This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Government & democracy
Future vaccine deals would no longer let the Commonwealth give vaccine makers a legal or financial guarantee for harm linked to using the vaccine, shifting that risk back to pharmaceutical companies.
COVID-19-era vaccine deals made indemnities for manufacturers commonplace and left the Commonwealth carrying unquantifiable liabilities for harm linked to vaccine use. This bill responds by banning the Finance MinisterThe minister who currently has power under the finance law to approve Commonwealth indemnities., government and Commonwealth entities from giving future vaccine manufacturers those indemnities, leaving that risk with the companies.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia used the Commonwealth’s existing indemnityA legal promise that someone else will cover a loss or claim; here it means the Commonwealth would pay if vaccine use caused harm or damage. powers to help secure vaccine supplies and rolled vaccines out nationally, but the 2022 Auditor-General report found the program had been planned late and managed poorly, sharpening attention on how much risk the Commonwealth had taken on. Against that backdrop, this 2023 bill sought to stop any future government indemnities for vaccine manufacturers and leave liability with the companies, but the government argued indemnities were still essential in emergencies and the bill later lapsed in July 2025.
The main criticism was that banning future vaccine indemnities could make it harder for Australia to secure vaccines quickly in a pandemic, because manufacturers may refuse supply deals without that protection. That case was raised mainly by the government in debate, while most other recorded speakers backed the bill rather than arguing against it.
Senator Ralph Babet introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from UAP, Liberal Party, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, LNP.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
718 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Future vaccine deals would no longer let the Commonwealth give vaccine makers a legal or financial guarantee for harm linked to using the vaccine, shifting that risk back to pharmaceutical companies.
The Finance MinisterThe minister who currently has power under the finance law to approve Commonwealth indemnities. would be barred from giving vaccine manufacturers indemnities for injuries, death, loss or damage linked to people using a vaccine.
Commonwealth bodiesA body that belongs to the federal government, such as a department or statutory authority, which this bill would also stop from giving vaccine indemnities. as well as the Australian Government itself would be blocked from giving vaccine manufacturers these indemnities.
The ban would override the usual indemnityA legal promise that someone else will cover a loss or claim; here it means the Commonwealth would pay if vaccine use caused harm or damage. powers in the financial management law, so other rules could not be used to work around it.
The change would apply only to future indemnities for human vaccines and would leave existing indemnities already granted in place.
Australia’s representative democracy is underpinned by core values of transparency and accountability, principles that build and maintain trust. This Bill seeks to prevent the granting of future indemnities by the Commonwealth in relation to the use of vaccines. This Bill will limit financial and legal risk to the Commonwealth so that risk remains with pharmaceutical companies.Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) explanatory memorandum
The new section 61A refers to granting an indemnity in relation to the “use” of the vaccine. A key concern this bill seeks to address is with granting indemnities against injury, death, loss, or damage resulting from the use of the vaccine. These injuries should not be the responsibility of the Commonwealth (taxpayers) to compensate.Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) explanatory memorandum
This bill will ensure that neither the government, an individual or an entity of the Commonwealth will have the ability to grant indemnity to a vaccine manufacturer.Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) explanatory memorandum
7. Subsection 61A(3) confirms that the new section 61A applies despite sections 60 and 61, and any rules made for the purposes of these sections.Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) explanatory memorandum
11. The scope of this Bill is limited to preventing the granting of future vaccine indemnities. It will not impact existing indemnities. This application provision is inserted to provide clarity on this matter.Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) explanatory memorandum
Context
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia used the Commonwealth’s existing indemnityA legal promise that someone else will cover a loss or claim; here it means the Commonwealth would pay if vaccine use caused harm or damage. powers to help secure vaccine supplies and rolled vaccines out nationally, but the 2022 Auditor-General report found the program had been planned late and managed poorly, sharpening attention on how much risk the Commonwealth had taken on. Against that backdrop, this 2023 bill sought to stop any future government indemnities for vaccine manufacturers and leave liability with the companies, but the government argued indemnities were still essential in emergencies and the bill later lapsed in July 2025.
Commonwealth indemnities help secure COVID-19 vaccine supply
The government later told Parliament that indemnifying COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers had been critical to obtaining timely access to vaccines during the pandemic.
Hansard ↗Australia begins rolling out COVID-19 vaccines to remote territories
The Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands rollout showed the Commonwealth was directly implementing the national vaccination program across Australia.
Department of Infrastructure ↗Auditor-General report finds Australia's vaccine rollout was planned too late
The report said the Coalition left planning too late and mishandled coordination and reporting, adding to scrutiny of pandemic vaccine decisions.
