Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025 passed the Senate six months ago. I mention this because the passage of that bill was an important step in the Albanese Labor government's regulatory reform agenda. It contained 60 measures that improved efficiencies in 13 different government agencies, and these measures were designed to decrease the day-to-day regulatory burden on Australians, on industry and on service providers, and to increase government efficiency. And here we are again today for a very similar reason—to debate the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026.

Like its predecessor, this is a comprehensive bill. It contains 21 measures, amends 26 different acts, repeals two acts and will enhance the operation of 19 different government agencies. It's focused on increasing regulatory certainty and decreasing the cost of compliance for Australian businesses. The need for this was affirmed by the 2025 Economic Reform Roundtable and the Productivity Commission, and it's part of Labor's strategy to boost a more agile, robust and efficient economy. Regulatory reform like this might not be the No. 1 thing on everyone's discussion list, but it is important because it helps Australians access the essential services that they rely on more quickly and more easily.

It's useful to look at this bill in the context of the current economic debate, the current economic climate and the current economic landscape, which has been affected by the global oil shock and events beyond our shores and beyond our control. Last month the Treasurer laid down the 2026-27 federal budget. He set out the government's approach to tackling the challenges facing us by promoting responsible savings, improving intergenerational fairness and building a stronger, more productive and more resilient economy. The keyword here is 'productive'. Increased productivity is how we will boost wages and incomes, leading to improving living standards. It's how we'll grow our economy sustainably and put downward pressure on prices, by improving efficiency and by lowering costs for everyday Australians. And it's how we will strengthen our economic resilience, helping businesses and workers better adapt to global shocks and changes.

A key mechanism for achieving these aims is better regulation. The rules which people follow need to promote a fair and streamlined system. This is where this bill comes in. Let's take a look at some of the specific measures in this bill. First, the bill will update Australia's trademark and intellectual property laws to make them fit for purpose. It will implement an enhanced system for registration and management, making it less onerous for small businesses to protect their brands. In a trademark dispute, the register of trademarks is currently limited to a fixed schedule of costs to be awarded, regardless of the amount spent in legal fees. The amendments in this bill will give the registrar flexibility to determine costs, which will provide business with confidence in the system and deter poor behaviour. To maintain public confidence in the IP attorney profession, the bill will ensure that investigations and discipline of patent and trademark attorneys can progress, even if an attorney deregisters. If an IP attorney is found guilty of misconduct, it will be harder for them to reregister.

The bill also grants plant breeders a six-month grace period to renew their rights if they are behind in their annual renewal fee. Plant breeders currently lose their rights automatically if that payment is late. The amendment means that these valuable rights are not automatically lost due to a timing error due to an administrative error.

A second focus of this bill is workplace gender equality reporting. This reporting is important because it promotes transparency and accountability. We know that when women participate in our society—in our workforces—the economy does better, and it is a driver of better economic outcomes. By requiring employers to collect and publish data on pay, workforce composition and policies, it encourages organisations to identify and address gender gaps such as pay inequality and underrepresentation in leadership.

Having women in leadership roles isn't just about equality. We know that businesses that have diversity in their leadership go better. They have better outcomes and therefore become better drivers of our nation's economy. This is a practical tool for improving both workplace culture and economic outcomes. We know that advancing gender equality boosts workforce participation, improves productivity and contributes to stronger long-term economic growth.

However, this reporting can also be complex for businesses, many of whom are struggling with time. There is currently added regulatory pressure at the end of a target cycle. Businesses must complete and submit their data for the current cycle but also set new targets for the next one at the same time, increasing the overall administrative workload. This bill simplifies this process by adding a 12-month period at the end of a target cycle. This will give employers time and space to develop well-considered meaningful targets. It allows more time for a detailed review of the previous cycle, which will lead to better informed planning. Ultimately this will drive more lasting progress toward gender equality in our workplaces across this nation.

The Regulatory Reform Omnibus Act 2025 focused on promoting a 'tell us once' framework for dealing with government services. This bill backs in that concept and extends it. For example, it removes the requirement to cancel nominee arrangements with Services Australia in writing. Nominees are authorised individuals who support people receiving social security, family assistance or paid parental leave by helping them manage their dealings with Services Australia. The changes in this bill mean that nominees who wish to cancel their nominee appointment do not need to follow up a phone call with written notification. Instead, they can simply 'tell us once'. It also improves the experience of certain Commonwealth pension recipients aged 80 and over who have lived outside Australia for two or more consecutive years. The amendments mean that Services Australia will, in some instances, be able to use information it has already obtained from other sources instead. This will reduce the administrative demands on older Australians as well as on Australian consular staff, who are often involved in helping complete those certificates. These are just a few examples of the amendments contained in this bill, amendments that reduce compliance time and costs and improve Australians' experience of dealing with government services. Australians come to governments when they need help. Australians come to governments when things might not be going well. That experience should be a good one, should be an effective one, should be an efficient one. That's what this bill does.

