully understand. This is about making the machinery of government a bit less painful, and that is not a bad ambition.

I come to this debate as someone who has spent most of my time, most of my working life, dealing with systems from the outside. I've said three times this week, I think, that I was an electrician before I became a lawyer. I've pulled cable through commercial buildings, underground car parks and mine sites, and I have worked with people who did not have the time for forms that asked the same question three times in slightly different ways, specifically take 5s. I've also worked as an industrial lawyer, where I saw how the rules protect people when they are clear, enforceable and properly targeted, and how they can become a burden when they are outdated, duplicated or badly designed.

Good regulation is not about having more rules for the sake of it; it is about having rules that do the job. A good switchboard does not need every circuit doubled up just because someone was nervous in 1993. It needs to be safe, clear, labelled properly and capable of doing what it was designed to do. The same principle applies here. Good regulation protects people. It supports fair competition. It gives workers, consumers and businesses confidence.

Bad regulation does something else. It protects no-one, helps no-one and survives mainly because everyone assumes someone else understands why it is there. That is how you end up with rules that require people to repeat information, wait out appeal periods that no-one is using or comply with reporting cycles that do not align with the real world. At that point, the process has stopped serving the public and has started serving itself, which is usually the first sign that parliament should get involved with a mop and a screwdriver.

This bill is part of the government's broader work to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, improve productivity and make Commonwealth administration work better for Australians and Australian businesses. There is a habit in this place of talking about productivity as though it is created by saying 'productivity' loudly enough, but productivity is not created by slogans. It is created by practical changes, faster decisions, clearer rules, fewer duplicated processes and less time spent asking people to provide information the government already holds. Every unnecessary form, every avoidable delay, every duplicative reporting obligation is not just a nuisance; it is time and money that could have been spent serving customers, paying workers, investing in equipment or simply getting home on time.

That is why this bill is worth supporting. It does not pretend that regulatory reform is exciting. It just accepts that the boring bits of government still have to work. This amends a range of Commonwealth acts. Some of those amendments are technical, some are administrative and some will only affect a small number of people, but that is often how good government works. It is not always a press conference. Sometimes it is fixing the clause that has been annoying everyone for 15 years.

The first set of reforms deals with intellectual property. For small businesses, intellectual property can be the difference between having a defensible product and watching someone else trade off their work. It gives the registrar of trademarks greater flexibility to award costs in contested trademark proceedings. At the moment, the registrar is generally limited to scheduled amounts, and that can be fine in ordinary processes, but it is not fine when a party behaves unreasonably, drags out the process or uses volume and delay as a commercial tactic. Anyone who has been near litigation knows the strategy. You bury the other side in paper, increase the cost and hope they give up before the merits of the case are properly tested. That is not justice; that is just attrition with a letterhead. These amendments will allow costs to be awarded in a way that better responds to poor conduct in the proceedings. That is a sensible safeguard for businesses that rely on the trademark system.

The bill also closes a loophole for patent and trademark lawyers. If a lawyer is subject to disciplinary action, they should not be able to avoid scrutiny by simply deregistering. A professional standards regime that can be escaped by walking out the door is not much of a regime at all. These amendments allow complaints and disciplinary processes to continue in relation to conduct that happened while the person was registered. They also allow different re-registration requirements where appropriate. That is a basic integrity measure.

The bill also makes sensible changes for plant breeders' rights. I will concede plant breeders' rights are not the subject most people in Moore raise with me while I'm at the shops. No-one has stopped me near the apples at Coles to demand urgent reform on the PBR renewal arrangements. But, for people who use the system, it is important. Under the current framework, a missed renewal payment can have serious consequences. This bill introduces a grace period and simplifies the process. That is fair. Missing an administrative deadline should not automatically wipe out years of work where the problem can be fixed in a reasonable way.

The bill also modernises references to international trademark arrangements, including the Madrid protocol and the Nice Classification system, so that Australian law remains aligned with systems used internationally. Again, that is not glamourous but it is necessary. Businesses operating across borders should not be forced through avoidable legislative lag because our references have not kept up with the international framework.

The bill also streamlines the duty assessment process for importers. At the moment, where an importer receives a negative preliminary decision from an antidumping commissioner in relation to a partial refund, there can be a mandatory 30-day appeal period even where the importer has made clear they do not intend to appeal. In practical terms, everyone knows the importer is not appealing, but the system still stands around for a month looking at its watch. This bill allows the process to move on when the importer confirms they will not seek a review. That means faster finalisation and faster refunds where the importer is entitled to a payment. For a business managing cash flow, 30 days can be significant. It can be the difference between paying suppliers comfortably and making the awkward phone call no business owner wants to make. This is the kind of reform that should not be controversial. If the appeal is not happening, stop pretending we need to wait for it.

