Regulatory Reform Omnibus

Current status

This bill is currently before Parliament.

Policy area

Government & democracy

What does this bill do?

Plant breeders get six extra months to pay a late annual renewal fee before losing their rights.

Why was it introduced?

The government said the bill would reduce unnecessary paperwork, make government services easier to use and support productivity. It said the bill amends 25 Acts, repeals two Acts and improves how 18 government agencies operate. The wider regulatory reform program aims to cut the annual paperwork burden by $10.2 billion, while this bill itself is expected to have no significant cost or saving.

Broader context

Australia already had a regulatory-reform path from the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Act 2025, including an initial move towards letting people and businesses tell government information once, but outdated rules still imposed repeated forms, rigid proof-of-life checks and unnecessary administrative costs. The 2026 bill responded by expanding information reuse, easing pension checks, opening a Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation pension option to eligible former ADF members and simplifying plant-rights and trade processes; Daniel Mulino MP introduced it on 13 May 2026, and the House passed it on 1 July.

Key criticism

Tim Wilson (Liberal) argued the bill was too modest to make a major difference to business costs or productivity. He also said removing automatic notices for people mentioned in discrimination complaints could harm fairness and reputations. Allegra Spender (Independent) said compliance costs had risen from $65 billion in 2013 to $160 billion, while boards' risk-and-compliance time rose from 24 per cent in 2015 to 55 per cent in 2025. She argued the bill did not change the incentives that encourage governments and regulators to add rules rather than remove them.

Who supported it?

Daniel Mulino MP introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Labor, Liberal Party, some crossbench members.

Introduced in House 13 May 2026
Passed House 01 July 2026
At second reading in Senate 02 July 2026
Not yet law

Did it become law?

Not yet

Final passage

Recorded vote so far

1 recorded amendment or procedural vote was found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.

Days since introduction

86 days

Updated 07 Aug 2026.

Official record

View on APH

Parliament of Australia bill page

What does this bill do?

  1. Plant breeders get six extra months to pay a late annual renewal fee before losing their rights.

  2. Importers can receive eligible refunds sooner when they confirm they will not appeal, instead of waiting 30 days.

  3. People helping welfare recipients can end that arrangement by phone, without also notifying Services Australia in writing.

  4. Pension recipients aged 80 or older may avoid repeated paperwork when Services Australia already holds reliable proof they are alive. This covers people overseas continuously for at least two years.

  5. Healthcare providers can receive a patient's recorded date of death so they can close clinical records properly.

  6. Eligible former Australian Defence Force members can choose CSC Retirement Income, a government-run product that turns invested savings into regular retirement payments.

  7. People mentioned in discrimination complaints no longer always receive a notice from the Australian Human Rights Commission, the national human-rights complaints body. Its president can still notify them when appropriate.