The work doesn't stop here, however. As part of Labor's commitment to continuous improvement, the government will continue to bring forward omnibus reform bills regularly. Our work is not done in this space. We know that, where administrative burden can be removed, we know that, where costs can be made more affordable, and we know that, where pathways can be streamlined, that work must be done. As I said at the outset, it might not be the most interesting topic for many people, but it's important because it impacts on people's lives every single day.

The government is also instigating targeted reviews of sectors where there are overlapping or duplicate regulatory burdens on businesses. There are six reviews currently underway. The first is the Council of Financial Regulators investigation into financial sector regulation, which is expected to result in $961 million in regulatory burden reduction. Another example is the 'white tape' review being driven by the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. This review will identify processes that have excessive administrative and compliance burdens. It will also look into burdens imposed by larger organisations onto smaller businesses, such as contractual terms and proprietary platforms. Thirdly, the Treasury is conducting a project to modernise the National Construction Code with the aim of decreasing the number of state-by-state variations and testing AI tools. The next review concerns the Board of Taxation's Red Tape Reduction Review, which will provide a report to the Treasury by 30 June this year on ways to reduce red tape in our taxation system. In the meantime, the Council on Federal Financial Relations is reviewing approval pathways for data centres and seeking to reduce barriers to setting up new data centres. Finally, the Better Regulation Working Group is examining regulatory requirements and red tape within the higher education sector and will develop practical actions to reduce regulatory burden.

What we have seen is technology change and systems move. We have more tools at our disposal now than ever. That means making sure that, where we have the opportunity to remove barriers, to take down roadblocks, to take down administrative burdens that are in place, we do take them down. And that's what this work is. It is part of a systematic working through of so many bills, so many departments, across this very big and broad Australian government, and we're taking the barriers down. We're taking them down so that people can use government as they intend. We know that people are busy. They have busy lives. They have kids to look after. They have parents to care for. They have jobs to go to. Finding even the smallest ways to make their lives easier is important. It's not just important; it's worthwhile.

Bills such as the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 may not make the headlines tonight, but they're vital for our economy. Regulatory reform enables productivity growth. It boosts labour and it boosts capital availability for ongoing growth. Regulatory reform also directly improves people's lives in small ways that add up to big ways, with streamlined experiences meaning that people are spending less time dealing with those government services. This bill will ensure safeguards are maintained for the community, while delivering sensible and practical amendments that will positively impact individuals, that will positively impact businesses and that will positively impact government agencies and their staff. The Albanese Labor government is looking at the big picture of regulatory reform, from small daily improvements which make things simpler for everyone and everyday Australians through to the unlocking of productivity and economic growth.

This bill advances four key priorities designed to modernise and improve that regulatory environment. It aims to reduce complexity by simplifying requirements for business, making it easier for them to understand and comply with their obligations. At the same time, it seeks to improve the efficiency of government operations by streamlining regulatory and administrative processes. Ultimately, workhorses such as this bill have an important role to play in the journey of so many Australians.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just a few remarks on this bill. I rise to speak on the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. Specifically, I want to focus on part 3 of schedule 2 of the bill. Part 3 of schedule 2 would repeal provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act that require government departments to report advertising related expenditure in their annual reports. Now, the rationale for this is that these provisions overlap with other requirements under the PGPA rule and are duplicative. While I'm in favour of streamlining and consolidation, I'm not convinced that what's being removed here is truly redundant.

My concerns about this change are twofold. Firstly, the electoral act requires departments to provide detailed disclosure of amounts paid to advertising agencies, market research firms, polling organisations, direct-mail providers and media outlets. By contrast, the PGPA rule requires only a high-level statement confirming whether any advertising campaigns were conducted. If the answer is yes, there's a reference to whole-of-government reporting published by the Department of Finance. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with that whole-of-government report. It's valuable, it's comprehensive—but it's not the same. Anyone reading a department's annual report will no longer get insight into what's been spent on advertising, on polling and on research. They'll have to go to a second source. They'll also have to wait a couple of months because the Finance report typically isn't published until December. That delay matters. Transparency delayed is transparency diminished.

