This bill became law on Dec 4th, 2023.
Industry, agriculture & resources
Australia's live export watchdogThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare. is renamed the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal ExportsThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare., giving the role a clearer animal welfare focus.
Existing oversight of live animal exports lacked a clear animal welfare focus and left gaps in checking whether CommonwealthThe federal Australian Government, as distinct from state and territory governments. systems and livestock export standards were actually protecting animals. This bill expands and renames the Inspector-GeneralThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare. so it can independently review animal welfare laws, systems and standards, and report on how well they work.
After heat-related deaths of thousands of sheep on a voyage to the Middle East exposed chronic weaknesses in live export oversight, Australia tightened regulation and created an inspector-generalThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare., but the office still focused more on administration than on whether animal welfare protections were actually working. The Albanese government then backed a stronger watchdog with October 2022 budget funding and its 2022 election commitment, and this 2023 bill renamed and expanded the role so it could independently test animal welfare laws, systems and export standards before it became law in December 2023.
The main case against the bill was that it adds duplicated federal oversight and red tape to an industry critics said is already heavily regulated, risking harm to live export businesses and regional communities without clear welfare gains. That objection was raised most clearly by Coalition speakers, while some crossbench and Greens critics instead argued the bill was too limited and lacked the stronger independence or broader reform they wanted.
Catherine King MP introduced this bill. In the recorded House second-reading vote, support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, some crossbench members; opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 04 Dec 2023
Final passage
No counted final vote
2 recorded votes on the bill were found earlier in passage, but the final chamber agreement was not a counted division.
Passage speed
194 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Australia's live export watchdogThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare. is renamed the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal ExportsThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare., giving the role a clearer animal welfare focus.
The Inspector-GeneralThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare. can now review whether federal livestock export controlsThe federal rules and oversight arrangements that govern how live animals are exported. are actually protecting animal welfare, not just whether officials followed process.
The Inspector-GeneralThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare. can independently scrutinise the Australian Standards for the Export of LivestockThe rules exporters must follow when sourcing, preparing, transporting and managing animals on export voyages., which are the rules exporters must follow for animal handling and transport.
The Agriculture MinisterThe minister who can request a review by the Inspector-General but cannot tell the office how to carry it out. can order a review, but cannot direct how the Inspector-GeneralThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare. runs that review or what the final report says.
The law requires a formal review of these changes to begin within 3 years, so Parliament can check whether the expanded watchdog is working.
Omit “Inspector‑General of Live Animal Exports”, substitute “Inspector‑General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports”.Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Act 2023 final Act text
(b) the effectiveness of Commonwealth systems for the administration of livestock exports under the animal welfare and live animal export legislation and standards for maintaining and enhancing the welfare of exported livestock;Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Act 2023 final Act text
New paragraph 10(1)(c) would provide a new function for the review of the effectiveness of the ASEL, as part of the Commonwealth systems referred to in new paragraph 10(1)(b). This new function is intended to ensure that the ASEL and any developments to the ASEL are appropriately reviewed with a view to meeting the objective of maintaining and enhancing the welfare of exported livestock. As the ASEL is a critical part of Australia’s regulatory system for the welfare of exported livestock, this proposed provision would provide independent oversight over the ASEL, including its development, and as such, ensure that improvements to the ASEL are promoted.Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) explanatory memorandum
The Inspector-General will not be subject to interference. This bill provides for the Inspector-General to have complete discretion in the performance its functions and powers. While the minister may direct the Inspector-General to conduct a review, importantly, the Inspector-General will not be subject to direction in the conduct of a review or the content of any report.Second reading speech
(2) The review must start no later than 3 years after this section commences.Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Act 2023 final Act text
Context
After heat-related deaths of thousands of sheep on a voyage to the Middle East exposed chronic weaknesses in live export oversight, Australia tightened regulation and created an inspector-generalThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare., but the office still focused more on administration than on whether animal welfare protections were actually working. The Albanese government then backed a stronger watchdog with October 2022 budget funding and its 2022 election commitment, and this 2023 bill renamed and expanded the role so it could independently test animal welfare laws, systems and export standards before it became law in December 2023.