Show source excerpts
  1. It will also introduce a six-month grace period for plant breeders to renew their Plant Breeder Rights where they are late in paying the annual renewal fee. Under the current settings these rights are automatically lost if the fee is paid late, and the plant breeder must apply again to get them back. We know that life and business get hectic sometimes. This change means that plant breeders won't accidently lose valuable rights just because they missed a renewal payment deadline.
    Second reading speech
  2. Beyond intellectual property, the Bill will remove the mandatory 30 day appeal period for importers who advise they don't intend to appeal a negative preliminary decision by the Anti-Dumping Commissioner for a partial refund as part of the duty assessment process. This change will allow importers to receive faster refunds when they advise that they don't intend to appeal the decision. The Commissioner's preliminary decision is subject to being finalised by the Minister. When the decision is finalised, the importer can be paid the refund they are entitled to. However, even when an importer has
    Second reading speech
  3. The Bill will make it easier for people who are 'nominees' under the social security law to cancel their nominee arrangements by removing the requirement to cancel in writing. Nominees are appointed to assist social security, family assistance and paid parental leave recipients who need help interacting with Services Australia. Currently, when nominees want to cancel their nominee appointment they must notify Services Australia in writing, even if they've already said they want to cancel their appointment over the phone. This adds administrative burden and can cause delays in the cancellatio
    Second reading speech
  4. The Bill will also make it easier for recipients of some Commonwealth pensions to comply with their Proof of Life obligations and reduce duplication of effort by Services Australia. These obligations apply to Australians aged 80 years or over who have been away from Australia for at least two continuous years. These amendments will allow Services Australia, in some cases, to rely instead on information it has already collected from other places. This is a significant change that will reduce the regulatory burden not just on elderly pensioners but also on Australia's consular officials, who oft
    Second reading speech
  5. The bill also improves the operation of the Healthcare Identifiers Act. It allows date of death information to be disclosed in appropriate circumstances to healthcare providers and health administration entities. That allows patient records to be closed properly, and it avoids unnecessary work and cost. This is one of those areas where the law needs to catch up with ordinary reality. If a healthcare provider is trying to maintain accurate records, the system should not force them into a scavenger hunt.
    Second reading speech
  6. Under the Superannuation Act, a person may obtain CSCri membership if they are a PSSAP member and they request access in accordance with Rule 3.6.1 of the Superannuation (PSSAP) Trust Deed (the PSSAP Trust Deed). A person is a PSSAP member if they are eligible for membership of PSSAP under section 13 of the Superannuation Act and, if PSSAP is not the person’s mandated fund, they make a choice to become a member of PSSAP under subsection 14(2) of the Superannuation Act. The amendments create a pathway that permits certain former ADF members to request access to CSCri. A former ADF member is an
    Regulatory Reform Omnibus explanatory memorandum
  7. I also note the comments made by the opposition on schedule 2, part 4. The problem tackled by this amendment is not that these notifications are issued; it is a foundational principle that people must be notified when they have a case to answer. The problem is the mandatory nature of these notices. This mandatory obligation means that even people who play no part in a complaint, who are subject to no legal consequences and who have no procedural avenue to respond must receive these notices. The commission estimates that it spends approximately 450 hours per year administering adverse allegati
    Second reading speech

Broader context for this bill

Australia already had a regulatory-reform path from the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Act 2025, including an initial move towards letting people and businesses tell government information once, but outdated rules still imposed repeated forms, rigid proof-of-life checks and unnecessary administrative costs. The 2026 bill responded by expanding information reuse, easing pension checks, opening a Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation pension option to eligible former ADF members and simplifying plant-rights and trade processes; Daniel Mulino MP introduced it on 13 May 2026, and the House passed it on 1 July.

  1. 2025

    The 2025 omnibus Act starts the reform path

    The 2026 bill was developed after the 2025 Act, which had already begun legislative changes supporting a tell-us-once approach.

    Regulatory Reform Omnibus explanatory memorandum ↗
  2. 13 May 2026

    Daniel Mulino MP introduces the 2026 bill

    The bill was formally presented in the House of Representatives, beginning its parliamentary consideration.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗
  3. 01 July 2026

    House passes the bill

    The House agreed to the third reading after considering government amendments, completing passage through the originating chamber.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗

How did it move through Parliament?

House Senate
Introduced 13 May 2026

The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.

Introduced and read a first time

Second reading opened 13 May 2026

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

Second reading debate 24 June 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Sent to Federation Chamber for debate 24 June 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Referred to Federation Chamber

Federation Chamber debate 24 June 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Second reading debate

Returned from Federation Chamber 01 July 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Reported from Federation Chamber

House second reading agreed 01 July 2026

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

House agreed to amendment packages 01 July 2026

The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.

Consideration in detail debate

House third reading agreed 01 July 2026

The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.

Third reading agreed to

Introduced 02 July 2026

The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.

Introduced and read a first time

Second reading opened 02 July 2026

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

The main case against this bill

Tim Wilson (Liberal) argued the bill was too modest to make a major difference to business costs or productivity. He also said removing automatic notices for people mentioned in discrimination complaints could harm fairness and reputations. Allegra Spender (Independent) said compliance costs had risen from $65 billion in 2013 to $160 billion, while boards' risk-and-compliance time rose from 24 per cent in 2015 to 55 per cent in 2025. She argued the bill did not change the incentives that encourage governments and regulators to add rules rather than remove them.

Both speakers supported useful parts of the bill. The government said the complaints body spends about 450 hours each year on these notices, including notices to people who cannot formally respond and face no legal consequences.

