The question is that the bill stand as printed. Senator Hume.

Because this is an omnibus bill, obviously it covers an awful lot of areas. The question I have for the minister is, how much of the bill is reducing red tape for Australians, and specifically for Australian businesses, and how much is about reducing paperwork for the public sector or public servants?

This is the second of two bills that we have brought into the chamber, and there will be others that follow. Schedule 1 is about simplifying business regulation, and that does assist businesses. But there is also work done across government in reducing red tape across government. It's just as important. In fact, businesses have asked us for that as well. We go through quite a lot of consultation around what it is possible to put in these bills.

This is just one part of a larger piece of work we're doing. I have asked my department that the next bills that come have a focus on better regulation as it relates to businesses. Part of the focus that we're trying to have here in reducing red tape across government, particularly in the amendments to support a 'tell us once' approach, has been about improving the customer experience with government. So yes, while it is about reducing red tape, if you want to call it that—or processes across government—we have had our eye towards the customer, some of whom are businesses but obviously they're individual citizens as well, about making life easier for them.

Thank you, Minister. The government has said that its productivity reforms in the budget would reduce the regulatory burden by $10.2 billion each year. How much does this bill contribute to that figure?

It's a component. I think we went through this at estimates. I didn't bring the productivity papers around the entire package of reform, but when officials gave evidence at estimates the evidence that was provided was that the combination of all the measures that were outlined in the productivity package, of which this is one, gave them confidence about the figure that had been outlined in the budget. So it is a component. I don't have a dollar figure on it, in terms of the work Treasury did to reach that overarching number. I don't believe that we have provided individual items against that. But the advice from Treasury was that they had confidence in the package as it relates to the forecasts and numbers in the budget, and this is a component of that.

Thank you, Minister. I'm putting on notice now that, in the next Senate estimates, I would very much like to understand what the breakdown of that $10.2 billion is and how much this piece of legislation, this omnibus bill, has contributed to that. I put that on the record now.

Can I ask about one section of the bill which is—the government had moved an amendment in the House to remove the repeal of section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Why has the government now decided that this transparency requirement should be retained?

I'm just trying to get some further information, Senator Hume. My advice is that that amendment has been withdrawn, but I—you've got a slightly different question?

It was moved in the House.

We're not proceeding with that amendment.

It was amended in the House.

Okay. We're not proceeding with that, Senator Hume.

Yes, I know, but the question was: why?

After further discussions across the government, we've decided not to proceed with it.

I want to ask some questions about the Human Rights Commission measure, specifically around procedural fairness and the implications for procedural fairness that that measure contains. Can I ask first about what consideration the government gave to the procedural-fairness implications of removing schedule 2, part 4, relating to the Human Rights Commission's obligations.

This has come forward from the Human Rights Commission. Essentially, the advice that I have is that the current notification requirement adds administrative delay and burden to the complaints management process, takes resources away from supporting the complainant through the process and, in some cases, makes the complaints harder and more stressful for complainants.

On the issue of procedural fairness, this still requires, essentially, for the complainant and the respondent to be notified. All respondents have to be notified by the commission when a complaint is received against them. The president of the commission will retain the discretion to notify relevant individuals where appropriate. This will allow the commission to take a targeted, case-by-case approach when determining whether notifying a nonrespondent will properly support the resolution of the complaint.

There are a number of examples that have been given where the commission has, in their advice to government around this particular mandatory notification, which I think came in in 2017—there were some amendments moved to the commission's complaints framework, to enhance procedural fairness, that had been recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. This led to a mandatory notification requirement for respondents. The adverse-allegation requirement was introduced at the same time but was not actually recommended by the committee and went beyond what the committee had recommended. I can go through some of the examples that have been given of its making the process harder for complainants and of the delays to the resolution of the complaints that the commission has argued have been the result of this mandatory requirement for adverse-allegation notifications.

I know the legislation cuts red tape for the Human Rights Commission and those who work there by making this change. However, those that have potentially been the subject of an adverse allegation are the ones that we are concerned about here. Does the government accept that a person who might be the subject of an adverse allegation should ordinarily have the opportunity to know that the allegation has been made about them?