Moss reviewThe independent review referred to on the page that followed sheep deaths on a voyage and criticised live export oversight. follows heat-related sheep deaths on a Middle East voyage
An independent review ordered after the deaths of thousands of sheep said chronic regulatory failure had weakened animal welfare oversight in the live export tradeThe industry that ships live animals overseas, which is the subject of the watchdog and the debate on this page..
Australian Financial Review ↗Government funds an expanded live export watchdogThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare.
The October 2022 budget provided $4 million over four years to support a broader inspector-generalThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare. role with a clearer animal welfare focus.
Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) explanatory memorandum ↗Government introduces the bill to refocus oversight on animal welfare
The second reading speech said the bill would deliver the government's 2022 election commitment by expanding the inspector-generalThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare.'s role to strengthen oversight, accountability and transparency for animal welfare in livestock exports.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
House debate framed the change as a response to cruel live export conditions and the need for stronger independent scrutiny of how welfare rules operate in practice.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses agreed on the final text, clearing the way for the inspector-generalThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare. to be renamed and given wider powers to review animal welfare systems and export standards.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. makes the expanded watchdog law
Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into an Act, locking in an independent watchdog that can examine whether CommonwealthThe federal Australian Government, as distinct from state and territory governments. export controls are actually protecting animal welfare.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
Recorded vote: 87 to 51.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (03/08/2023): Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee; Committee report (30/08/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Third reading agreed to :
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form. The main accepted Senate changes reflected in the final bill were: The introduced and as-passed bill texts differ in 2 observed text blocks. Observed added text: "4 Review of operation of amendments (1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendm…".
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main case against the bill was that it adds duplicated federal oversight and red tape to an industry critics said is already heavily regulated, risking harm to live export businesses and regional communities without clear welfare gains. That objection was raised most clearly by Coalition speakers, while some crossbench and Greens critics instead argued the bill was too limited and lacked the stronger independence or broader reform they wanted.
Criticism was real but split between opposing extra regulation and saying the reform did not go far enough.
Federal overreach and duplication
Opponents argued the bill unnecessarily expands CommonwealthThe federal Australian Government, as distinct from state and territory governments. power into animal welfare, duplicates existing regulation and oversight, and adds red tape rather than fixing a proven gap.
Risk to farmers and live export communities
Critics warned the expanded watchdog role could be used to regulate the live export tradeThe industry that ships live animals overseas, which is the subject of the watchdog and the debate on this page. into decline, damaging farmers, graziers and Western Australian communities that rely on it.
Too weak and too narrow
Some supporters said the bill mostly rebrands or modestly adjusts the office without creating a genuinely independent animal welfare body or delivering the broader reform needed to address cruelty in live exports.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Defeated 11 to 34. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents.
Passed 87 to 51. Support came from Labor, Greens, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Passed 31 to 13. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House agreed to disagree to the amendment, so it was defeated and the second-reading motion was left unamended.
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Defeated 11 to 34. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, UAP, and minor parties and independents.
The Senate rejected the Greens' second-reading position statement, so the bill proceeded without those additions.
Defeated 25 to 30. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The Senate defeated the opposition's second-reading statement amendment, so the bill did not carry that additional position.
The APH progress record says 1 Jacqui Lambie Network amendment was agreed without a counted division being collected by this run.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Thorpe's proposal was decided on voices and would have added a call for an independent body to oversee native species welfare and work with First Peoples, states and territories on enforceable standards.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Lambie's proposal was carried on voices and would require the Inspector-GeneralThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare. to have suitable qualifications, skills or experience in veterinary science, agriculture or law.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Tyrrell's proposal was carried on voices and would require a review of how the amendments work within three years, with the report tabled in both Houses.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 1 Jacqui Lambie Network amendment agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Ms King supports the bill, saying it strengthens oversight, accountability and transparency for animal welfare in live animal exports by expanding the Inspector-GeneralThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare.'s role and independence.
