Bundle 21 changes to trim red tape across government — back it or block it?
This bill packages 21 measures that amend 26 laws, repeal 2 laws and affect 19 government agencies. It aims to cut compliance costs and speed up dealings with government. Changes include a 'tell us once' approach so Services Australia (Centrelink, Medicare, child support) can reuse information it already holds; letting people cancel a Centrelink nominee arrangement without written notice; easing proof-of-life checks for older pensioners living overseas; giving the trademarks registrar more flexibility on legal costs and stopping IP attorneys dodging discipline by deregistering; a grace period for plant breeders' late renewal fees; and new tools and reporting rules to manage critical fuel shortages. Labor and an independent backed it; the Coalition raised broader concerns. The debate ran about 79 minutes and was adjourned — no vote yet.
🗳 A public mood-check, not a scientific poll. Vote to see where the room stands.
For · Government (Labor)Labor says cutting duplicated forms and compliance saves people and businesses time and money, boosts productivity and makes essential government services faster and less stressful — especially the 'tell us once' fix so people stop repeating the same information to Services Australia.
For · Government (Labor)MPs argued the reforms protect people too — letting trademark disputes penalise bad conduct, stopping IP attorneys escaping discipline by deregistering, and letting nominee arrangements be cancelled quickly in family violence situations.
Mixed · Michael McCormack (Coalition)McCormack said the cost of complying with federal regulation has ballooned from $65 billion in 2013 to $160 billion, and while the bill has some good elements it doesn't go anywhere near far enough to lift the burden on farmers, irrigators and small businesses.
For (after change) · Helen Haines (Ind)Haines objected to a schedule removing detailed advertising, polling and research spending from department annual reports, calling it a loss of transparency. She said the government agreed to move its own amendment dropping that part, and on that basis she will support the bill.