Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 but also to urge the government to go further on it. I welcome the fact that this government recognises that regulatory burden, including unnecessary regulatory burden, hampers the dynamism of our economy. From a productivity point of view, we know that we need to make change here. We also know that, if we don't improve productivity, we do not improve real wages and we do not improve the lives and prosperity of Australians. So I welcome the government's work in this space, I welcome the government's bill in this space, and I welcome other actions the government has taken, including the EPBC reform and moves such as to pause the housing construction code.

However, I do think the government needs to go further, and, on this basis, I'm going to be moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill, because I think that we need to go significantly further. Let me tell you why. The cost of complying with Commonwealth regulation is growing. It was estimated at $65 billion in 2013. It is estimated at $160 billion today. The time that boards spend on risk and compliance has gone from 24 per cent in 2015 to 55 per cent in 2025. In Brisbane, it takes 31 separate approvals to open a cafe. Medical researchers who I speak to are spending up to a quarter of their time writing grant applications rather than engaging in medical research.

I've seen firsthand how drone technology is at the forefront of some of these problems because government is slow to make decisions. There's no accountability from many government departments in terms of the speed of their decision-making. When I have spoken to innovative drone companies, drone companies that we should be trying to support and grow in this country, they're telling me they cannot compete with things like helicopter companies, because they have no certainty about how long it will take for the government or the regulator—CASA, in this case—to actually make an approval of their applications. They have no certainty, and this is something I hear time and time again. I speak to businesses looking for foreign investment. They're saying they're waiting up to 18 months for the ATO to make a decision on how an investment would be treated, so the foreign capital just goes away.

We need to change the culture here, and this is why—while I support this government's actions in this space—I urge the government to go further. This isn't about bad people. There are many good people, both in this House and across Australian government departments and regulators—people who want the best for the Australian people. The problem is structural. The system rewards visible new action—more rules, more money, more strategy—and almost never rewards the quiet, harder work of removing what is unnecessary, which doesn't create value and which is not making the difference that it is intended to. The Chair of the Productivity Commission recently wrote an article making the same point: that every new problem gets a patch rather than a rewrite, and the patches on patches, on top of each other, are making Australia's regulatory burden extremely high and making Australia a less attractive place to start and grow and invest in, which is a problem for all Australians.

The truth is that governments and regulators are monopolies. In market terms, markets discipline firms through exit, but you cannot exit. We have no choices. We have no choice to exit regulators. We have no choice to exit governments. What we end up with is the costs of the government's monopoly being borne by people.

So I support this bill, as I said. The bill is useful, it is technical, it's incremental, it has useful schedules, it has 'tell us once', it has streamlining and it has technical fixes. These are all good things, and I do not underestimate the effort that goes into getting useful changes like this. But it is the second bill in a year, and the cost curve is still climbing regardless. Nothing in this bill or in any of the bills we've had to date fundamentally changes the incentives around regulatory burden, either in this place, amongst the politicians, or among the regulators or the departments. That is where I think the government needs to go.

So my second reading amendment is trying to put forward ideas that would actually move the dial. We need to introduce crude but measurable regulatory reduction targets and strategies. Every new regulatory burden should be matched by removal elsewhere, with the same discipline already applied to budget spending proposals. We need to change the culture and incentives by making senior public servants and responsible ministers directly accountable for rightsizing regulation. Rightsizing regulation should be an explicit KPI. Dynamism should be a measured, accountable consideration for major regulators, not just risk avoidance. New regulatory instruments should include sunset clauses. And the Office of Impact Assessment should have greater independence, such that regulatory impact is actually evaluated, not just box ticking.

Finally, I urge the government to expand the National Productivity Fund. I support the government's work on the fund, but I think it's currently around one tenth the size of the original 1990s National Competition Fund. If we expect that to move the dial, as it did back in the 1990s, we are going to have to put more firepower behind it.

That is why I'm moving this second reading amendment standing my name—not to block this bill but to put on record that admiring the problem for the third or fourth year running is not a strategy. We need these changes. We need senior accountability. We need the government to further embrace what it has identified as real problems but start to change the incentives as well as build on the significant and I think useful work that the government has already done. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government has signalled that it prioritises right-sizing regulation and this is welcome;

(b) but successive governments have repeatedly announced regulatory reform agendas, yet the burden of regulation continues to grow;

(c) the number of restrictive terms in legislative instruments has more than doubled since 2006, according to the Productivity Commission;

(d) the cost of complying with Commonwealth regulation has grown from $65 billion in 2013 to $160 billion today; and

(e) the incentive structures facing regulators and legislators reward visible new action over the harder, less visible work of removing existing regulation, and that this dynamic will persist unless directly addressed; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) implement crude but measurable regulatory reduction targets and strategies including offset requirements;

(b) introduce senior accountability within regulators and departments for deregulation including measurable KPIs;

(c) require government departments to prioritise faster decision-making and make ministers accountable for achieving these targets;

(d) strengthen the role of Office of Impact Analysis, including greater independence, such that this process is more than simply a box-ticking exercise; and

(e) consider expanding the impact of the National Competition Policy through greater funding for the National Productivity Fund".