It's also not clear that this change would deliver a meaningful reduction in administrative burden, because departments will still need to collect, verify and transmit data to Finance. I acknowledge there would be some saving in not having to report under two different frameworks, multiplied by every single department. But, truly, I'm not convinced it outweighs the reduction in transparency.

My second concern is that the disclosure requirements would no longer be in primary legislation and would rely entirely on the PGPA rule, reducing the level of parliamentary oversight if they are modified or in fact removed in the future.

While there is much to welcome in this omnibus bill—there are many things in bills such as this, by their very nature—my concerns remain because they're significant. My concern about the change to disclosure requirements would make it difficult, ultimately, for me to support the bill in its current form. So I'm very pleased to note that the government has listened to my concerns and had a look at the amendments I proposed, and will now move its own amendment to remove part 3 of schedule 2. I thank the government for their constructive engagement with me when I raised this and proposed a remedy to it. I particularly want to thank Minister Farrell, Minister Gallagher and their offices. I look forward to supporting the government's amendment when I see it and, provided that's there, I will ultimately be supporting this bill.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. Regulatory reform has a broad meaning. It includes changes that improve regulatory quality by enhancing the performance, cost-effectiveness or legal quality of regulations and regulated government formalities. It might involve revision of a single regulation, the scrapping and rebuilding of an entire regulatory regime and its institutions, or the improvement of processes for making regulations and managing reform.

This bill delivers regulatory reform with four themes that have efficiency and effectiveness at their heart. Firstly, schedule 1 of the bill contains amendments to support a 'tell us once' approach to government service delivery. Schedule 2 sets out amendments to improve or maintain access to government services. Schedule 3 is directed at amendments to reduce regulatory burdens, and schedule 4 is directed at amendments to increase government efficiency and improve productivity.

Effective regulation is a powerful tool for addressing challenges that are big or small. We know that this is crucial, now more than ever, for tackling things like climate change, online gambling and social media, and for unlocking the benefits of the artificial intelligence technological transition whilst managing the risks. From a reform perspective, the AI challenge in particular is difficult, because government needs to support and encourage innovation and embrace new technologies without paralysing business at the same time as it ensures appropriate oversight and regulation.

Having good processes for developing, implementing and reviewing regulation is vital to ensuring regulatory policies achieve policy goals that maximise benefits for the Australian people and minimise costs for all. Poorly designed digital regulations can both stifle regulation and fail to protect consumers. An action on environmental reforms, for example, can be compromised by overly complex regulations or regulations that are not aligned with the contemporary policy goal that is desired.

So policies have to work to their fullest capabilities and be implemented following consultation and due process—ideally, working backwards from the desired outcome. What do we need to do? How can we best achieve it? How can we ensure regulation is fit for purpose by striking the balance between protecting the Australian people and letting business get on with it in a fair environment that rewards innovation and risk taking? This is an important balance because it results in good regulation when it is struck, and good regulation helps economies succeed by setting a framework where there is alignment between business practices and societal values and goals. Good regulation also helps businesses and individuals embark on short-, medium- and long-term operational planning.

Because regulation is, first and foremost, a tool of government, it can only be most successful where there is trust in public institutions. Businesses and citizens will not be inclined to follow the rules if they don't have trust in public institutions. This is always an ongoing challenge, given fiscal pressures and the current political climate that demands urgent yet perfect action—that works perfectly for everyone all the time. This is not realistic, but it underscores the need to have clear and transparent processes, pursuant to which policy is made, which are followed consistently. A decision, regulation, policy or piece of reform may not please everyone all of the time, but, if that decision, regulation, policy or reform can be justified on the basis of solid, transparent and broad-reaching policy processes, then trust can remain even if the reaction to the outcome is mixed. An approach to regulation that is results oriented with a clear outcome is what is needed to maintain trust in government and in public institutions.

Governments came unstuck during the COVID-19 pandemic because they could not clearly communicate the outcome that the plethora of regulations and rules that faced the Australian people were designed to achieve. The policy and decision-making process was not sufficiently transparent, meaning trust was lost and the regulations that were being implemented came across as heavy handed or as regulation for the sake of it. Regulation and reform 'for the sake of it' is damaging and pointless. Regulation and reform must be anchored in a clearly defined policy outcome. Well-designed, transparent and effectively enforced rules resulting from transparent policy development illustrate the benefits of government, ultimately enhancing stability and prosperity.

