COMMITTEES

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Regional Development, Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Assistant Minister for Resources and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:53): I present two government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted. The documents read as follows— Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report: Access to diagnosis and treatment for people in Australia with tick-borne diseases OCTOBER 2025 Overview The Australian Government appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee list of recommendations on the Access to diagnosis and treatment for people in Australia with tick-borne diseases.

The Government thanks the Committee and the various stakeholders for their valuable and thoughtful input to the Inquiry. The Government acknowledges the concerns of patients who are facing issues accessing diagnosis and treatment with tick-borne illnesses. In early 2013, the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing began engaging with patients, medical practitioners, and advocacy groups to discuss concerns about Lyme disease.

In 2016, the department engaged and addressed the Senate Inquiry recommendations into Growing evidence of an emerging tick-borne disease that causes a Lyme-like illness (2016 Inquiry) through a range of measures such as public education materials, research and guidance for medical practitioners. As a result, the department has gained a deeper appreciation and growing concern for those Australians experiencing issues relating to tick-borne diseases.

This response addresses the specific recommendations raised in the current Senate Committee's Report. The Government remains open-minded about the cause of the various complexes which manifest as a range of chronic debilitating symptoms. The best outcome for patients and health practitioners is to not draw conclusions based on poor levels of evidence, but to consider each patient thoroughly in a multidisciplinary medical approach that makes the best use of clinical expertise and available diagnostic skills and technology.

The Government remains engaged with the patient and medical community to continue to find, share and understand the evidence associated with tick-borne diseases. The Government hopes its continued work with clinical medicine and research communities will result in answers and relief for patients and their families. Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing work with state and territory governments to develop public education and awareness campaigns to prevent tick-bites, provide information on the treatment of tick-bites, and the symptoms of tick-borne illnesses.

The Government supports this recommendation. In the first instance the department will work with state and territory governments to review existing public education materials on the prevention of tick-bites, treatment of .tick-bites, and the symptoms of tick-borne illnesses. Following the recommendations of the 2016 Inquiry, the department engaged Allen and Clarke Consulting to produce a suite of tick educational materials.

This included fact sheets for the general public and guidance notes for clinicians. Tick educational materials are available on the department's website. Fact sheets and guidance notes on the topic of .tick-borne diseases describe best practice principles for tick prevention and tick bite management.

Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing fund research to collect data on the prevalence, frequency and geographical distribution of tick bites in Australia. The Government notes this recommendation. It is not economically nor practically feasible to track all tick bites in Australia, nor would it be for any other vector bite such as mosquitoes.

The department manages the Nationally Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS) that provides coordinated national surveillance data for over 70 diseases on the National Notifiable Disease List (NNDL). Unspecified tick-borne infections are not notifiable and unlikely to meet the criteria, including presenting a risk to public health if there is an outbreak, to warrant the addition to the NNDL.

The Government will explore sampling surveys that could track some epidemiology of tick bites. Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing consult medical practitioners and patient stakeholder groups to develop a term to replace Debilitating Symptom Complexes Attributed to Ticks (DSCATT) that removes the stigma that is felt by patients, and provides clarity for medical practitioners.

The Government supports this recommendation in principle. Following the 2016 Inquiry, the department strongly supported the removal of the terms "Lyme Disease", "Lyme disease like Illness" and "Chronic Lyme Disease" from diagnostic discussions. As there was no clear agreed alternative nomenclature, the department proposed to use the term "Debilitating Symptom Complexes Attributed to Ticks" (DSCATT).

NHMRC adopted the term for its Targeted Call for Research, to describe the heterogeneous nature of the debilitating symptom subgroups with an acknowledgement that ticks may have a role. Since then, DSCATT has been a term used by the Government to describe the group of Australian patients suffering from the symptoms of a chronic debilitating illness, which many associate with a tick bite.

It has been used to appropriately acknowledge this patient group and the multifaceted illness they are experiencing, and acknowledge their illness is poorly understood based on the available evidence. DSCATT was also proposed as a name to move away from the stigma and controversy associated with the terms previously used to describe this patient's group such as "Lyme disease-like Illness" and "Chronic Lyme Disease".

The Government will explore the implementation of this recommendation with medical practitioners and patient stakeholder groups accordingly. The department stresses that all terms must provide an accurate description, be acceptable, and not mislead or contribute to misinformation or disinformation. Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing replace the DSCATT Clinical Pathway with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines and patient information.

The Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Government understands from the public hearing as well as the submissions from experts, that the recommendation is to ensure the clinical pathway document contains and explains the level of evidence used in the development of a clinical pathway document. .The Government acknowledges this approach will provide transparency about the quality of the evidence in the clinical pathway document.

The Government notes that the DSCATT Clinical Pathway was developed to support decision-making in diagnosing and referring patients presenting with either new onset or unresolved debilitating symptoms with or without a history of tick bites that cannot be attributed to another condition. The evidence-based DSCATT clinical pathway and .multi-disciplinary care model for patients presenting with DSCATT helps doctors to make diagnoses and referrals for DSCATT patients.

Patient groups were consulted during the development of the DSCATT Clinical Pathway, as were medical and scientific experts. The DSCATT Clinical Pathway was considered by subject matter experts and was provided to the then Australian Health Protection Principal Committee and relevant subcommittees prior to publication. Overall, the DSCATT clinical pathway was well accepted and viewed as a valuable resource, particularly among authoritative medical and government health authorities.

The Government understands there is dissatisfaction on the Clinical Pathway among some stakeholders and is open to exploring this recommendation. Recommendation 5 The committee recommends that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing review its suite of fact sheets for the public, and guidance notes for practitioners, to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

The Government supports this recommendation. The Government acknowledges the dissatisfaction expressed in the report in relation to tick illness related information that is available for the public and practitioners. The Government is committed to reviewing the fact sheets to ensure that they are patient centred and support practitioners to provide suitable care.

Recommendation 6 The committee recommends that the Australian Government provide funding for urgent research to identify and treat tick-borne diseases, including through: the identification of tick-borne pathogens in Australia; determining whether these pathogens are transmissible to humans; and evaluating the efficacy of treatment protocols accessed by patients both domestically and internationally.

The Government supports this recommendation in principle. Following the 2016 Inquiry the department urgently funded a targeted call for research to identify and treat tick-borne diseases. This includes recently published research by the CSIRO and the National Health and Medical Research Council currently in progress.

The Government will consider the findings of current research, including the CSIRO's findings that after extensive research, no Lyme disease causing Borrelia species was found in Australia. Any future investment and potential research will build on the evidence available, rather than further exploring borrelia as a vector for DSCATT in Australia. This reduces the risk of duplication and ensures investment in targeted research to identify gaps, including through projects funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Recommendation 7 The committee recommends that the Government urgently review diagnostic testing available internationally to determine the efficacy and suitability for use in Australia. The Government supports the recommendation in principle and will engage with pathology expert groups to seek advice. The Government acknowledges the contributions made from witnesses with interests in the testing methodologies available internationally.

The Government supports the recommendation in principle and will engage with pathology expert groups to seek advice. The Government notes that: It would not be viable for the Government to adopt international diagnostic devices that target international pathogens not identified in Australia to date. Current research has not found evidence of Lyme disease to occur indigenously in Australia.

The importation of diagnostic devices targeting non-indigenous pathogens in Australia is therefore not deemed feasible. The department maintains familiarity with testing methodologies used internationally and keeps abreast of the available diagnostic approaches to help determine suitability for use in Australia. ______ Australian Government response to the Senate Community Education and Employment Legislation Committee report: Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 SENATE HANSARD: TUESDAY, 26 AUGUST 2025 Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water) (19:18): … … … I'd like to thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for their report on the bill.

I know that recommendation 1—the only recommendation of the committee—is that the bill be passed. The committee process provided stakeholders with an opportunity to share their views publicly and it clearly demonstrated the importance of the bill and the strong support it has received. I thank the Australian Greens for the support of the chair's report, the intent of the bill and the recommendation from the committee to pass the legislation.

I note the Australian Greens' additional recommendation 1, which was that the Australian government consider amending regulation 3.34 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 to make it an explicit requirement of employers to keep time and wage records, even if exemption rates or an equivalent is in effect. The government's view is that an amendment of this nature is not necessary.

The new principle requires the commission to ensure that any rolled-up pay arrangement must fairly compensate employees for the penalty and overtime rates they would otherwise receive. It will be a matter for the independent commission to satisfy itself that this new standard is met. In contemporary considerations of terms that substitute penalty and overtime rates, the commission has required recordkeeping as a means of assessing whether an employee is left worse off.

