Consultation hub

Between 10 September and 1 October 2025, we held a public consultation on the government’s stage 2 reforms to improve the accessibility, operation and administration of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (PID Act).  We sought views from interested stakeholders on an exposure draft of the Public Interest Disclosure and Other Legislation Amendment (Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2025, to ensure the draft legislation is fit for purpose.

We received 16 submissions during the consultation period.

Submissions covered themes such as:

• the importance of having an independent body to protect whistleblowers
• the functions of such a body to enable it to adequately protect whistleblowers
• ensuring whistleblowers receive appropriate protections and immunities under the PID Act
• taking a ‘no wrong doors’ approach to making a public interest disclosure
• appropriate resourcing for the Whistleblower Ombudsman.

Your submissions informed our approach in further developing this Bill.
We have published submissions received through the public consultation process in accordance with our publication policy. 

Thank you to everyone involved in the consultation for your engagement and for sharing your views and ideas.

Between 18 August and 26 September 2025, the Administrative Review Council consulted on the process that Services Australia and the Administrative Review Tribunal follow when reviewing social security decisions.

The Council received 15 submissions from a range of stakeholders, including:

• welfare rights and advocacy groups
• community legal centres and other legal organisations
• members of the public
• government agencies.  

The responses discussed issues about the social security review system, including: 

• managing cases in the review process
• supporting people to meaningfully participate in reviews
• improving communication between review bodies and applicants
• supporting representation during reviews
• completing reviews in a timely way
• improving the quality of review decisions.

The Council will use the feedback provided through the public consultation to inform its report and any associated recommendations. We have published submissions from authors who gave their permission.

The Council’s Inquiry Report will be published later in the year. We thank everyone who engaged with this consultation process. 

Between 15 July and 15 September 2025 we sought views on possible approaches to creating an accreditation framework for Children’s Contact Services (CCS). CCS provide a critical service to assist children of separated parents maintain contact with the parent that they do not live with, where assistance is required to achieve this safely.

Using the Australian Government’s regulatory Impact Assessment framework, we proposed 4 possible approaches:

• No change.
• A light touch model, focussing on self-assessment at an organisational level.
• A moderate touch model, requiring an external review of organisational policies and a requirement for workers to have qualifications.
• A high impact model with very stringent organisational and individual accreditation requirements.

Views on the preferred model, and how each approach would support, or hinder, the sector, were requested to support further analysis to identify a preferred option.

We received 46 submissions from a range of stakeholders. Many of the submissions were from current CCS providers. The majority of these were from organisations currently funded by the government to provide CCS. A smaller number were from private providers of CCS.

We also received submissions from peak bodies and individual users of CCS.

There was clear support for pursuing accreditation of CCS based on a desire for greater consistency, safety and professionalism of CCS. There was strongest support for the light touch and moderate touch model, with many proposing a hybrid of these options.

Key benefits include:

• increased safety (both physical and psychological)
• increased trust in CCS
• greater consistency of service
• better assurances that staff are appropriately trained to operate in these high-risk environments.

While the high impact model was generally noted to provide very high levels of assurance, very few submissions preferred this option based on cost.

There was little suggestion that a regulatory response (i.e. accreditation) was not required or would offer little or no benefit.

We have published submissions from authors who gave their permission.

Following consultation, we will complete the impact analysis. The final sections of the impact analysis will be directly informed by this consultation process, specifically sections on ‘who was consulted and how was their feedback incorporated’ and ‘what is the best option from those you have considered and how will it be implemented’.

Thank you to everyone involved in the consultation process for your time and engagement and for sharing your views, information and ideas.