The federal government's 2025 Economic Reform Roundtable is one example of policy development. It had three themes: making the Australian economy more productive; building resilience in the face of global uncertainty; and strengthening the budget and making it more sustainable

Another example of broad stakeholder consultation in policy development is that, on 4 July 2025, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance asked Commonwealth regulators to suggest simple and useful ways to improve productivity, with a focus on how businesses could better invest, grow and use new products and services, and a focus on cutting rules that were not needed.

Around 400 responses were received, with six areas of consistent feedback emerging, including regulatory simplification, making approvals and processes faster and easier to follow; the improvement of rules, guidance and forms; the enabling of digital and data capability, meaning the application of AI and other digital solutions to work more efficiently and support innovation and growth; better engagement by working closely with stakeholders through co-design, better consultation and stronger feedback loops; improved transparency and performance, involving the sharing of work plans and the use of tools to measure and report on performance; and promoting greater collaboration through aligning registers and standards and reducing barriers to sharing data between agencies. Finally, recommendations included targeted reforms directed at making changes in specific sectors that support innovation and efficiency whilst maintaining public trust.

One of the responses that was received was from the Regulator Leadership Cohort, which is made up of the heads of 22 Commonwealth regulators. The cohort identified that information sharing to enable a 'tell us once' model of connected service delivery and regulation was necessary. It identified that many businesses and individuals were still being required to supply the same information to multiple regulators and that reusing information already held by government would plainly result in lower compliance costs and faster, more consistent regulatory decisions. Then, in January 2026, the Australian Industry Group said:

Mounting regulatory burdens are adding to cost pressures at a time when business can least afford it. No amount of tech investment can compensate for poorly designed regulation …

The message from industry leaders is clear. Regulatory reform is essential if we are to deliver the higher investment levels needed to drive a return to productivity and robust growth.

Schedule 1 of this bill, therefore, is directed at the 'tell us once' approach. In doing so, it is also directed at reducing compliance costs. Australia's privacy laws and other legislative frameworks already contain important information-sharing restrictions which are vital to protecting the privacy of Australians. But settings that are too restrictive can affect the efficiency and quality of the services Australians receive when they are in need. Current legislation is too restrictive and includes unnecessarily narrow information-sharing provisions that prevent or complicate government agencies sharing information to provide services across different programs. Repeatedly having to provide the same information, tell the same story or go over the same factual history is not only annoying; it can be stressful and cause delay to the access of essential government services. Services Australia, which runs many programs that Australians rely on, is an agency that is particularly encumbered by the restrictive information-sharing settings.

Under the amendments in schedule 1 of this bill, Services Australia will have a wider set of circumstances where it's able to share information within the agency for the purposes of administering certain programs like Centrelink, Medicare and child support. This information might include name, address, bank account details, relationship status, partner details, childcare details, children's details or information about a person's circumstances or vulnerabilities. In short, schedule 1 of the bill simplifies the arrangements for sharing information between Centrelink, Medicare and child support programs so that Services Australia can provide an improved customer experience and Australians can get the support that they need.

Schedule 4 is directed at improving government efficiency and improving productivity. When individuals and businesses have to spend disproportionate amounts of time navigating regulation, it's a downward drag on productivity. The same issues are faced by Commonwealth agencies; when time is spent on layered or overly bureaucratic tasks that do not achieve proportionate outcomes, time and costs are wasted. By amending certain regulatory provisions, schedule 4 seeks to free up time and resources away from compliance and bureaucracy and redirect them into more productive measures.

An important example in this bill are the amendments to the Commonwealth's regulation of critical fuels to enable more targeted responses to shortages. This is timely and contemporary regulation, because it goes without saying that Australia's economy and economic growth depend on a consistent and reliable supply of critical fuels. Legislation currently provides several mechanisms to support the Commonwealth to ensure this reliable supply, including through the minimum stockholding obligation, which was recently raised to 50 days. Schedule 4 does two important things in this respect. Firstly, it amends the minimum stockholding obligation for fuel importers and refiners to provide the relevant minister with additional tools to manage critical fuel shortages and to ensure Australia is not hampered by temporary fuel shortages. Secondly, it facilitates information gathering to enable the Commonwealth to monitor and regulate fuel security, with the result that fuel related products critical to Australia's trucking industry—diesel exhaust fluid and technical-grade urea—will be brought within mandatory reporting requirements, and information about Australia's fuel markets and stocks will be able to be collected by the Commonwealth where there is a threat to Australia's national fuel security.