Well, the discretion obviously exists for the president of the commission, who I would argue is probably in the best position to make a judgement on that. The point, at the moment, is that the mandatory notification applies to anyone who might be raised in a complaint but is not a respondent to the complaint and that the commission's advice to us, or to government, is that this also causes distress and has resulted in some people who've been named adversely but are not respondents—it's had an impact on them. There's also the fact that they will go and get advice and things like that, as individuals will do from time to time, but it's not really necessary, because they're not a respondent to the matter. This removes the mandatory requirement; the discretion remains, and I think all of the processes that have been put in place over the years, including in 2017, mean that procedural fairness is followed. It's just removing that mandatory requirement to notify anyone who might be mentioned in a complaint.

You can imagine getting a complaint about someone in a workplace who is complaining about their employer but may name some other individuals in that case who are not formally respondents to that but are then having to be contacted by the Human Rights Commission, saying: 'Look, you've been named in this. You're not the respondent. We're dealing with that. But you have been named in this complaint'—essentially, to what end? The discretion exists for the president to do it in the circumstances that they allowed, but our suggestion is that the mandatory requirement to ring anybody who's been named in a complaint be removed.

I understand that that sounds like a simpler process, but would it be reasonable, minister, for an Australian to discover, potentially through something like a google search, that they had been named in a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, even if they weren't the respondent—to have had adverse allegations made about their conduct and to find out about it accidentally?

Look, potentially—that's why we think the discretion for the president to manage those issues remains important. But the mandatory requirement—this person is otherwise none the wiser and doesn't need to take any action or, indeed, take any legal advice or be apprised of any other aspect of the matter. The discretion sits with the commission.

The advice from the commission is that it spends approximately 450 hours per year administering adverse-allegation notifications. It also argues that mandatory notification to a person who is the subject of an adverse allegation can cause unnecessary concern and, in some cases, psychological harm to those recipients who are not respondents and may have no further involvement in the complaints process. This may go to the cost and effort of obtaining advice, when they are subject to no liabilities arising from the complaint. In some cases, mandatory notification to persons who are the subject of an adverse allegation may also discourage complainants and respondents from engaging fulsomely with the commission's complaints response. I believe there have been some cases where complainants have found out that individuals they have named will be advised and complaints have been withdrawn.

What safeguards, then, will ensure that the Human Rights Commission president exercises that discretion in a consistent way and in a fair way?

I don't have any formal advice on that, but we do rely on the president of the commission to make judgements in almost every aspect of their work. They tend to be highly regimented and legal, in a sense. So I would imagine, because this would give the discretion to the commission, that, given the way they would operate, that would be made clear. I can see if there's anything further I can get from the Attorney-General's on that.

You mentioned that this measure was going to save around 450 staff hours a year, but I wonder how that cost of 450 staff hours can possibly be more important than ensuring that people know if a serious allegation has been made about them.

I guess this goes to this discussion we're having. It's not purely about staff hours. I just give you that as an example. It's also about the way complaints are handled in the most efficient way and the fact that the mandatory notification requires—just like your example of, 'What if somebody's Google searches their name and finds out at some point that they once were?' The flipside of that is that at the moment everybody named in any complaint in an adverse way is contacted and told and that that is also having an impact on all of those people as well. That's why the advice from the commission to us is to retain it as a discretion of the president and not as a mandatory requirement.

Will the use of that discretion be something that is monitored by the government, recorded by the government—when they have or when they haven't used it over a particular period—and potentially reviewed after a period of time to see whether procedural fairness has in fact been afforded or whether perhaps removing this safeguard has had an adverse effect on individuals?

I would imagine, Senator Hume, that all of these matters can be sought through the normal processes, like estimates or questions on notice. I don't have any firm advice from the Department of the Attorney-General about the collection of that data, but I'm sure that, if it were something the parliament were interested in, that information would be made available.

