This bill became law on Dec 4th, 2025.
Welfare & housing
Validates and regulates historic income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income. for employment income earned, derived or received between 1 July 1991 and 6 December 2020, while stating that Robodebt income averaging is not validated.
The government introduced the bill to settle the legal and administrative legacy of income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income., reform debt waivers and reduce low-value debt work in Services Australia. The explanatory memorandum says the bill validates historic calculations, sets future methods for pre-2020 income, expands special-circumstances waivers, raises and indexes the small-debt waiverA waiver for debts below a statutory threshold. This Act raises the relevant threshold to $250 and provides for annual CPI indexation. threshold, and creates the Income Apportionment Resolution SchemeA scheme created by schedule 3 for resolution payments to people whose debts were affected by income apportionment between 20 September 2003 and 6 December 2020..
The Act sits in the post-Robodebt debate about lawful, humane administration of social security debts. Supporters framed it as a practical repair: waiving small and coerced debts, resolving historic income-apportionment uncertainty, and avoiding a mass recalculation exercise. Critics argued that retrospective validation and capped payments fell short of justice, and that the late-added schedule 5 benefit restriction powers deserved separate scrutiny.
Criticism focused on two issues. First, Greens and crossbench senators argued that retrospective validation and capped resolution payments did not fully remedy unlawful income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income.. Second, Greens, independent senators and external groups cited in debate criticised schedule 5 benefit restriction notices as late-added, insufficiently scrutinised and risky for presumption of innocence and vulnerable people.
Tanya Plibersek MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Liberal Party; opposed by Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 04 Dec 2025
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
91 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Validates and regulates historic income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income. for employment income earned, derived or received between 1 July 1991 and 6 December 2020, while stating that Robodebt income averaging is not validated.
Creates an Income Apportionment Resolution SchemeA scheme created by schedule 3 for resolution payments to people whose debts were affected by income apportionment between 20 September 2003 and 6 December 2020. for people with affected debts from 20 September 2003 to 6 December 2020, with the detailed scheme to be set by legislative instrument.
Expands special-circumstances debt waivers so decision-makers can better account for coercion, financial abuse and comparable situations when a debt involved false statements, failures or omissions.
Raises the small-debt waiverA waiver for debts below a statutory threshold. This Act raises the relevant threshold to $250 and provides for annual CPI indexation. threshold to $250, indexes it annually, and waives recovery of certain small undetermined amounts already recorded in Services Australia systems.
As passed, adds schedule 5 benefit restriction noticeA notice created by schedule 5 that can restrict certain payments in specified arrest-warrant situations involving relevant AFP or ASIO minister action. powers allowing relevant ministers to restrict certain social security, family assistance and paid parental leave payments for people with specified arrest warrants.
Division 2 does not validate any income averaging which was done in accordance with the debt assessment and recovery scheme known as Robodebt nor extinguish any causes of action in respect of an accrued general law right.Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Act 2025 final Act text
Schedule 3 establishes the Resolution Scheme to provide resolution payments to persons whose debts have been affected by income apportionment from 20 September 2003 to 6 December 2020 inclusive.Explanatory memorandum
Expand the instances in which the special circumstances waiver may be applied to waive debts incurred under each respective Act.Explanatory memorandum
Increase the threshold for waiving a small debt up to the value of $250 and annually index the waiver threshold to the Consumer Price Index (CPI)Explanatory memorandum
Schedule 5—Benefit restriction notices Part 1—Social Security Act amendments Social Security Act 1991Final Act text
Context
The Act sits in the post-Robodebt debate about lawful, humane administration of social security debts. Supporters framed it as a practical repair: waiving small and coerced debts, resolving historic income-apportionment uncertainty, and avoiding a mass recalculation exercise. Critics argued that retrospective validation and capped payments fell short of justice, and that the late-added schedule 5 benefit restriction powers deserved separate scrutiny.
Income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income. period begins
The Act deals with employment income earned, derived or received between 1 July 1991 and 6 December 2020, the period relevant to historic income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income. validation and future treatment rules.