Our economy, our businesses, our primary producers, our critical emergency services and Australian citizens depend on reliable supplies of fuel. These amendments are designed to identify and eliminate potential challenges, disruptions and shortfalls in supply. Consistent regulatory reform is essential, as is the consistent testing and measuring of regulatory settings to identify areas for improvement, to ensure things are fit for purpose and to ensure regulation is efficient. This is most successful when the testing and measuring are done in consultation with key stakeholders who actually operate within the regulatory environment. The 'tell us once' aspect of this bill, part of a suite of measures the government has introduced and will continue to introduce on this theme, came about following sustained consultation with regulators and industry through the productivity roundtable.

This bill is an example of targeted regulatory reform, following solid policy development underpinned by stakeholder consultation. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 contains four schedules, but it's interesting to note that the cost of complying with federal regulation has increased from $65 billion in 2013 to $160 billion today. We have four schedules before us—amendments to simplify business regulation, amendments to streamline regulation, amendments to support a 'tell us once' approach, and technical and other amendments. There is so much to unpack in this legislation. It's a shame we don't have more speakers on this particular bill, because while it might sound fairly mundane and perfunctory—some might even cruelly suggest 'boring'—it's important. It's interesting that the government is bringing this forward when the cost of just doing business is so much more these days than it was when the coalition was in government, than it ever was before.

To the recent federal budget, if you were a businessperson and you were trying to comply and do the right thing amongst myriad regulations, amongst the mountain of paperwork, could you possibly imagine this: you hear the budget; you see the member for Rankin, the Treasurer, produce his economic blueprint for the nation; he talks about capital gains, about trust—trusts, sorry; I won't say 'trust' because there's no trust in this budget—and the changes; and then, just a few short weeks later, there's this whole raft of amendments and changes. If you're a businessperson, you're about to approach the end of the financial year and you're worrying about how to make sure you're doing everything right by your business activity statement, by the Australian Taxation Office and all the rest, and then you hear the budget and that it's changed—it's enough to send people spare.

The amount of compliance—consider, for example, the National Construction Code. The primary regulatory framework which governs building compliance in Australia spans roughly—wait for this—2,000 pages across three volumes, including the building and plumbing codes. Imagine you're a chippie, a builder, a sparky or a plumber. I know they're not all supposed to read the 2,000 pages. I tell you what; if they're working for someone, that someone has to comply and they have to meet the codes. They have to do the right thing according to the National Construction Code.

These three volumes cover commercial and multi-residential building standards, residential housing and BCA provisions, and the Plumbing Code. That sort of reading would be enough to send somebody to sleep. But, I tell you what, if you're a construction company—and it's no wonder the construction companies are going backwards, by the way—and you are running that company, you've got to comply. It's no wonder that much of the employment in this country in small businesses, medium-sized firms and particularly large businesses is taken up by people who do nothing more than compliance. That's all their jobs are—just making sure that they tick every box. Is it productive? Probably not, I would argue.

The member for Sturt, in her contribution—I've got a bit of time for the member for Sturt. She speaks on just about every piece of legislation, and that's commendable; like I said, it's a shame we haven't got more people on both sides speaking on this particular omnibus bill before us. She referred to the productivity summit—the roundtable, the big productivity roundtable. I don't know whether people remember this: it was a productivity roundtable, but, all of a sudden, the name was changed to the 'Economic Reform Roundtable'. You can't call it 'productivity', because it was just a gabfest. It was just a talkfest. It was just an excuse for the unions to come to Canberra to tell the Labor Party what it needs to be doing.

Anyway, supposedly, it 'built consensus on ways to improve productivity, enhance economic resilience and strengthen budget sustainability'. Yeah, right! It says:

It brought together a mix of leaders from business unions—

do you remember those unions? They are the ones that all you people opposite have to agree with and pay suitable tribute to—

civil society, government and other experts.

Experts—my father used to tell me an expert was a drip under pressure, but, anyway, we digress.

It was held from 19 to 21 August in Parliament House, 'led by the Treasurer and supported by other key ministers':

It focused on lifting living standards for Australians by looking at 3 main themes:

yeah, right—

yes, we do have that; we do have a lot of global uncertainty—

strengthening the budget? Let's not even go there. That budget—what a joke that was, just a few short weeks ago—

and making it more sustainable.

