We asked, you said, we did

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.

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.

From September to October 2024, we consulted with the public on potential options for enacting legislation aligned with the Model Law of Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) in Australia, to help inform future advice to the Australian Government.

The MLETR is an instrument developed by the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). It confirms the legal validity of electronic versions of ‘transferable records’ (electronic transferable records, or ETRs) that meet core functionality standards.

Stakeholders have previously told government that legally recognising ETRs is a necessary step towards enabling trade document digitisation in Australia. ‘Transferable records’ are key trade documents, including bills of lading and bills of exchange, which generally must be physically possessed in paper form.

What did the consultation process reveal?

We received 26 submissions, representing a range of stakeholder groups across industry, technology, government, and academia.

Submissions covered several key themes, such as:

• the value of unlocking ‘paperless trade’ in Australia
• how MLETR-aligned legislation is an essential foundation for paperless trade
• the importance of consistency for MLETR-aligned legislation
• important interactions between the MLETR and existing Australian law
• government’s role in encouraging industry confidence and certainty in ETRs.

We have published the non-confidential submissions on our Consultation hub. Read submissions to the MLETR consultation.

We continue to analyse stakeholder responses to build a list of potential options for implementing the MLETR in Australia, which we will present to government in 2025.

Subject to government approval, we will undertake further work to progress legislative reform, and develop guidance materials to help support industry engagement with the legislation.

This work will likely involve further consultation, on more targeted questions relating to the approved implementation option.

The Australian Government is working with state and territory governments to tackle the issue of forced marriage through a coordinated national approach.

On 5 July 2024, the Standing Council of Attorneys-General (SCAG) agreed to conduct public consultation to inform the development of enhanced civil protections and remedies for people in or at risk of forced marriage.

Led by the Australian Government in partnership with all state and territory governments, consultations commenced on 29 July 2024 and concluded on 23 September 2024.

Public consultation focused on 3 key areas:

• building a shared understanding of forced marriage as a form of family and domestic violence
• enhancing education and awareness raising
• strengthening forced marriage civil protections and remedies.

We travelled to every state and territory and held targeted consultation meetings with over 240 people from more than 130 organisations. We also received 44 written responses.

We heard from a range of stakeholders including:

• people with lived experience of forced marriage
• people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities
• people with disability
• family and domestic violence service providers
• legal organisations
• academics
• faith leaders
• courts
• government
• civil society organisations.

We will continue to consider all submissions and responses received as part of the consultation. We would like to acknowledge the contribution of participants to the consultation processes.

For more information on the outcomes, read the Forced marriage public consultation overview.

Feedback received during the public consultation will inform future work to strengthen Australia’s response to forced marriage.

From 1 August to 5 September 2024, we sought public feedback on the Exposure Draft of the Family Law Regulations 2024 (exposure draft Regulations). This consultation was part of the work to review and remake the Family Law Regulations 1984 (1984 Regulations), which sunset on 1 April 2025. The exposure draft consultation process was a key opportunity to identify and address any sector concerns, and to ensure that the new Regulations are fit for purpose.

The 1984 Regulations support the operation of the Family Law Act 1975 by prescribing matters of practice and procedure. The exposure draft Regulations covered the same topics and remained substantively the same. However, changes were made to modernise, clarify and update provisions.

We sought feedback from interested stakeholder on all parts of the exposure draft Regulation. We highlighted in the consultation paper the areas of the exposure draft Regulations that had the most significant changes. These included:

• arbitration provisions in Part 3
• parentage testing provisions in Part 7
• international conventions, international agreements and international enforcement in Part 10.

We received 6 submissions through this formal consultation process. These were made by, or on behalf of, family law practitioners, arbitrators and mediators, professional and peak bodies, and the general public.

We also conducted targeted consultations, including with the family law courts, all states and territories, and relevant Commonwealth agencies. This ensured all references to legislation, practice and procedure were correct and updated where necessary. Targeted consultation helped us to identify and address any technical or policy issues to ensure the Regulations were fit for purpose.

Feedback was generally supportive of the exposure draft Regulations. It covered various topics including:

•  arbitration
• parentage testing
• prescribed state and territory laws
•  overseas maintenance orders.

Submissions also included helpful, technical suggestions to support improvements to the exposure draft Regulations.

We have published submissions from authors who gave their permission.

Following the public consultation process on the exposure draft Regulations, we made amendments to reflect feedback received from stakeholders. We also made necessary technical amendments to the Regulations to reflect feedback from stakeholders. This included updating the numbering of provisions and reorganising groups of provisions to make clearer how they fit together.

The Federal Executive Council made the Family Law Regulations 2024 on 5 December 2024 and they will commence on 1 April 2025. To access them visit the Federal Register of Legislation. 