Final Act text ↗Historic income-apportionment period ends
The bill and explanatory memorandum use 6 December 2020 as the end date for the historic income-apportionment period addressed by the legislation.
Explanatory memorandum ↗Bill introduced and referred to committee
The bill was introduced in the House and referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, with a report date recorded as 21 October 2025.
APH bill page notes ↗House amendments add Schedule 5
The House agreed to government amendments that added benefit restriction noticeA notice created by schedule 5 that can restrict certain payments in specified arrest-warrant situations involving relevant AFP or ASIO minister action. provisions as schedule 5, a change that later became the main focus of Senate criticism.
Government House amendment sheet FE107 and APH progress record ↗Act receives Royal Assent
The bill became Act No. 79 of 2025 after Royal Assent on 4 December 2025.
Federal Register of Legislation metadata in local source bundle ↗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 was referred to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (21/10/2025).
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe local APH notes record consideration by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in Report 5 of 2025.
Considered by scrutiny committee
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.
Consideration in detail debate
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 local APH notes record consideration by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025.
Considered by scrutiny committee
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 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.
Committee of the WholeA Senate stage where detailed amendments to a bill are debated and voted on after the second reading. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 24 to 16.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
Criticism focused on two issues. First, Greens and crossbench senators argued that retrospective validation and capped resolution payments did not fully remedy unlawful income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income.. Second, Greens, independent senators and external groups cited in debate criticised schedule 5 benefit restriction notices as late-added, insufficiently scrutinised and risky for presumption of innocence and vulnerable people.
Coalition speakers supported passage while raising scrutiny and implementation concerns. Government speakers said the bill was a practical way to resolve old debts, protect victim-survivors and use narrow schedule 5 powers for serious cases.
Retrospective validation
Greens speakers argued that validating historic income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income. would deny people a full remedy for an unlawful practice.
Resolution payments too low
The Greens second-reading amendment said the proposed payment amounts would leave many people with less than their overpayment and would not compensate additional harm or inconvenience.
Schedule 5 scrutiny and rights concerns
Independent and Greens senators argued that benefit restriction noticeA notice created by schedule 5 that can restrict certain payments in specified arrest-warrant situations involving relevant AFP or ASIO minister action. powers were inserted late, should have been split into a separate bill or inquiry, and risked punishing people before guilt was determined.
Operational detail
Coalition speakers supported the bill but said more detail was needed on the resolution schemeA scheme created by schedule 3 for resolution payments to people whose debts were affected by income apportionment between 20 September 2003 and 6 December 2020., interaction with existing compensation processes, special-circumstances waiverA power to waive certain social security, family assistance, paid parental leave or student assistance debts when special circumstances justify not recovering the debt. criteria and any criminal-conviction implications.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
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.
Passed 24 to 16. Support came from Labor and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 25 to 15. Support came from Labor and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, and minor parties and independents.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
Would add a six-year limit on recovery action for family assistance, social security and student assistance debts, measured from when the overpayment was made.
Would add a six-year limit on recovery action for family assistance, social security and student assistance debts, measured from when the overpayment was made.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.
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.
APH records 24 Government amendments agreed on the voices. The public amendment list groups them into 1 amendment sheet, so this page summarizes the package by source theme.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
Senate
Moved by Penny Allman-Payne (Australian Greens). Defeated 14 to 24. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party.
Defeated 14-24; the Senate did not attach the Greens criticism before moving on.
Moved by David Pocock (Crossbench). Defeated 18 to 24. Support came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party.
Defeated 18-24; schedule 5 stayed in the bill.
Moved by Penny Allman-Payne (Australian Greens). Defeated 16 to 25. Support came from Greens, One Nation, and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated 16-25; retrospective validation remained in the bill.
Moved by Penny Allman-Payne (Australian Greens). Defeated 15 to 26. Support came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party.
Defeated 15-26; the Greens debt-recovery time limit was not added.
Moved by Penny Allman-Payne (Australian Greens). Defeated 12 to 28. Support came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated 12-28; the bill’s narrower waiver changes remained.