That was the Economic Reform Roundtable, once called 'the productivity boosting gathering'.

I'll tell you what, here are a few tips for the Treasurer and anybody who cares to listen about making sure that we get productivity—maybe block your ears for a while, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, because you're from South Australia, and you might not agree with what I'm about to say next. How you're going to boost productivity is not by buying $430 million of water out of mostly the southern connected system of the Murray-Darling Basin and then expecting to boost productivity. That water is going to flow out of the mouth of the Murray. Deputy Speaker Sharkie, I'm not verballing you. You're a good person. I know you're a rational and balanced person, a practical person, who wants the best for this country. I acknowledge that. But, sometimes, South Australians and I have different views on what we need to do in the Murray-Darling Basin. I'll tell you what we do need: we need a better, more balanced and fairer approach. When we talk productivity, when we talk compliance and when we talk regulatory reform, regulatory reform and compliance and balance and fairness do not equate to buying 86 additional gigalitres out of mainly the southern connected system and flushing it down the river system under the guise of better environmental outcomes. They do not. That equates to 34,400 Olympic-sized swimming pool equivalents. When you take 34,400 Olympic-sized swimming pools out of productive farming and agricultural use and you're still expected to grow as much food, what is that going to lead to? What do you reckon it's going to lead to? I'll tell you what it's going to lead to: it's going to lead to less food, and, when you've got less food, that equates to higher grocery prices.

None of us want to pay more for our groceries. We do not. But this is the Labor way. And yet this is just a portent of what is to come, because the Labor Party says it's going to deliver the basin plan in full and on time. That just equates to taking more and more and more water out of the river system and flushing it down the mouth of the Murray. Already, some of those river gum forests have had so much water through them that the river gums, I'm told, are dying because they've had too much water. The Australian landscape was not designed that way. It was not. The early explorers, quite often, when they were doing their explorations, carried their river craft more often than they paddled it down the streams because, at the time, many of them were experiencing a drought. We are not Europe. We cannot design our Murray-Darling system on what is in Europe.

I was just talking to Michael Murray, the general manager of Cotton Australia, before I came in here to speak, and he reminded me of the fact that many soldier settlers got in trouble in some cases and had to forfeit the blocks that they were allocated because they hadn't cleared them in time. Yet, if you're a farmer now and you're trying to clear a property, trying to get rid of a tree, good luck! You'll get in trouble through the EPBC Act. You'll get in trouble from every single angle. We've got drones overhead monitoring what you're doing on your own property. You can't do anything in this country unless you fill out a form, unless you tick all these boxes. There's a myriad of paperwork that you've got to fill out. It is just ridiculous. It is just nonsensical.

We are faced, here, with these four schedules to the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill. What we should be doing is making it easier for businesses to do business. What we should be doing is making it easier for farmers to farm. What we should be doing is making it easier for everyday, ordinary Australians to just get about their business with less government, not more. I'm not quite convinced that this omnibus bill achieves that.

This book, written by Ernestine Hill—

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I've been wondering!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

You've been wondering what I've been holding! It's interesting. It should actually be required reading in our schools. It's Water into Gold. It's the seventh edition, from 1946. The first edition—the subscriber's edition—was published in June 1937. Coincidentally, it's actually water damaged. Anyway, it's a really good book and it details how our irrigation systems were constructed. It talks about trade. It refers to the efforts that so many people went to to make sure that we had productivity in this nation. It is brilliant reading. I particularly like the reference to the amount of water that rolled down the Murray and past Mildura. George Chaffey, one of the early water pioneers—this figure that was given was 1,088 followed by nine zeros. That was how many gallons of it rolled past every year.

I tell you what, that amount of water these days would not be available for growing the fruits, making sure that the permanent plantings are watered and making sure that we actually provide exports for other nations to enjoy the cleanest, greenest and best produce in all of the world. That is in your state, Deputy Speaker; that is in my state; that is in the state of the member just behind me—Queensland—and, indeed, in Victoria as well. Even though the member for Corangamite sits over there, opposite, she's nodding. She understands that our states, through the Murray-Darling system, provide the world's best food. They do! And not just for global supply but for domestic supply as well.

When we talk compliance and when we talk productivity, I say this again. I heard the member for Sturt talking about climate action and that we're all obsessed—or some are—about this. The greatest moral challenge of our times is not to bedevil our farmers and to take away their water and to ruin our landscapes with wind turbines and solar factories; it's actually to grow food, because too many people in this world go to bed hungry. They do. And we can grow our food. We could grow the best food available if we only had the political will to do so.