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Wentworth has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up this debate I'd like to acknowledge the contributions that all members have made in the debate on this important bill, the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. The government has an ambitious regulatory reform agenda, outlined in the budget, that will reduce regulatory burden by $10.2 billion. This bill deals with multiple issues that will benefit Australians and businesses right across the country. I'd like to thank those members who have taken the time to engage with the regulatory changes proposed by the bill during this debate.

I'd also like to thank the member for Indi for her productive engagement with the government on schedule 2, part 3 of the bill. This part drew interest from a range of parties in this place, but I want to acknowledge her particularly thoughtful engagement on this change. These discussions have led the government to moving amendments to remove schedule 2, part 3. This is in recognition that the vast majority of the bill's measures are supported by members across the House, and the government is eager to support their passage. The sooner the bill is passed, the sooner it becomes real change for Australians.

I also note the comments made by the opposition on schedule 2, part 4. The problem tackled by this amendment is not that these notifications are issued; it is a foundational principle that people must be notified when they have a case to answer. The problem is the mandatory nature of these notices. This mandatory obligation means that even people who play no part in a complaint, who are subject to no legal consequences and who have no procedural avenue to respond must receive these notices.

The commission estimates that it spends approximately 450 hours per year administering adverse allegation notifications. This can include identifying individuals who may be the subject of adverse allegations, assessing whether redactions to the complaint documents are required, obtaining their contact details, preparing notification correspondence and managing related inquiries. Removing this mandatory notification requirement is not just about administrative savings, which will allow the RHC to finalise more complaints every year; it is also about avoiding the frustration and stress that people who receive these notices often experience. The president of the AHRC will retain the power to notify people who are not respondents to a complaint where appropriate. Complainants will also retain the ability to add people to a complaint as respondents; where they do so, the commission must notify these people. Ultimately, the change proposed by schedule 2 part 4 will get the complaints process working better for everyone.

As I said in my second reading speech, regulatory reform omnibus bills are instrumental to delivering legislative reforms under the government's regulatory reform agenda. This agenda is an ambitious effort to get regulatory settings working better for Australians, boosting investments in our economy and ensuring that Australians are protected from harms. When fully implemented, our agenda will deliver: a $10.2 billion reduction in the regulatory burden every year; a single national market to create clear and consistent rules for businesses, workers and consumers no matter where they are in Australia; faster administrative processes to get more projects off the ground more quickly; modernised regulation that is fit for purpose for the digital economy and responsibly balances the challenges and opportunities brought to us by AI; and regulators being active stewards of regulation to embed productivity into how they work. The government will expect all our regulators to balance managing known and likely risks with supporting economic growth and dynamism. Legislative changes progressed by regulatory reform omnibus bills are meaningful steps towards these important goals.

To reiterate, this bill amends 25 acts, repeals two acts and will improve the operations of 18 government agencies. It simplifies regulation, particularly for businesses, progresses additional measures to support the government's tell-us-once agenda and makes technical amendments to get regulation working better for Australians. The bill will make important changes to intellectual property laws. It will add further integrity to the trademarks opposition process, boost protections for trademark holders by ensuring more robust investigations of patent and trademark attorneys accused of misconduct, and make a simple change, which means plant breeders won't accidentally lose valuable rights just because they missed a renewal payment deadline.

Beyond intellectual property, the bill will remove the mandatory 30-day appeal period for importers who advised they don't intend to appeal a negative preliminary decision by the Anti-Dumping Commissioner for a partial refund as part of the duty assessment process. This change will allow importers to receive faster refunds when they advise that they don't intend to appeal the decision.

The bill will also simplify business reporting requirements. It will simplify workplace gender equality reporting and target-setting requirements by adding a 12-month window at the end of a target cycle, and align the reporting period for public and private sector employers to ensure comparable data on gender equality in the workplace is available for both Commonwealth and private sector employers. It will also move reporting under the new eligible Drama Expenditure Scheme from a financial-year to calendar-year basis, aligning it with other Australian content reporting schemes.

Another important component of the bill are measures to continue driving a shift to a tell-us-once approach to government interactions with Australians and businesses. Thanks to this bill nominees, under the social security law, will now be able to cancel their nomination with a simple phone call instead of needing to follow up in writing. Goods that are subject to a tariff concession order will now be exempt from dumping and countervailing duties in certain circumstances without requiring a further administrative decision. This speeds up the process and means importers can get on with their business more quickly. Services Australia will be able to rely on information it already holds when supporting retirees who have been living overseas for more than two years to comply with their proof-of-life certificate obligations. These are changes that will make life easier for Australians and businesses. This bill will also allow eligible Defence Force superannuation scheme members to access an account based pension from CSC when they retire. This will give former ADF members more choice to manage their money in retirement and has support from serving and former ADF members.

Finally, the bill will make various technical amendments to improve the operation of existing regulations. It will repeal acts that have become redundant. It will clarify and align legislative definitions and concepts to support more efficient and timely administrative decision-making. All of these measures will make real improvements to how regulations work for all Australians. It will support better regulation. Better regulation is essential to unlock productivity in the Australian economy. It is the way to make sure people are protected without being stifled. It is the approach the government believes in, and it is what this bill will help to achieve. I thank the House once again for supporting the government's work to progress this important legislation.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Wentworth has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.