Transparency and oversight

Helen Haines and Tim Wilson raised concerns that repealing detailed advertising disclosure rules could reduce transparency, parliamentary scrutiny and procedural fairness. Haines made her support conditional on removing that repeal, while Wilson supported passage but wanted Senate inquiry into the provisions.

Raised by Helen Haines and Tim Wilson Source ↗

Limited relief from compliance burdens

Michael McCormack argued that the bill did not go far enough to reduce compliance costs for farmers, irrigators and small businesses, despite containing some useful reforms.

Raised by Michael McCormack Source ↗

Recorded votes

Amendments at a glance

Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.

House

Defeated

Set measurable targets for cutting regulation

Aye 9 No 68

Defeated 9 to 68. Support came from Community Strong Australia and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and Greens.

01 July 2026

The House rejected the amendment, then agreed to the original second-reading motion and read the bill a second time.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 65
Independent 7 / 0
Community Strong Australia 2 / 0
Liberal 0 / 2
Greens 0 / 1
Carried

Government package: 2 amendments

Government amendments remove the bill’s table item and Schedule 2 provisions concerning reporting obligations.

01 July 2026

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.

Themes in the public amendment sheets

These are amendment votes, not the final passage vote on the bill itself.

Who spoke, and what they said

Start here — lead voices

Sponsor speech Supports

Daniel Mulino

Australian Labor Party • MP 13 May 2026

Daniel Mulino supports the bill, saying it will simplify regulation, reduce administrative burdens and improve government services while maintaining essential safeguards.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead opposing voice Opposes

Michael McCormack

National Party • MP 24 June 2026

Michael McCormack says the bill does not do enough to reduce compliance burdens on farmers, irrigators and small businesses, despite containing some good elements.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead supporting voice Supports

Tim Wilson

Liberal Party • MP 24 June 2026

Tim Wilson supports the bill passing the House because it contains sensible deregulation measures, but argues it is too modest and wants the transparency and procedural fairness provisions examined through a Senate inquiry.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead non-major voice Supports

Allegra Spender

Independent • MP 01 July 2026

Allegra Spender supports the bill, saying its technical streamlining measures are useful, but urges the government to tackle the deeper incentives that keep regulatory burden growing and says her amendment is intended to strengthen the reform rather than block it.

Read in Hansard ↗

All speeches by bloc

Labor

6 speakers · 7 contributions · 6 support

  1. Tom French Tom French supports the bill, saying it would reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, speed up government processes and make rules clearer for businesses, workers and consumers.
    “I rise to support the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026, and I accept at the outset that the words 'regulatory reform omnibus bill' are unlikely to start a stampede in the public gallery. They do not sound like the beginning of a great national moment. They sound like something you might be prescribed if sleep has become a problem. But for anyone who has run a business, worked in a trade, dealt with a government form, waited on a refund or had to tell the same thing to three different parts of the same system, this bill is real and matters more than I think anyone will fully understand. This is about making the machinery of government a bit less painful, and that is not a bad ambition.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 24 June 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Katy Gallagher Katy Gallagher supports the bill, saying it will simplify regulation, reduce burdens for businesses and Australians, and improve government services while maintaining essential safeguards.
    “This Bill is about making sure regulation supports businesses to get the most out of their investment and their hard work.”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 02 July 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Claire Clutterham Claire Clutterham supports the bill, saying it delivers targeted regulatory reform to reduce compliance burdens, improve government services and efficiency, and strengthen fuel security after stakeholder consultation.
    “This bill is an example of targeted regulatory reform, following solid policy development underpinned by stakeholder consultation. I commend the bill to the chamber.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 24 June 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Rowan Holzberger Rowan Holzberger supports the bill, saying it removes outdated regulation and makes life easier for businesses, consumers and people dealing with government services.
    “I commend the bill to this House in the context in which it sits, which is the Albanese government's philosophy of nobody left behind and nobody held back.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 24 June 2026

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

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 24 June 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Coalition

2 speakers · 1 support · 1 oppose

Minor parties and independents

3 speakers · 1 support · 1 mixed · 1 unclear

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

    Independent • MP • 24 June 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Rebekha Sharkie Rebekha Sharkie's position on the bill is unclear because the record contains only an unresolved procedural amendment and no substantive argument for or against passage.
    “The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Wentworth has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.”

    Centre Alliance • MP • 01 July 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Full record

Full chat