Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (09:01): Today I speak on the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. The coalition will not oppose this bill through the House of Representatives, but we will reserve our position in the Senate. Reducing red tape and unnecessary regulation is something the coalition strongly supports.

Good regulation, to the extent it exists, protects Australians, but excessive, complex regulation increases costs for businesses and households. It slows down investment and discourages innovation and, more importantly, it constrains time, investment and building out the future of Australia. Reducing red tape isn't just about removing safeguards; it's about ensuring that regulation serves the public interest efficiently, making sure that capital is deployed and that energy and investment are going where they need to go to build out a better country for us all.

Australia's administrative and regulatory burden is the second-highest in the G7, behind only Japan, and we rank 37th out of 43 on the OECD ranking for administrative and regulatory burden. Small businesses spend the equivalent of nearly a full day each week on business activity statements, wage awards, licences, insurance and privacy obligations. Of course, this is to the advantage of those who are the brokers in these conversations—in particular, trade unionists—but it is not good for Australians or workers.

Forty per cent of owners say payroll tax and workplace laws stopped them hiring staff in the past year. According to the OECD, the cost to businesses of complying with federal regulations has risen to $160 billion, 5.8 per cent of GDP, up from $65 billion, 4.2 per cent of GDP, in 2013. Board time on compliance has doubled from 24 per cent to 55 per cent.

So, there you go, half the time of a board is spent focused just on managing regulation and regulatory compliance. That's happened in 10 years, while the external legal spend now sits at $16 billion, up from $6 billion in 2010. You can see why, prior to the budget, we saw the Alliance of Industry Associations, made up of nearly 30 groups representing small, medium and large businesses and universities, calling on all levels of government to reduce red tape costs and commit to a 25 per cent reduction in unnecessary regulation by 2030.

But it fell on deaf ears. As COSBOA CEO Skye Cappuccio said: For small businesses, red tape often means hours each week spent navigating compliance complexity instead of running their business. That's time taken away from customers, staff and growth.

Reducing duplication would ease costs and support stronger productivity growth across the economy. At a time when productivity is flat and has already fallen more than five per cent under this Labor government, lifting productivity and encouraging growth should be a paramount focus for the government. Labor says this bill, to quote the minister's second reading speech directly, 'will support the government's work to build an economy that is more dynamic, more resilient and more productive for all Australians'.

I'd like to believe that, but we know the loose relationship with the truth that this government has. This bill is a fine step towards simplifying and removing some unnecessary regulation, but it is only a small step. Many of the measures in the bill are modest administrative changes that will benefit specific groups of businesses, individuals and government agencies, but they are not the kind of reforms that will materially shift Australia's productivity or reduce the growth of compliance burden for business.

If the government genuinely believes regulatory reform is a key productivity lever, then Australia needs reforms that tackle the major drivers of compliance costs faced by businesses. Let's look at what this bill actually seeks to achieve. The bill includes 21 measures amending 26 acts and repealing two acts, affecting 19 Commonwealth government agencies.

There are sensible measures throughout it. There are provisions that simplify administrative processes, reduce duplication and make government systems work more effectively. The intellectual property reforms, including changes to trademarks and plant breeders' rights, will reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and make it easier for Australian businesses and innovators to protect their ideas and bring new products to market.

That's good. Likewise, the antidumping measures will improve the efficiency of Australia's trade remedies system by speeding up decision-making processes and reducing delays for businesses seeking refunds and reviews. We also support the 'tell us once' reforms.

The coalition announced a commitment to these principles before the last election. Once again, Labor is following the coalition. So we remain pleased to see the government embrace this idea.

Australians rightly expect government agencies to work together and make better use of information that has already been provided. These are practical reforms that reduce duplication, improve service delivery and make interactions with government less frustrating for individuals and businesses alike. But there are also measures in this bill that simply won't shift the dial.

Take, for example, the two measures which repeal the two acts that have been made redundant, two measures that will make the statute book cleaner, but they are not reforms that will materially reduce costs for businesses, households or taxpayers. While the coalition will not be opposing this bill in the House, there are, however, two measures that are of concern.

Part 3 of schedule 2 repeals section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which currently requires Commonwealth entities to disclose payments made to advertising agencies, market research organisations, polling organisations, direct mail organisations and media advertising organisations. The government claims that this reporting requirement is unnecessary because Commonwealth entities are already required to disclose information about advertising campaigns under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, but that is not an equivalent transparency measure.

What a shock—this government is trying to hide something again, including the truth. The PGPA reporting requirement only requires departments and agencies to disclose advertising campaigns they have undertaken. They do not explicitly require disclosure of payments made for polling, market research or other related services, which are, of course, something we know the government will have spent an awful lot of money on in the lead-up to the last budget, and no doubt they'll be market testing every other of their—it's too generous to use the word 'ideas'.

Let's just say 'positions', because you never quite know when they're going to change next. The Department of Finance does produce a consolidated report on campaign advertising for all government departments and agencies published in December of each year. However, there are two points to make about these reports.