Moved by Penny Allman-Payne (Australian Greens). Defeated 13 to 27. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation.
Defeated 13-27; the bill’s $250 threshold remained.
Moved by Penny Allman-Payne (Australian Greens). Defeated 12 to 28. Support came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated 12-28; eligibility remained tied to debts from 20 September 2003.
Moved by Penny Allman-Payne (Australian Greens). Defeated 16 to 26. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Sean Bell (One Nation) voted no. One Nation had split recorded votes.
Defeated 16-26; the application period was left to the scheme settings.
Moved by David Pocock (Crossbench). Defeated 14 to 28. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and UAP.
Defeated 14-28; the additional advice requirement was not added.
Moved by David Pocock (Crossbench). Defeated 15 to 25. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party.
Defeated 15-25; schedule 5 was not sent to a new inquiry before passage.
The Senate Journal records this outcome as carried on voices.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
APH records 10 Government amendments agreed on the voices. The public amendment list groups them into 1 amendment sheet, so this page summarizes the package by source theme.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Tanya Plibersek introduced the bill as a social security debt reform package: validating historical income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income., creating a resolution schemeA scheme created by schedule 3 for resolution payments to people whose debts were affected by income apportionment between 20 September 2003 and 6 December 2020., expanding debt waivers for special circumstances including coercive control, and lifting the small-debt waiverA waiver for debts below a statutory threshold. This Act raises the relevant threshold to $250 and provides for annual CPI indexation. threshold to $250.
Read in Hansard ↗Penny Allman-Payne opposed the bill, arguing that retrospective validation and capped resolution payments failed to provide justice for people affected by unlawful income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income..
Read in Hansard ↗Kate Chaney supported the bill, especially the higher small-debt waiverA waiver for debts below a statutory threshold. This Act raises the relevant threshold to $250 and provides for annual CPI indexation. and broader special-circumstances waiverA power to waive certain social security, family assistance, paid parental leave or student assistance debts when special circumstances justify not recovering the debt. for victim-survivors of family, domestic and financial abuse.
Read in Hansard ↗David Pocock moved to split schedule 5 into a separate bill so the benefit-restriction notice powers could be sent to a committee inquiry, citing concerns about presumption of innocence and lack of scrutiny.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
17 speakers · 18 contributions · 17 support
“I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025, and I move:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Australians should never be punished for seeking in good faith the help that their government offers them to manage life's challenges.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Albanese Labor government is committed to delivering a fairer, more efficient social security system that Australians can trust.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill fixes technical problems that have lingered for years.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill will also increase the threshold for waiving small debts for the first time in over 30 years.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“With this bill, the Albanese Labor government is delivering a fairer, more efficient and more compassionate social security system.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“this bill is a significant step towards a fairer, more efficient social security system that better supports Australians when they need it most.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“From 1991 to 2020 a method known as income apportionment was used to calculate debts.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025. It is a bill grounded in two of Labor's most enduring values—dignity and fairness.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Tanya Plibersek, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
Tanya Plibersek introduced the bill as a social security debt reform package: validating historical income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income., creating a resolution schemeA scheme created by schedule 3 for resolution payments to people whose debts were affected by income apportionment between 20 September 2003 and 6 December 2020., expanding debt waivers for special circumstances including coercive control, and lifting the small-debt waiverA waiver for debts below a statutory threshold. This Act raises the relevant threshold to $250 and provides for annual CPI indexation. threshold to $250.
“The bill will standardise and increase the threshold for waiving small social security debts for the first time in over 30 years, up from the current thresholds of either $50 or $200 to a single, unified amount of $250.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Tanya Plibersek closed the House debate by defending the bill as a fair, practical response to income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income. and social security debts, while noting amendments including a six-year debt-recovery limit and benefit-restriction notice schedule.
