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 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.

Between 13 November 2024 and 15 January 2025 we held a public consultation on the government’s use of automated decision-making (ADM). We published a consultation paper seeking views on what protections are needed for the safe and responsible use of ADM by government entities. 

We sought public input through:

• a short survey
• a consultation paper
• roundtables and bilateral meetings with selected individuals and organisations. 

During the consultation period we spoke with 46 stakeholders with wide-ranging interests in the reform. This included:

• disability representatives and advocacy groups
• social security representatives and advocacy groups
• migration representatives 
• legal organisations, including Legal Aid Commissions and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services
• peak business organisations
• employee organisations
• government 
• academics.

We received 20 short survey responses and over 40 submissions in response to the consultation paper.

You can find a summary of the consultation process, survey findings and key themes in the Automated Decision-Making Reform: Public Consultation Summary [PDF 495 KB].

The summary is also available in plain text at Automated Decision-Making Reform: Public Consultation Summary – Plain Text Version [DOCX 29 KB].
 

We will use the feedback provided through the public consultation to inform the implementation of recommendation 17.1 of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. This recommendation called for the government to consider reforms to introduce a consistent framework for using ADM to deliver government services.

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