The first is that there is no explicit requirement in the PGPA for disclosure of market research. The coalition would hate to see that being taken advantage of for less information to be provided to the Australian public about the money being spent on government campaigns. The second is that the change makes it more difficult for ordinary Australians to track down how much is being spent on campaigns by the relevant agency or department.

So, if an Australian wants to know how much the department of employment spent on a campaign, their first instinct is to look at the department of employment's website. That is not unreasonable. If they want information about a Treasury campaign, they do the same to the Treasury website.

That is exactly where the information is available today. This change centralises that reporting into a single annual Finance report, making it harder to find, harder to compare and harder for the public to scrutinise. What a shock—a Labor government hiding information from the Australian people, because how dare Australians ask simple questions!

Transparency is not just about whether information exists somewhere in government; it's about whether that information is accessible, discoverable and easy for Australians to find. Good transparency measures should bring information closer to the public, not move it further away. At a time when trust in institutions is under pressure—that's a very generous way of putting it.

When the trust has been utterly destroyed by this Labor government through their betrayal of the Australian people and saying one thing before an election and then doing something explicitly directly after in deceit of the Australian people, we should be making it easier for Australians to see how taxpayers' money is being spent, not requiring them to search through consolidated reports on a different department's website to find answers.

Transparency should not be viewed as an administrative burden. It is a fundamental element of public accountability. This proposal is particularly concerning given the government's repeated promises about openness and transparency.

But, let's face it, no-one really believes them anymore. Australians were promised the most transparent government ever. Instead, we continue to see measures that reduce scrutiny and make it harder for the public to understand how taxpayer money is being spent.

The government says that this is a minor administrative change, but transparency measures are often only noticed when they are removed. If the government wants to streamline reporting, it should do so without diminishing public scrutiny, while ensuring Australians can easily find information about how taxpayers' money is being spent. The other item of concern in this bill is contained in schedule 2, part 4.

This item removes the requirement of the Australian Human Rights Commission to notify a person when an adverse allegation has been made about them in a discrimination complaint, where they are not themselves a respondent to the complaint. Having been Australia's human rights commissioner, I do have a mild insight into these matters. The government's justification for this change is that its notification process is inefficient, creates confusion and adds administrative burden for the commission.

Not unreasonably, I think that, if complaints are made against somebody, they should probably know about them. But procedural fairness should not be sacrificed simply because a process is administratively convenient. Just like the truth and just like a policy one took to the last election, you can't just change your position because it suits you.

If an adverse allegation is made about an individual, that person should be made aware of it. That principle should apply regardless of whether they are formally named as a respondent to the complaint. The explanatory memorandum argues that these individuals are not parties to the complaint and are not subject to legal consequences arising from it, but that misses the point.

An allegation can still have serious reputational consequences. It can still concern personal conduct, and it can still form part of a process being considered by a statutory body. At a minimum, individuals should have the opportunity to know that allegations concerning them have been raised.

Let's face it; every single Labor member has a right to know that the Australian people currently think that they have a very loose relationship with the truth. If similar allegations are made against others, perhaps they should know as well. Imagine finding out that you've been named in a complaint by doing a Google search of your name.

That is a very real risk from this change. While administrative efficiency is important, it cannot be the sole consideration. Taken together, those transparency and procedural fairness concerns warrant closer examination.

That is why the coalition believes this bill should be referred to a Senate inquiry. The coalition supports sensible deregulation. We support reducing unnecessary red tape.

We support making it easier for Australians and Australian businesses to interact with government. There are measures in this bill that achieve those objectives, and they deserve support. But there is an important distinction between removing burdensome bureaucracy and removing safeguards that protect transparency and procedural fairness.

The concerns we have raised today are not about preserving unnecessary regulation. They're about preserving accountability and fairness. Australians should be able to see how taxpayers' money is being spent.

Individuals should be informed when serious allegations are being made against them. Those are not administrative inconveniences, unless you're a Labor government. They are fundamental principles of good government, which is probably why they're being thrown by the wayside.

This bill contains some worthwhile reforms, but it also demonstrates the limits of the government's approach to regulatory reform. At a time when Australia's productivity challenge is becoming more acute, Australians should expect more than legislative housekeeping dressed up as regulatory reform. At a time when Australian businesses are carrying a regulatory burden worth hundreds of billions of dollars—and, yes, it is that high—and when productivity growth has stalled—yes, it definitely has—this bill represents only a modest step forward or, arguably, more like a single step forward.

Australia needs a more ambitious agenda for deregulation, productivity and economic growth. For those reasons, while the coalition will not oppose this bill in the House of Representatives, we believe the matters raised in relation to transparency and procedural fairness warrant further examination, and we will be seeking a Senate inquiry into this bill to achieve that objective.

We all know that if you actually want to achieve regulatory reform, if you want to build a better Australia and if you want to see a change and a direction that builds out the future growth of the Australian economy, we need a change of government. To that end, I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.