We thank everyone who took time to engage with us by providing their feedback.

On 23 July 2024, we published a draft of the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024 (Rules) on our website.

The Rules prescribe the following matters, to support the operation of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act):

• timeframes for making applications to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART)
• matters which decision-makers must have regard to when giving notices of decision
• witness fees and allowances
• election and participation notices
• application fees
• authorisations for registrars and members to perform and exercise certain functions and powers of the Tribunal.

The Rules largely deal with matters previously addressed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulation 2015 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Code of Practice) Determination 2017, with updates to reflect modern drafting practices. The Rules also deal with new matters under the ART Act that were not previously included in subordinate legislation.

We sought written submissions via the website and met with interested and affected stakeholders to discuss the draft Rules.

We undertook public consultation on the draft Rules from 23 July 2024 to 5 August 2024, and received 14 written submissions from stakeholders.

In August 2024, we also facilitated 3 consultation meetings with approximately 15 key stakeholders to discuss the draft Rules. Separately, we spoke with affected Australian Government departments and agencies and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. We received feedback from Tribunal users, members of the Tribunal, and organisations with an interest in the administrative review framework. We have published 6 of these submissions, with the authors’ consent. 

The submissions provided feedback on all areas proposed to be covered by the Rules. A summary of the submissions is set out below.

Application fees

Stakeholders supported that the Rules maintain existing application fee exemptions and concessions for matters covered by the Rules. Some stakeholders considered that fee exemptions should apply in a wider range of circumstances.

Authorisations

Stakeholders broadly supported the proposed rules authorising ART members and registrars to exercise the identified Tribunal powers. Some stakeholders expressed concern about the proposed authorisation for registrars to exercise the power under section 359A of the Migration Act, noting its importance to procedural fairness.

Election notices

Stakeholders generally supported the rules concerning election and participation notices. In relation to the factors that the Tribunal may consider when deciding whether to allow a non-participating decision-maker to participate in a proceeding, some stakeholders considered some or all of these factors should be mandatory, rather than discretionary, considerations for the Tribunal.

Notices of decision

Stakeholders welcomed the new requirement for decision-makers to take accessibility considerations into account when giving notices of decision. Some stakeholders considered it would be useful to provide additional detail about how requirements could be met. In addition, some stakeholders suggested that it should be made clearer that a notice of decision should identify not only the timeframe for making an application for review of a decision, but also, where possible, the specific deadline or an explanation of when the timeframe starts.

Timeframes to apply

Stakeholders expressed support for clarity regarding the timeframes to apply to the Tribunal, particularly where an applicant applies to Tribunal to obtain adequate statement of reasons and, due to that application, is out of time to make an application for review of the reviewable decision.

Witness fees

Stakeholders supported the maintenance of provisions concerning witness fees and allowances. However, some stakeholders suggested it could be useful to provide additional information about the circumstances in which the Tribunal may order the Commonwealth to cover another party’s witness fees and allowances.

Other issues

Stakeholders provided input on a range of further issues, including non-publication orders, and additional rules for meeting the costs associated with litigation supporters.

We updated the drafting of the ART Rules in response to stakeholder feedback. For example, we updated the draft Rules so that:

1. registrars could not be authorised to exercise the Tribunal’s power under section 359A of the Migration Act
2. a legislative note explains that a person may apply for an extension of time to make an application for review under section 19 of the ART Act if the timeframe has expired where they have applied for a statement of reasons under section 270 of the Act or an adequate statement of reasons under section 271 of the Act
3. it is clearer that decision-makers should include in notices of decision an explanation of when the timeframe for making a review application begins and ends

Feedback about practical issues or the implementation of the ART Act or ART Regulations was passed on to the ART and other Australian Government agencies, as relevant. Additional explanation was also included in the Explanatory Statement for the Rules in response to issues raised in consultation, for example in relation to accessibility of notices of decision.

The Rules were tabled in the Parliament on 8 October 2024 and came into effect on 14 October 2024, which was the day the new Tribunal commenced. Read a copy of the Rules.

We thank everyone who engaged with this consultation process.

We held a second round of consultation on reforming Australia’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regime between May and June 2024.

This second round of consultation built upon the first round of consultation undertaken in 2023. We considered feedback from the first round of consultation and used it to develop detailed reform proposals outlined over 6 consultation papers. 

We sought public input through written submissions and through virtual and in-person meetings with affected sectors.

We held over 40 targeted consultations with industry and government stakeholders, including roundtables with peak industry bodies, bilateral engagements with industry members and addresses at industry events. 

We received over 130 submissions from stakeholders across all affected sectors, as well as from government, academics, civil society and individuals. With consent, we have published 104 of these submissions.

