Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025; Second Reading

Continued the debate

O'Brien argued that the bill was largely administrative housekeeping rather than substantive regulatory reform, failing to address Australia's overregulation and productivity crisis. O'Brien criticised the government for adding thousands of new regulations while claiming to cut red tape, noting that economic indicators showed declining living standards and stalled investment. O'Brien raised specific concerns about the bill's impact on fuel security and the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act, arguing the latter expanded regulatory scope without clear definitions. O'Brien supported an amendment to limit the duration of reduced fuel stockholding obligations but opposed the changes to energy performance standards, urging their removal from the omnibus bill.

Government response

Leigh defended the bill as a comprehensive suite of reforms aimed at boosting productivity and cutting compliance costs for businesses and households. Leigh highlighted measures such as the tell-us-once approach for Services Australia, which would help recover unpaid Medicare benefits, and improvements to health identifier usage for research. Leigh confirmed that the government accepted amendments to cap fuel stockholding reductions at six months to ensure national security. Leigh rejected an amendment regarding paid parental leave for defence partners, stating it introduced legal uncertainty and did not align with the bill's regulatory objectives.