Has the government undertaken any assessment of the potential costs to individuals of removing the notification safeguard?

The whole idea behind this amendment is to remove, in a mandatory sense, the requirement to inform people who are not the formal respondent to the proceedings. The information I have is that, at the moment, if everyone is told, that has incurred costs for individuals who have then sought to protect themselves with legal advice when they are not subject to the proceedings and are not formal respondents in the case.

Let's be very clear. What you've just said is that, if you don't know that an allegation has been made against you, then it's actually cheaper because you don't have to lawyer up. Is that what you're implying?

The advice I have is that there are cases where, through this mandatory notification, people have gone to the cost and effort of obtaining advice when they are not subject to any liabilities arising from the complaint. If I were a person just trundling along in life and the Human Rights Commission rang me and said, 'By the way, you've been named in this complaint,' I would feel that I would want to go and get some advice. That would be my individual choice because I would be worried about that—the Human Rights Commission reaching out to me to tell me that. You would think, 'I'd better go and get some advice on that,' when what the commission is saying is: 'You're not a formal respondent. There are no liabilities attached to this. We have to let you know that you have been named as part of a complaint that we're dealing with two other parties on.' I think the idea there is to reduce some of this stress and not put people in a position where they feel they have to go and get formal advice just because they work next to somebody who's going through some issues and taking their employer through the commission.

At the same time though, Minister, if you had been named as part of a complaint—particularly if you had been named adversely—then surely you would want to know. Potentially you could get advice that says: 'That's incorrect. My name has been sullied here by somebody that's making a complaint to the Human Rights Commission.' I would want to be able to defend myself and my reputation if I have been named in a complaint. Don't you think that that is the procedural fairness that potentially is being circumvented here?

No. I think we're going to disagree on this. I think the discretion of the president of the commission to notify relevant individuals where appropriate is a suitable way of managing these issues. Even if you went to the case that you cited, if you're not the respondent to the matter, you're not going to clear your name through the case, because you're not actually subject; you're not a party to the case.

I guess you could go and think about some other action that you might take to clear your name, but the complaint that the Human Rights Commission is dealing with is not the appropriate case for that to happen. I completely understand the point you're making, but what we're trying to deal with here is that, though it's mandatory to tell you that you've been named—by the way, you face no liabilities, you're not a respondent to the case, and you probably won't be involved in the case in any way—in the paperwork, it causes unnecessary stress and potential costs to those individuals.

I would like to know what assessment the government has made of potentially less intrusive ways of reducing the commission's administrative workload without removing that notification requirement.

This has come from the Human Rights Commission as a way that they believe they can improve the handling of complaints in their workplace. The discretion for the president is retained, and we think that is appropriate. This is all about how complaints are handled. Procedural fairness is part of that. The simple change here is whether the individuals associated with all the adverse allegations have to be told in a mandatory sense or whether the president of the commission can retain the discretion. That's the change.

I want to ask about the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort amendment. When did the government know that that special levy was going to be needed?

That falls within the portfolio of the Assistant Treasurer. I would have to go back and take on notice the specific date. I know he has been in discussions around the CSLR for some time with all parties involved, but I don't have a specific date that I can give you, Senator Hume, unless someone can get it to me quickly. While I'm on my feet, I have had advice that the Attorney-General is happy to track down the information about the discretionary use of those powers.

Thank you, Minister, for that response. Can I ask where that data will be available? Is it something that we have to specifically request in an estimates process? I know you just said that the Attorney-General will track it, but is it going to be something that they make public? Is it going to be something that we have to go and ask for, or will it be presented to us in some way, shape or form?

I will take that on notice, Senator Hume, and come back to you. Obviously, we've just been talking about it whilst I've been in here. Providing that information may be on an annual basis through normal channels, but I will find out. Sorry, Senator Hume. I can't give you more.