Read in Hansard ↗Faruqi opposes the bill as a wasted and too-narrow reform, saying it only tinkers with the existing inspector-generalThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare. role instead of delivering real animal welfare protection.
Read in Hansard ↗Wilkie supports the bill passing, but says it is too narrow and does not properly address the wider animal welfare crisis.
Read in Hansard ↗Sharkie supports the bill because it would improve animal welfare in live exports, but says the government is not doing enough and should follow through on its promise to ban long-haul live sheep exports.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
8 speakers · 9 contributions · 8 support
“This bill essentially expands the scope and resources of a role which shall be known as the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. There are lots of good reasons for the role to exist. It is very hard to understand how it is that the coalition have reached the point of saying that they won't support it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend my colleague Senator Watt for his approach to this complex issue. It shows that along with the new Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports, just how serious the Albanese Labor government is in delivering on our election commitment to strengthen animal welfare in Australia. Taking proactive steps to prioritise animal welfare just makes sense. Industry acknowledged it, the community knows it and the trading partners expect it. I am proud to be part of a government that takes animal welfare seriously, and I am very proud to support this bill today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is a sensible step to guarantee the regulator is playing its part in ensuring that Australia meets these expectations. I commend the legislation to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is an important step in ensuring we can monitor, investigate and report on the implementation of animal welfare and live animal export legislation and standards related to the exports of livestock.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Therefore, I'm supporting this bill. I'm also a strong supporter of phasing out live animal exports and ensuring that we have the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports to oversee the welfare of Australia's animals.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I'm very pleased to see this as a next step in the work that we are doing and will continue to do, because this is something that will take some time to get to the point that the community wants, and that is a policy to end the export of live sheep. It is a very significant step along the way, which will have benefits in improving welfare for animals right across Australia. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Catherine King on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Ms King supports the bill, saying it strengthens oversight, accountability and transparency for animal welfare in live animal exports by expanding the Inspector-GeneralThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare.'s role and independence. She says it delivers the government's election commitment and improves reporting and review of export welfare standards.
“This bill, together with the funding that we have already committed through the October 2022-23 budget to expand this office, delivers on our 2022 election commitment. The additional objects and functions proposed in this bill will help to increase oversight, accountability and transparency for animal welfare in exported livestock, and deliver on the government's commitment to strengthening animal welfare.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Ms King supports the bill, saying it will strengthen oversight, accountability and transparency for animal welfare in exported livestock by expanding the Inspector-GeneralThe renamed watchdog office that can review whether live export rules are actually protecting animal welfare.'s role and giving it a clearer independent basis. She says it is one part of the government's wider animal welfare agenda and commends the bill to the chamber.
“The bill complements other measures that this government is taking to strengthen animal welfare, including our commitment to provide $5 million to develop a renewed Australian Animal Welfare Strategy to deliver on the government's election commitment to update and enhance our national approach to animal welfare. The measures in the bill will deliver one important part of the Australian government's commitment to strengthening animal welfare. I commend the bill to the chamber.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“I'm pleased to see that we are advancing the agenda around strengthening safeguards around animal cruelty because, ultimately, this speaks to our core values as Australians. We are nature lovers and we care deeply about not only each other but also the natural world and the animals encompassed in that world, but we want to ensure that the viability of this industry is protected going forward. It's important that this industry meets community expectations, because it's those community expectations that provide the social licence for this industry to operate. It is important that we maintain our clean, green agricultural credentials going forward because this is, in addition, a huge value-add to our nation. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
9 speakers · 5 support · 4 oppose