The bill also makes changes to business reporting. It aligns reporting under the New Eligible Drama Expenditure scheme, with calendar-year reporting used in other Australian content arrangements. That might sound small, but everyone who has had to report under overlapping schemes knows the irritation of different reporting periods that serve no obvious purpose. If one part of the system asks for the calendar year and another part asks for the financial year, the result is not better regulation; it is just more spreadsheets. I am not opposed to spreadsheets, but, like most things in life, they should exist for a reason.

The bill also improves workplace gender equality reporting. It introduces a 12-month window between target cycles, so employers have time to assess the results of one cycle before setting the next. That is sensible. Gender equality targets should not be rushed out as a box-ticking exercise. Employers should be looking at their data, understanding what worked and what did not, and then setting targets that mean something. A target with proper analysis is more useful than a target set because the form is due on Friday.

The bill also harmonises reporting periods for public sector and private sector employers. It will allow for more comparable data across sectors. Better data should lead to better decisions, and that is the point.

The next part of the bill continues the government's move towards a 'tell us once' approach. That phrase should be understood in plain English. If you've already told the Commonwealth something and the Commonwealth is able to lawfully and securely use that information, you should not have to keep telling it again. People in my electorate office in Joondalup do not come in because they are excited about an administrative process; they come in because something has gone wrong, something is delayed or they cannot get a clear answer. Often, the problem is not that the government has no information; the problem is that the information is sitting in the wrong part of the system behind the wrong door, requiring the person to prove the same thing again. This bill takes further steps to reduce that duplication. It allows certain goods covered by a tariff concession order to be exempt from dumping and countervailing duties in particular circumstances without needing a further administrative decision. Again, the principle is simple: where the substantive basis has already been established, do not build a little administrative roundabout just so everyone has to drive around it.

The bill also improves the operation of the Healthcare Identifiers Act. It allows date of death information to be disclosed in appropriate circumstances to healthcare providers and health administration entities. That allows patient records to be closed properly, and it avoids unnecessary work and cost. This is one of those areas where the law needs to catch up with ordinary reality. If a healthcare provider is trying to maintain accurate records, the system should not force them into a scavenger hunt.

The bill also changes nominee cancellation processes in social security, family assistance and paid parental leave law. At present, a nominee who wants to cancel an arrangement may need to notify Services Australia in writing. That requirement might look tidy on paper, but it can create delay and difficulty in real life. In some situations, including family and domestic violence, a nominee arrangement may no longer be appropriate or safe. The system needs to be able to respond quickly. If a person has clearly communicated that they want an arrangement cancelled, the Commonwealth should not respond by saying, 'Thank you; now please provide that in writing.' That is not accountability; that is bureaucracy doing an encore.

The proof-of-life reforms are also welcome. These requirements apply to certain older pension recipients who have been outside Australia for a continuous period. The purpose is understandable. The Commonwealth must ensure payments are made only where a person remains entitled to them. But the process should not be more burdensome than is necessary. The bill allows Services Australia to rely on information it already holds in certain circumstances and provides more flexibility on how proof-of-life certificates are completed. There is a serious policy objective here, but there is also a very human one. Elderly Australians should not be forced through unnecessary procedural steps if the government already has a reliable basis to verify the information.

The bill also removes redundant legislation. That includes repealing acts that no longer serve a practical function because the schemes or bodies they dealt with have been either merged, sold, deregistered or otherwise overtaken by events. There is no public benefit in keeping dead law on the statute book as a kind of legislative museum exhibit. Parliament should be prepared not only to pass laws but to clean them up.

This bill also improves the Australian Human Rights Commission's complaints process by removing an adverse-allegation notification requirement that has not worked as intended.

Procedural fairness is important. I say that as a lawyer and as someone who has represented working people in workplace disputes. But procedural fairness must be directed to the people who are actually affected by the process and who have a proper role in it. The current notification requirement can cause confusion and stress for people who are not respondents, are not subject to legal consequences and cannot formally respond in the complaint process. Removing that requirement is not weakening fairness; it is recognising that unnecessary notices can create more confusion than protection.

The bill also assists former ADF members by expanding access to an account-based pension product through the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation. Former defence personnel should have appropriate choice in managing their retirement income. This amendment gives eligible former ADF members another option without forcing them into it. That is a practical and respectful reform.

Finally, the bill makes several technical amendments to customs and antidumping law. It clarifies the definition of a 'subsidy' to better align with international obligations. It creates a slip rule so that obvious clerical and typographical errors can be corrected without requiring unnecessarily lengthy processes. It also clarifies that weighted average calculations can apply where there is only one transaction in the relevant period.

I appreciate that this may not set hearts racing across the nation. But, for people dealing with custom processes, antidumping reviews and project based transactions, clarity in law is not academic. It affects decisions, costs and certainty. There is something to be said for a parliament that wants to fix the boring bits. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context