Key themes

Reflecting similar feedback from the first round of consultation, there was broad support for the reforms. Submissions provided useful insights into how the AML/CTF regime could be strengthened to build Australia’s resilience against criminal exploitation and protect businesses that are at the frontline of financial crime prevention. Stakeholders noted several inefficiencies in the regime that limit the effectiveness of Australia’s response to transnational crime.

Overall, stakeholders supported the proposed reforms to simplify, clarify and modernise the existing regime to make it easier for regulated businesses to identify and mitigate illicit financing risks and to comply with their AML/CTF obligations. 

Current reporting entities welcomed proposals to expand the regime to address vulnerabilities in ‘gatekeeper’ professions, including lawyers, accountants, real estate professionals and dealers in precious stones and metals (also known as tranche two entities). There was also support for ensuring the regime keeps pace with the increasingly digital, instant nature of the global financial system, by updating digital and virtual asset services.

Most stakeholders demonstrated an understanding that the proposed reforms aim to improve Australia’s compliance with the global standards to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. Stakeholders sought additional details on the specific impacts on their businesses – this information will be set out in forthcoming consultations on amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. 1) (AML/CTF Rules). 

Thank you to everyone who contributed valuable feedback to the consultation processes. 

Feedback from both rounds of consultation will inform government consideration of the final policy changes and legislation. Timing for any legislation is a matter for government. 

There will be ongoing opportunities to influence and work with government on the detailed impact of the reforms on businesses through upcoming consultation on the AML/CTF Rules led by AUSTRAC. AUSTRAC will also collaborate with industry on fit-for-purpose, tailored industry education and guidance, particularly for new tranche two entities.

On 27 February 2024, the Attorney-General released the Terms of Reference for a Review of Australia’s Credit Reporting Framework (the Review). The Australian Government appointed Ms Heidi Richards as the independent reviewer.

The Review is considering the overall efficiency and effectiveness of Australia’s Credit Reporting Framework in the Privacy Act 1988 and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.

On 26 April 2024, Ms Richards released an Issues Paper, which was open for written submissions until 31 May 2024. The issues paper set out key areas of focus for the independent review and included around 50 discussion questions.

The Review received 31 submissions from a broad range of stakeholders, including regulators, external dispute resolution services, credit providers, credit reporting bodies, consumer groups, industry peak bodies and others. Ms Richards has also undertaken bilateral discussions with stakeholders to support the findings of the Review. 

The Review is currently considering the submissions which will inform Ms Richard’s report to Government. The report will be provided to the relevant ministers no later than 1 October 2024. We have published submissions where consent has been given to do so.

On 3 April 2024, the Attorney-General published a draft of the Identity Verification Services Rules 2024 (the Rules) on the department’s website for a 28-day consultation period, as required under the Identity Verification Services Act 2023 (the Act).

The purpose of the Rules is to prescribe the following matters, which are needed to support the operation of the Act and the identity verification services:

• listing state and territory privacy laws and government authorities, which must be listed for the purposes of participation agreements
• listing state and territory privacy laws, which must be listed for the purpose of the NDLFRS hosting agreement
• setting fees that government authorities and non-government entities must pay to connect to, and request the use of, the identity verification services.

We received 8 submissions from advocacy groups and academia, government agencies, and industry organisations during the consultation period.

We also held targeted consultations with relevant industry organisations and Commonwealth, state and territory government authorities. This included:

• Commonwealth data holding agencies, and relevant state and territory government agencies
• Commonwealth law enforcement, intelligence and integrity agencies
• key industry stakeholders, in particular, Gateway Service Providers.

Most submissions provided feedback on the proposed fees and the timings for the commencement of the Rules. A submission also noted further privacy safeguards that could be included in the Rules. While out of scope of the Rules, respondents also provided technical suggestions on the operation of the identity verification services.

In accordance with paragraph 44(1B)(b) of the Act, the Attorney-General also consulted the Information Commissioner on the Rules in relation to privacy matters.

As required by paragraph 44(1B)(c) of the Act, the Attorney-General considered all submissions received during the consultation period.

In response to feedback received, a change was made to subsection 8(2) of the Rules to clarify the application of connection fees where a government authority or non-government entity is seeking to have multiple connections to the same approved identity verification facility. This amendment better reflects existing arrangements for certain government authorities. To support this change, minor and technical consequential amendments were made to subsection 8(3). 

We will continue to engage with relevant stakeholders to support the implementation of the Rules and will consider broader feedback as part of the review mechanisms under the Act.

The finalised Rules commenced on 14 June 2024. You can access the Rules and associated Explanatory Statement on the Federal Register of Legislation.