Australian Financial Review ↗Bill introduced to ban future vaccine manufacturer indemnities
Senator Babet introduced the bill to prevent the Commonwealth and its entities from granting new indemnities for harm linked to human vaccines.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Government rejects the bill as a threat to emergency vaccine access
During the second reading debate, the government argued the ban would make it harder to secure vaccines quickly in a future pandemic or emergency.
Hansard ↗Bill lapses at the end of Parliament
The proposal did not pass, so the Commonwealth's ability to grant vaccine manufacturer indemnities remained unchanged.
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.
Referred to Committee (10/08/2023): Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee; Committee report (18/03/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that banning future vaccine indemnities could make it harder for Australia to secure vaccines quickly in a pandemic, because manufacturers may refuse supply deals without that protection. That case was raised mainly by the government in debate, while most other recorded speakers backed the bill rather than arguing against it.
Criticism was limited and focused on emergency vaccine access rather than the bill's accountability goal.
Could delay vaccine supply in a future pandemic
Opponents argued governments sometimes need to indemnify vaccine manufacturers during emergencies to secure fast access to vaccines, and removing that option could leave Australia worse placed in a global supply scramble.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Babet supports the bill and argues it is needed to stop the Commonwealth granting future vaccine indemnities, which he says would reduce taxpayer risk and restore transparency and trust.
Read in Hansard ↗Watt says the government will oppose the bill because indemnifying vaccine manufacturers in an emergency or pandemic is necessary to secure timely vaccine supply for Australia.
Read in Hansard ↗Canavan supports the bill because he says no single minister should be able to grant a vaccine indemnityA legal promise that someone else will cover a loss or claim; here it means the Commonwealth would pay if vaccine use caused harm or damage. on their own, and any future indemnityA legal promise that someone else will cover a loss or claim; here it means the Commonwealth would pay if vaccine use caused harm or damage. should require full parliamentary scrutiny and approval.
Read in Hansard ↗Roberts supports the bill and says ending vaccine indemnityA legal promise that someone else will cover a loss or claim; here it means the Commonwealth would pay if vaccine use caused harm or damage. is necessary to restore accountability and stop future impunity.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“The government will not support this bill, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023. The ability to indemnify vaccine manufacturers in an emergency and/or pandemic situation is critical to secure timely access to vaccines for Australia. This was the case during COVID-19, where our ability to indemnify COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers enabled timely access to vaccines. If the Commonwealth had not been able to indemnify COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers, there would have been significant delays or refusal from the manufacturers to supply their vaccine in Australia. If this bill were to pass, this change would hinder Australia's ability to secure timely supply to vaccines during worldwide pandemics.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 support
“I rise today to speak in favour of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023. I think it is way overdue and I think that it's a real shame that this wasn't introduced earlier, because too many people have suffered.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I support this bill. I commend Senator Babet for introducing it. I hope that others, and particularly others in this place that have a history of standing up, so-called, to the big pharma companies—I'm looking at the Australian Greens in particular—live up to what they're talking about and support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“When indemnities are granted, especially in secret, accountability is removed, and you in this Senate, in this parliament, have demonstrated that repeatedly. You've confirmed it. All who oppose this bill will be voting to continue the needless deaths and lies. This bill will prevent recurrence. Ending indemnity will end impunity. It will contribute to restoring accountability. Transparency restores trust. I wholeheartedly support this bill and urge all senators to vote in support.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Ralph Babet on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Babet supports the bill and argues it is needed to stop the Commonwealth granting future vaccine indemnities, which he says would reduce taxpayer risk and restore transparency and trust. He frames it as a way to prevent pharmaceutical companies from being shielded from accountability.
“I urge you to support this bill. I urge you to treat taxpayer money the same way that you would treat your own.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Babet supports the bill and says it is needed to stop future vaccine indemnities, restore trust in medicine, and hold pharmaceutical companies accountable. He argues the government has been too secretive about indemnityA legal promise that someone else will cover a loss or claim; here it means the Commonwealth would pay if vaccine use caused harm or damage. contracts and has effectively written blank cheques with taxpayer money.
“That is why I have put up this bill. I urge you to support it. I urge you to treat taxpayer money the same way that you would treat your own.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Record
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 · Lapsed at end of Parliament
Lapsed at end of Parliament
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee; Committee report (18/03/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (10 Aug 2023): Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee; Committee report (18 Mar 2024)
APH bill page notes