Annualised wage arrangements, for example, contain a recordkeeping requirement to ensure an employee receives their full entitlements for their actual hours worked. If an employer does not meet their recordkeeping obligations under the Fair Work Act or applicable modern-award term, the Fair Work Ombudsman is there to take enforcement action. In relation to the coalition's dissenting recommendations, recommendation 1 from the coalition mentioned that the Australian government should be required to prepare a comprehensive regulatory impact statement assessing the costs, benefits and productivity effects of the bill before its passage.

Let me be clear—the government is firmly committed to evidence based policy development and decision-making. This reform, as is the case with all reforms, was assessed to determine the appropriate level of impact an alysis required. The Office of Impact Analysis determined that an impact analysis was not required for this reform, because it does not impose new obligations on employers, nor does it introduce any new regulation or processes for them to comply with.

It's actually about sticking with things as they currently stand rather than imposing new obligations. To address concerns about the bill's impact on productivity, it has never been and never will be the solution—at least for this government—to make workers do more for less. This government is committed to improving productivity and enhancing economic resilience, but we do not accept that sending hardworking award-covered workers backwards through reductions to their penalty and overtime rates is the way to do this.

The path to achieving flexibility and productivity gains can be found in cooperative and good -faith enterprise bargaining rather than by undermining award entitlements. Our bargaining reforms increased access for workers and employers, including small business, to negotiate agreements with their employees and unions. This includes greater access to multi-employer bargaining, reducing the cost and effort of the bargaining, and changes to improve clarity and certainty for agreement approval.

We're now seeing record enterprise agreement coverage with significantly improved wages outcomes for workers. A number of points have been made about the role of the Fair Work Commission . We respect the commission's role as the independent industrial tribunal.

The commission will continue to interpret and apply the Fair Work Act, including the new principle introduced by this bill. This process will be guided by its usual consultative approach, ensuring all interested parties have the opportunity to present their views. This bill also preserves the commission's existing powers to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty or to correct an error in a modern award.

We've listened to concerns raised following its introduction that this bill could require the commission to review all modern awards for compliance with the new principle or to review penalty and overtime rates even beyond the scope of a specific application. This has never been the intent of this bill. We are confident the bill as introduced would not have operated in th is way; however, this government is committed to genuine consultation, including with employer representatives and unions, and we amended the bill in the House for the avoidance of doubt and to further provide certainty to stakeholders.

The bill is unequivocally clear. It will not require the commission to undertake a review of all modern awards, initiate a review of any award terms outside the scope of an application before the commission or exercise its powers under parts 2 to 3 of the Fair Work Act to ma ke, vary or revoke modern awards. In conclusion, for many award-reliant employees, penalty and overtime rates are a critical part of their take-home pay.

As we know, it's low-paid workers, women and young people—as well as those working in retail and hospitality, who often work unsociable and irregular hours—who are more likely to be reliant on awards. This bill is about fairness. It's about respecting the millions of Australians who work public holidays, weekends, late nights and early mornings.

If you get your penalty rates, you deserve them. This bill is about making sure the safety net does what it's meant to do—protect those who need it most. On that basis, I commend the bill to the Senate.

SENATE HANSARD: WEDNESDAY, 27 AUGUST 2025 Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water) (11:11): This amendment is a suite of amendments to change the scope and parameters of the principle by providing carve-outs, exemptions and competing factors for the commission in making its decision. I'm not sure the Senate would agree with that characterisation, but I think that is what we see it as attempting to do.

The government will oppose this amendment. The amendment seeks to dilute the bill in numerous ways by providing carve-outs, exemptions and competing factors for the commission in making its decision. Not only does this amendment seek to erode the fundamental purpose of this bill, which is to protect penalty rates; it also looks to add an array of additional complexity into the principle and put additional parameters on the commissioner's discretion.

I note that the complexity and the independence of the com mission are two things the coalition has criticised this bill for. We've consulted genuinely and transparently on this bill with unions and employer representatives. The bill has been through a Senate committee process, where stakeholders were provided an opportunity to publicly provide feedback.

The outcome of that process is clear—that the bill should be passed. As a statement of principle, the government believes that every award-reliant worker deserves protection of their penalty and overtime rates. For those who rely on those penalty and overtime rates to make ends me et, the bill gives them certainty that their take-home pay will not go backwards. … … … Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water) (11:15): I might start with a broader answer around how we've approached the range of workplace relation changes we've made in relation to small business.