“I particularly want to thank the newly elected members who spoke about what these social security reforms will mean in their local communities. These debt reforms will make a big difference in particular to many women who have suffered or continue to suffer financial coercion and abuse.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“For too long, too many Australians have faced unnecessary stress, confusion and, at times, outright injustice through the way our social security debts have been managed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 may carry the word 'technical' in the title, but its purpose is anything but minor.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is about more than numbers or technicalities. It's about people and it's about providing safety and justice.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today in strong support of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No.2) Bill 2025.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I've listened to those contributions. The government will not be supporting this contingent motion from Senator Pocock, and I will run through a little bit about why that is.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill addresses the legacy of income apportionment, a technical method used from the early 1990s to 2020 to calculate debts when pay slips didn't specify which workdays they applied to, and the courts have confirmed that this practice had no valid legal basis.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill expands access to the special circumstances waiver to protect victims-survivors of financial abuse and coercion.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 mixed
“I rise today to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025. The coalition will support this bill in the Senate today; however, we hold concerns about certain provisions that merit closer scrutiny.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition will not oppose this bill in the House of Representatives; however, we do have significant concerns about aspects of the legislation that warrant further scrutiny.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 oppose
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Penny Allman-Payne on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Penny Allman-Payne opposed the bill, arguing that retrospective validation and capped resolution payments failed to provide justice for people affected by unlawful income apportionmentA historic method of spreading employment income across entitlement periods when calculating social security payment rates or debts. The Act validates and regulates parts of that historic practice for pre-7 December 2020 income..
“They'll claim that it delivers justice for people affected by income apportionment. But it's not a win, it's not justice, and it certainly doesn't adequately address the harm caused by the government's actions.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Penny Allman-Payne supported Pocock’s motion to split schedule 5 from the bill, arguing that the government had not justified the urgency or provided proper scrutiny.
“The government has not given us a genuine explanation for why schedule 5 is warranted and why it is so urgent.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“But I also rise to oppose schedule 5 of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025, which gives the power to cancel welfare payments for people with outstanding arrest warrants—not people who've been found guilty but simply with outstanding arrest warrants.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“So what do we have here? Labor wants to pass this bill to retrospectively validate the unlawful income apportionment method that underpinned the robodebt rip-off.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 6 contributions · 2 support · 2 oppose · 1 mixed
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by David Pocock on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
David Pocock welcomed parts of the bill, including debt waiver changes, but criticised retrospective validation and strongly objected to late-added schedule 5 powers to restrict payments for people with arrest warrants.
“With all that being said, the government then went and did something that I think makes it really difficult to support this bill and to look at the evidence, to look at submissions, to see what stakeholders are saying and to say, 'This is a bill I can vote on on behalf of people in the ACT.' At the eleventh hour in the House the government introduced new clauses which would give the AFP minister and the ASIO minister the power to cancel someone's social security benefits if there is a warrant out for that person's arrest.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
David Pocock moved to split schedule 5 into a separate bill so the benefit-restriction notice powers could be sent to a committee inquiry, citing concerns about presumption of innocence and lack of scrutiny.
“I move this motion to split schedule 5 into a new bill, with the intention that we will send it to an inquiry for examination.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“That's how people are feeling about this piece of legislation—the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025. You snuck a section in without any scrutiny.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The proposal to raise the threshold for small debt waivers and to index this threshold in future is supported by a number of advocates and experts, because it eases hardship for people who are on the lowest incomes while also reducing the administrative burden on Services Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This change won't make headlines, but for those it effects it could mean everything.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Once again the government has denied true, genuine consultation on important legislation.”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 · 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.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
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 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 · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the WholeA Senate stage where detailed amendments to a bill are debated and voted on after the second reading. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the WholeA Senate stage where detailed amendments to a bill are debated and voted on after the second reading. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 24 to 16.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
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 Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (21/10/2025)
Referred to committee
The bill was referred to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (21/10/2025).
Referred to Committee (4 Sept 2025): Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (21 Oct 2025)
APH bill page notesParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered by scrutiny committee
The local APH notes record consideration by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in Report 5 of 2025.
Considered by scrutiny committee (2 Oct 2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 5 of 2025
APH bill page notes in local source bundleSenate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered by scrutiny committee
The local APH notes record consideration by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025.
Considered by scrutiny committee (29 Oct 2025): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025
APH bill page notes in local source bundle