There should be much more in this bill. I'd love another 15 minutes, although I'm probably not going to get an extension of time. I'd love to have more time to talk about what we should be doing to lift the burden on our farmers, to lift the burden on our irrigators and to lift the burden on our small business operators who need help. This bill does not provide that. That said, there are some good elements to this bill, but it doesn't go anywhere near the way it needs to to help lift compliance for our hardworking Australians.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Riverina for providing a bit of guidance, after he's spent so long in this place, that when you're talking about legislation you don't necessarily need to talk about the specifics of the legislation—just where it fits within the wider picture. The other thing I appreciate from the member for Riverina is a chance to talk about my farming experience again because, any chance I get, I love to talk about that.

While I run my own little contract mustering business—when I say that, I mean my bike, a ute and a pack of dogs—I also spent six or seven months driving tractors in Mildura, so I saw literally the greening of the desert. Mildura is only 300 kays from Broken Hill; it's really smack bang in the middle of the desert. It is amazing what water can do. What we have in our country is an enormous amount of land, and I think that land gives us both our productive capacity and our national spirit and that spirit of having a go. You don't want government getting in the way, and government absolutely can get in the way and hold you back, and it drives people crazy, not just on the land. We see a world these days where we fill out other people's web forms and we're doing all of their paperwork for them online.

In many ways, I think there are two types of people in the world: entrepreneurs and bureaucrats. You need both, but it is definitely the job of the government to create the conditions for those bureaucrats to thrive—and here it is. This is why I rise in support of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. I commend Minister Gallagher for the work that she has done with this bill and recognise that this work does indeed sit within the wider strategy of the Albanese government. It's a strategy that I think is summed up very much by what the Prime Minister says drives him—it's something that drives all of us in this place but that's exemplified by this government—which is 'nobody held back and nobody left behind'.

This work, even though it may not be getting the media attention that other pieces of legislation do, sits at the very heart of the government's strategy to lift living standards and, in that sense, lower the cost of living. If you can create an environment where businesses are able to provide goods or services more cheaply, you're actually helping the consumer at the same time. I think that this bill is to be commended in the sense that it fits within that wider strategy.

One thing I've come to realise after being in this place for 12 months is that it may sometimes feel like you're speaking to an empty room—even though I know the opposition are always listening very carefully just in case one of us slip up and they can use a line to bash us over the head with! Apart from that, sometimes it feels like we're speaking to an empty room. But I've figured out that configurations change. Deputy Speaker Sharkie, you're often here to listen to our speeches, and somehow the member for Dawson has been here a fair bit lately to listen to some of my orations; I'm not sure about the member for Corangamite—this could be a first!

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

On occasions.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

On occasions—yes. I don't feel constrained to never repeat a story that I've told before, and there is an important story that I'd like to tell and that I think demonstrates what regulation is, what regulation means and why we need to be ever vigilant and to weed it out when it becomes irrelevant. It's a story I was told ages ago about a little boy that watched his grandfather cook a lamb roast. Every Sunday he'd come over and watch his grandfather prepare the roast. The grandfather would cut the two ends off the leg of lamb, put it in the oven tray and then put that in the oven. Of course, it was a beautiful thing to eat, and they were such fond memories.

One day that little boy grew up, and his grandfather came around for dinner. He said: 'You know what, Grandad? I'm going to cook you a lamb roast just like you used to cook.' And so he got out the lamb roast, cut the ends off and put it into the tray, and the grandfather said, 'Why did you cut the ends off?' And the little boy said, 'Well, Grandfather, that's what you always did when you did the lamb roast.' And he said, 'No, that's only because the pan I had was too small to fit the roast.'

And so it is with regulation. There are things we do because of tradition, because it's always been done like that, but you need to realise you need to always question, 'Why are we doing this?' This bill goes some way towards dealing with some of those old traditions. At the heart of our democratic system, to be honest, is a belief in the spirit of business and the spirit of entrepreneurialism.

I think that is why we all essentially believe in that one shared democratic experience of the expression of the individual, which, to me, is what business is. It really inspired me in business. The really good businesspeople that I that I admired weren't ever really interested in the money. The money was—someone described it to me this way—a way of keeping score. It's because they had this incredible passion, this idea to do something, and that something was always a good or a service which improved other people's lives.