Just back on the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort amendment, I understand that it is a late addition to this bill, and it does sit outside of the specific portfolio, but obviously there are a lot of questions about this. This is quite a contentious issue, so, if we can give time for the appropriate advisers from that portfolio to come to the chamber—I'm just putting it out there now. Obviously, the revised financial year '27 estimate has been public for a while. It requires a special levy of $170.3 million above the subsector cap of $20 million. This is a very big leap, and there are going to be an awful lot of people in this industry that are very concerned about this. The next question is: when does the Assistant Treasurer intend to lodge the determination that comes with this amendment?

This amendment—which is different to the question you asked—reduces the disallowance period for the special levy determinations from 15 sitting days to five sitting days. The advice I have is that this will make sure that eligible consumers can receive compensation more quickly. At the moment, ASIC cannot collect a special levy to fund the scheme until the disallowance period has expired, meaning, depending on when the instrument is tabled, lengthy disallowance periods can substantially delay compensation payments to consumers who have already suffered financial loss. The amendment will preserve parliamentary oversight of levy determinations, and the instrument will remain subject to disallowance by either house of parliament, ensuring appropriate scrutiny and accountability are maintained. It means that compensation can be brought forward potentially by a number of months, which would make a meaningful difference to affected consumers. The amendment does not alter the minister's obligation before determining a levy, including the requirement to consider relevant statutory matters.

I think your question is when the next determination will be made. I would have thought that there is some statutory requirement about that, but I am advised it will be in the coming weeks, after there has been appropriate consultation with the sector.

Why the urgency on this disallowance? I know you said it's so compensation can go out the door earlier, but I can't imagine that this was going to be disallowed. I feel that this is putting fear into a sector unnecessarily.

Sorry, can you repeat that?

The need to have the disallowance date reduced quite dramatically—I know you've said it's because you want compensation to go out the door quicker, and I understand that. But, obviously, because they're a sector that have to pay for this, that's made them very nervous. They don't understand why it is that they need to have this decision made quicker, particularly because of the blow-out in the size of the levy. So can you explain what the consultation has been with the sector already on this?

The idea behind this is to ensure that that compensation flows more quickly. If the concern of the industry is around the levy, that's not related to this amendment. That would be set in the normal way. This would just mean, once it has been set, you won't have to wait 15 sitting days for a disallowance on that. It would be five sitting days. Is the point you're raising that you've had feedback that people would like the entire 15 days available to the parliament to disallow because they might disagree with the levy? From the Assistant Treasurer's point of view, I think, the work that goes into setting the levy and agreeing that—and there has been a huge amount of work done on that—is the time to talk with industry and settle those matters. This is around parliamentary approval for that and trying to make sure that people get their compensation in a reasonable time.

The Assistant Treasurer told the National Press Club that Treasury was analysing the allocation of the levy in consultation with stakeholders, and you've just repeated that, which is fine. I want to understand whether Treasury has provided that advice to the minister already or whether it is ongoing. Given it's such a substantial special levy and it has been foreseeable for some time, why is the urgency happening now?

I think the setting of the levy and this amendment are two different things. This is around ensuring that, in the event that you say you have something tabled in the second last sitting week before a break, we are able to make sure that that instrument is effective when the parliament is not sitting. That's what this amendment is about. I think that questions about setting the levy and when the levy is going to be set are not matters that I am able to answer standing here right now. I can answer to the amendments we're seeking to move.

I understand that, but I can't see another opportunity for those small businesses that are now going to be subject to that levy—the financial advice industry—to question what they should expect here. This is the only forum in which I can do this. This is a determination of the minister. I want to understand whether the government has a figure for the amount of the special levy that's going to be borne by the personal financial advice subsector, because that is a small-business sector, and when you expect that figure to be arrived at and when it would be published.

No. I'm not in a position to provide that, and it wouldn't be appropriate to, I think, announce that as part of the bill that we're debating today. There is, obviously, consultation that's ongoing with relevant stakeholders and community consultation on that.

Let me try this a slightly different way. If we do agree to the amendment today, I want to understand on what date the government expects to begin collecting that levy from businesses and when victims will start receiving compensation—an estimate.

I am advised that it would be prior to the end of this year.