We have always acknowledged, in each piece of legislation that we've passed since being elected in 2022, that in some cases small businesses need further time to adjust to changes than what we expect of big businesses. For example, just this week we're celebrating the one-year anniversary of the right to disconnect. That has only just come in, as of thi s week, for small businesses.

It came in for big businesses 12 months ago. There are other changes that we've made, which I've forgotten for the moment, which applied to big business in the first instance, and 12 months was given to small businesses before the requirements came in for them. That would be an example of how we have attempted to consider the different needs of small businesses when making some of these changes.

On this bill, there's a fundamental point to be made, which is that this bill is not altering existing conditions. It's not imposing new obligations. I've heard Senator Kovacic and other coalition senators talk about new obligations and onerous burdens.

What it's doing is preserving existing conditions rather than allowing them to be cut. This bill does not alter existing employer obligations, including those of small business. It does not introduce new costs or impose additional requirements on small busin ess.

Modern awards or industry or occupation based instruments provide a safety net of minimum terms and conditions for Australia's lowest-paid employees, and we think that every Australian employee deserves the same minimum protections in modern awards regardless of whether they're employed in a big business or a small business. It's not about requiring small businesses to do something new; it would be about businesses, large or small, reducing and cutting the existing conditions that apply under modern aw ards.

All they need to do is keep doing what they're doing, rather than doing something new. … … … Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water) (11:27): I made the point earlier that the government's view is that regardless of where someone works, whether they work for a major corporation or a small business, they're entitled to have their penalty rates protected.

We're talking about people—typically quite low-income earners, typically women, typically part time or casual workers, typically young people—who work unsociable hours. My family and I, every now and then, like to be able to get a cup of coffee or something on a public holiday, and I fe el entirely comfortable with paying a little bit more in order to have that cafe attendant get a bit more in their pocket because they're giving up the opportunity to have that public holiday.

I think that we've got a fundamental difference of opinion about whether there's a new obligation being imposed here or not. What this is about—this point about compliance for small businesses—is that every time award pay rates change, small businesses adjust and pay people the new wage rates. What we're saying here is no different in the sense that this is about preventing the Fair Work Commission from cutting penalty rates.

Just as small businesses pay new wage rates when they're handed down by the commis sion under the award and they follow the award, it's about preventing the commission from doing something, rather than imposing some new obligation on small businesses that they don't already have. It just affects the pay rates that people working in a small business or a big business earn. … … … Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water) (11:29): Certainly, in the period that I was the workplace relations minister and announced this commitment during the election campaign, there was no consideration given to exempting small businesses.

Again, that's because our government's view is that, regardless of whether you work for a large company or a small business, you're entitled to penalty rates. I have heard the senator say on a number of occasions that the coalition supports penalty rates. It seems a little bit odd, then, to be asking questions about exempting small businesses.

That would suggest to me that the coalition doesn't support penalty rates for small businesses. That would be the only reason to seek a carve-out for small businesses. To my knowledge, exempting small businesses from this has never been considered, for the reason I've explained. … … … Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water) (11:31): I'm not saying—and I don't think I ever have said—that there's no change involved from this legislation.

As you say, the point of introducing this legislation is to make a change. The point is that there's no change for small businesses, in the sense that they will continue paying their workers what the award requires them to pay or, if they do have an EBA, pay them the EBA rates. What changes is what the commission can do and the wage rates that can be paid.

What changes, as a result of this leg islation, is that the commission cannot remove penalty rates in the way that it is currently able to. When the commission hands down its decisions about pay rates under an award, that's what employers pay, whether they be small or big businesses. I've been searching around for a bit of material on this.

One of the prompts for this legislation was that, right now, at the Fair Work Commission, we've got peak bodies representing large and small retail businesses and peak bodies representing banks and the clerical industry who are seeking to cut the penalty rates in the awards that govern their workers, through offering rolled-up salaries that go nowhere near what people would earn if they were getting penalty rates.

What changes is that employer groups would not be able to cut penalty rates, or seek to cut penalty rates, in the way that they are currently able to do. Nothing changes for a small business in the sense that today and tomorrow they have to pay the legal rates of pay to their workers. It's just that, in the meantime, penalty rates can't be cut.

As long as small businesses follow the law and pay the award, they've got nothing to fear.