The heart of this legislation and this government is to create those conditions for entrepreneurs to succeed. In one of my previous business experiences in construction I had the 'pleasure' of running a construction company. I didn't own it. In fact, the owners who had built this business long before I came along were a typical Gold Coast entrepreneurial family. They were also from the bush. They were literal cowboys who found themselves in construction, and they'd come up with this idea.

Anyone who worked in construction or engineering might know of sheet piling. Essentially, when you're digging out a basement, we come along and put in the shoring. That was theoretically to stop the hole from falling in on itself when it was dug out. It didn't always work out like that in practice, of course, but theoretically the sheet piling was there to keep the ground solid.

And they had come up with this idea. In fact, they had developed their own system, their own design, which they manufactured and installed. They spent tens of thousands of dollars securing the intellectual property, which has relevance to what I'm talking about here: providing more reliable and predictable systems for registering and managing trademarks and IP rights. They had this intellectual property, which they spent tens of thousands or more—hundreds of thousands—of dollars developing and patenting.

The point of those patents was not just to protect their business and their intellectual property; it was also to protect consumers. There was an example I remember of a competitor who had tried to copy their system, didn't get it right and had put these sheets into the ground. I can remember this story got a bit of media at the time. They were working next to a post office in Sydney somewhere, and the ground started to cave in. There was a post office next door, and the building started to literally shake. As the glass windows were smashing around these poor workers and customers as they fled the building, the hole started to fall in on itself. And that's because they were using a ripped-off system that provided no protection to the consumer and no protection to the business. Fundamentally, intellectual property is so important for those two reasons. It is not only there to protect your business; it is also there to protect the consumer from cheap imports.

I think it is also worth mentioning that this bill is not just about business, however. It is also about dealing with Centrelink and making it easier for people to deal with Services Australia. Again, it is about helping the provider, in this case the government, Services Australia, and helping the consumer, in this case the customer of Services Australia. All of us in my electorate know how frustrating it is, and that's why it is good to see that this sits in the overall strategy of this 'tell us once' approach to Services Australia. We all know, from dealing with constituents, just how frustrating it is when you're dealing with Centrelink at the best of times, but, when you've got to keep going back and giving them information that Centrelink really should be able to get from somewhere else, it's incredibly frustrating. In fact, it can be more than frustrating. It can be really quite psychologically debilitating. I'm sure we've all got constituents who come to us at the end of their tether because Services Australia have just been obtuse, I guess, in the way that they deal with people. This is going to, as I say, make it easier for Services Australia. It's going to provide relief to that operation and to the people working in that operation, but it's also going to provide relief to the people that actually have to deal with superannuation.

While the configuration of this chamber has changed midspeech, it's good to see there are some people here who may not be elected here but are here and might be able to follow the flow of the story. But I think it is fundamental to the Albanese Labor government's philosophy of 'nobody held back and nobody left behind' that we take this approach to make life easy for business, to make life easy for consumers, to make life easy for government departments and to make life easy for clients of government departments. At the heart of the Albanese government's strategy is to not rest on our laurels.

Incidentally, the member for Riverina left at one point, but, for those who have been following along, he made a point about business costs, and he used 2013 as a base. I can't remember the exact number he said, but they started off at about $60 billion, and now it's grown since 2013. It just made me wonder: why did he use 2013 as a base? That was actually when they took office last time. So, if business costs grew to such a big number that he felt it worth mentioning in this chamber, why didn't he use 2022 as the base? Why did he go back to 2013? It makes me think that the greatest rise was in that period from 2013. Now, I don't know for sure, but it is curious why he used that as a base.

This is where I'd like to finish. Fundamentally what this government are dealing with is not just problems that we've been left with from 2013 but also problems that we've been left with from over the last 30 years of mainly coalition rule. We have seen in general where this legislation sits. We have seen coalition governments follow a policy of neoliberalism—essentially privatisation—economic rationalism and unfettered free trade that has left working-class communities struggling. It has been left to the Albanese government to try and fix that up. So we are not only using legislation like this to make life easier for business but also making it easier for workers to find affordable housing, which ultimately will help business. We're making it easier for businesses to use cheaper energy—through renewable energy, mind you—and we are making it easier for our businesses, our foundational manufacturing, to compete against state owned enterprises.

I commend the bill to this House in the context in which it sits, which is the Albanese government's philosophy of nobody left behind and nobody held back.

Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | 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.