“Throughout this process, we've been diligent, professional and meticulous, because we take animal welfare and the health of our export supply chains extremely seriously, as we do keeping those trade relationships robust but also authentic and confident. When its report was handed down on 30 August, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee recommended that the Senate support the bill. Therefore, with this inquiry having now concluded and with the clarity having been confirmed, I can advise the Senate that the federal coalition will not be opposing this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today to oppose the government's bill, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023, not because the coalition don't absolutely support animal welfare but because this is a case of overreach which may have a perverse outcome of seeing state governments withdraw from the animal welfare space.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill will add more red tape to the office of the inspector-general and could well end up duplicating or replacing existing animal welfare efforts and initiatives that we currently see across governments and the live export industry. They are the reasons why I oppose these measures in this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We're going to support the passage of this particular legislation. I would be far more enthusiastic about my support for it if I knew that the government were actually supportive of this industry and farmers across Australia—and, indeed, Western Australia—but we know by their actions that they're not.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For these reasons, the federal coalition will be opposing the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 in the knowledge that we will not be opposing it. However, some of the nonsense that has been put on the public record must be countered.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“While the opposition will not be opposing this bill, I think the context and the scandal of what this government has done should be yet another stain on those opposite. Somewhat humorously, Senator McGrath stood up just before question time to talk about all of the Labor government's achievements, and he couldn't think of a single one. Sadly, in just 18 months, the list of things the government has got wrong—turning the nation's economy backwards very quickly, releasing violent offenders out into our streets—goes on and on and on. Sadly for Western Australia's farmers, for our economy, for food security and for protein deficits to be filled, this will go down as another completely outrageous, unnecessary and punitive acquiescence to the animal welfare groups, who are incredibly selfish, who lie, and who do not care one jot about the impact they have on food security elsewhere. They certainly do not care as we on this side do, particularly my WA colleagues, about the families and lives that they are ruining. All I can say is shame on you.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It is really important that people realise you're dealing with the animals—we have a safe system—but you're also dealing with people's lives, industries and incomes. So I cannot support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 1 support · 1 oppose
“This bill merely tweaks the role and scope of the current Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports, and this is really disappointing. Animal welfare experts have rightly observed that most of the proposed functions under the bill could be carried out by the existing inspector-general and that this bill is a very small step and more about rebranding than about substantive reform.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is a welcome step, but unfortunately it doesn't go far enough to achieve what is actually needed to eliminate animal cruelty in the live export industry or more broadly across Australia. The cruelty cannot be regulated out. I believe that the only thing that would actually stop that cruelty is ending that industry entirely. The Greens will move amendments in the Senate to strengthen this bill in relation to animal welfare. My colleague Senator Faruqi, who has been a tireless advocate in this area, will speak to those amendments in the other place.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 2 support · 1 mixed
“I make the point again that this bill is good as far as it goes, and I applaud the government for bringing this bill to the parliament. It's a rare thing to see anything to do with animal welfare come into this parliament, but I would urge the government to consider again where the inspector-general sits. If it is to be genuinely independent, then take it out of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Have it as a standalone and genuinely independent body and give it the remit and resources to work with the state and territory governments and their agencies and with industry bodies to take a leadership role to develop policy, to try to lift the standard around the country markedly and to try to harmonise the standards around the country. That would put us on a pathway to the federal government being more involved with animal welfare nationally and putting the weights on the state and territory governments, who frankly have let us down terribly when it has come to so many aspects of animal welfare. It's not just about the welfare of sheep and cattle in the live export trade.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“While I support this bill, and it does take some steps to improve the welfare of animals—and you could argue it is progressive—I think the government need to do better here. They made an election commitment that they would do better with respect to animal welfare and long-haul live sheep exports.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Whilst I'm pleased to see the progress on the establishment of the inspector-general of animal welfare, the model outlined in the bill falls short of the community's expectations and the government's manifesto commitments. The proposed role and objectives of the new Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports add little that is new to the role and objectives of the current Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. It's certainly not the new statutory body that many had hoped for. Reviewing and reporting on the department's approval of regulated entities, detecting noncompliance, conducting investigations, interacting with state and territory enforcement agencies and reporting on animal welfare breaches are all topics where the current inspector-general has power to review. The primary difference made by this bill appears to be a change in the name.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 87 to 51.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Consideration of Senate message
Consideration of Senate message
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee; Committee report (30/08/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (3 Aug 2023): Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee; Committee report (30 Aug 2023)
APH bill page notes