Can I be clear. Is that for both collecting the levy and paying out the compensation?

Potentially. That hasn't been finalised yet. In the event that it's finalised and able to have a determination issued and this amendment gets up and five days is settled on and that disallowance period elapses prior to the end of the year, then the answer is yes. If some of those are not agreed to, then that would change my answer.

I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet CH124 revised together.

Leave granted.

I move the amendments:

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 15, column 1), omit "Parts 2 to 4", substitute "Parts 2 to 5".

(2) Schedule 4, page 52 (after line 7), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 5 — Aligning timing of CSLR levy determinations

Corporations Act 2001

10 At the end of section 1069H

Add:

Disallowance

(7) The Legislation Act 2003 applies to a determination under subsection (2) of this section as if references in sections 42 and 47 of that Act to 15 sitting days were instead references to 5 sitting days.

When determination takes effect

(8) If neither House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing the determination or a provision of the determination, the determination takes effect:

(a) on the day immediately after the last day upon which such a resolution could have been passed; or

(b) if a later day is specified in the determination—on that later day.

(9) If either House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing a provision of the determination, the remaining provisions of the determination take effect:

(a) on the day immediately after the last day upon which a resolution disallowing the determination or a provision of the determination could have been passed; or

(b) if a later day is specified in the determination—on that later day.

(10) If either House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing the determination, the determination does not take effect.

Sunset provision

(11) Subsection (7) ceases to have effect at the end of 6 months after its commencement.

11 Application provision

The amendment of section 1069H of the Corporations Act 2001 made by this Part applies in relation to a determination made under that section on or after the commencement of this item.

The question is that government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet CH124 revised, moved by leave together, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4039:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 13), omit "Schedule 3", substitute "Schedules 3 and 3A".

(2) Page 46 (after line 3), after Schedule 3, insert:

Schedule 3A — Foreign military membership disclosure

Migration Act 1958

1 After section 166

Insert:

166A Information regarding foreign military membership

(1) The information that must be provided by a person entering Australia to a clearance authority under paragraph 166(1)(b) includes information in the form of answers to the following questions:

(a) "Have you been a member of a foreign military within the last 12 months?";

(b) if the answer to the question in paragraph (a) is affirmative—"For each foreign military you have been a member of within the last 12 months, what is the name of the foreign military of which you were a member?".

(2) The regulations must provide for the questions mentioned in subsection (1) to be included in the person's passenger card (as referred to in regulations made for the purposes of section 166).

The question is that the Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4039 be agreed to.

I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 10), omit the table item.

(2) Schedule 2, Part 4, page 27 (lines 1 to 14), to be opposed.

I take this opportunity to table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to the bill that was just dealt with—my apologies to the Senate. We won't be supporting the opposition's amendment.

In regard to the government amendment to this legislation, I want to place on the record the Greens support for it. It reduces the disallowable period from 15 to five days for the instrument, which determines which sectors of the financial services sector have to pay the top-up levy for the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort each year. It wasn't expected, obviously, when the CSLR was legislated that it would routinely exceed the levy and require an annual top up, but, because of the way the scheme is structured and a number of recent collapses, including First Guardian and Shield, the CSLR has significantly exceeded the annual levy every year, and this year the top up amount is over $170 million.

We understand that shortening the disallowance period for the top-up levy is necessary to ensure that people impacted by financial misconduct and fraud are able to be compensated as quickly as possible. We are very conscious that many people have lost their entire retirement savings and any CSLR compensation will be a lifeline for them. We're not going to get in the way of people receiving their compensation. We want that to happen, and we want that to happen as quickly as possible. However, we do not support indefinitely reducing parliamentary scrutiny of the instrument, and that is why we pushed the government to include the sunset provision, which we are pleased that they have included, so that the shorter disallowable period is only in place for a finite time. We also call on the government to prioritise reforms to stop a collapse like First Guardian and Shield, which has impacted so many people, happening again.

As it is 1.30 pm, the committee will report to the Senate. I'm going to commence the two-minute statements now.