We thank everyone who engaged with this consultation process and provided a submission.

From 14 March to 26 April 2024, we sought feedback on an exposure draft of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2024 (the exposure draft Regulations). This consultation was part of our work to review the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (the existing Regulations) which are due to sunset on 1 April 2025, and need to be remade ahead of that date.

The exposure draft Regulations substantively maintain the current superannuation splitting framework, but include amendments intended to modernise the language and ensure the provisions continue to operate effectively. The exposure draft Regulations contain several changes to clarify provisions and ensure that superannuation splitting arrangements keep pace with developments in superannuation products and with broader superannuation policy.

We received 10 submissions. These were made on behalf of:

• Family law practitioners
• Superannuation trustees
• Superannuation actuaries
• Financial professionals and accountants
• Superannuation industry peak bodies

The submissions were broadly supportive of the exposure draft Regulations.

The responses included helpful, technical suggestions to support improvements to the final Regulations, and provided useful insights based on stakeholder experiences of interactions with the existing family law superannuation splitting framework.

The feedback will inform our advice to government on improvements to the final Regulations. We thank everyone who took the time to engage with us by providing feedback.

From 11 to 28 March 2024, we sought your views on proposed legal reforms to address doxxing harms and behaviours, including a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. The Australian Government agreed and agreed in principle to a range of proposals that would enhance privacy protections for individuals through its response to the Privacy Act Review Report. This included proposed new provisions to address the practice of doxxing.

On 13 March 2024, we also convened a roundtable on doxxing and privacy reform with selected Commonwealth stakeholders, including the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind, and peak privacy, industry and media stakeholders.

We received 97 written submissions to this consultation from a range of stakeholders, including businesses, representative bodies, not-for-profit groups, academics and individuals.

The key themes from submissions and the roundtable discussion included:

• support for the proposed statutory tort, which would improve the available options to seek redress for victims of doxxing
• feedback on the design of the statutory tort to ensure it appropriately balances privacy with competing rights – such as freedom of expression
• views that the Australian Government’s measures to respond to doxxing should be considered together, and be coherent.

We thank everyone involved in the consultation who took the time to engage with us and provide their feedback. 

We have used this feedback to inform further advice to government on privacy reforms.

The Australian Government has conducted a public consultation on the second stage of public sector whistleblowing reforms. We released a consultation paper in November 2023 seeking views on what reforms are needed to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) (the PID Act) and related measures to ensure the public sector whistleblowing framework remains fit for purpose and accessible for public officials to report wrongdoing.

The consultation paper asked 24 questions on a wide range of matters, including how to address the underlying complexity of the scheme and what steps can be taken to provide effective and accessible protections to public sector whistleblowers.

The second stage of reforms is an opportunity to further improve the public sector whistleblowing framework. It follows on from a first stage of reforms in 2023 to deliver priority amendments to the PID Act to make immediate improvements to the public sector whistleblowing framework, ahead of the commencement of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

We received 56 submissions to this consultation. The submissions came from a range of stakeholders:

• 9 submissions from government agencies, including one state government agency
• 19 submissions from individuals
• 28 submissions from organisations.

Key issues raised in the consultation included:

• Whistleblower protections, including:
  • support for a new body to protect whistleblowers
  • expanding the circumstances in which external disclosures are protected under the PID Act
  • allowing people to access additional types of professional support and assistance in relation their disclosure
  • easier access to civil remedies as well as more types of civil remedies, particularly in relation to any failures by an agency to fulfil its duty to protect whistleblowers from reprisal.
• Simplification or redrafting of the PID Act, including:
  • making the legislation easier to understand and navigate for whistleblowers
  • increasing consistency between the whistleblower protection frameworks that apply to public, private and not-for-profit sectors.
• Support for a ‘no wrong doors’ approach, including:
  • increasing the types of officials within agencies who can receive protected disclosures
  • improving referral processes to ensure disclosures can be, and are, passed to an appropriate agency for consideration.

We will use the responses to this consultation to inform future policy development and decisions for the second stage of public sector whistleblowing reforms.

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

Australia’s Open Government Forum is developing Australia’s third National Action Plan (NAP3) in consultation with civil society and government. The NAP3 will outline commitments by the Australian Government to activities that promote transparency, accountability and collaboration between the government, civil society and the business community.

The Open Government Forum agreed on a co-creation process in June 2023. This process outlined 2 phases of public consultation. We undertook Phase 2 public consultation through an online survey from 9 November 2023 – 22 November 2023.

The forum established 8 commitments for inclusion in in Australia’s third National Action Plan. Phase 2 consultation focused on these commitments:

• Commitment 1: Automated decision-making and responsible use of artificial intelligence
• Commitment 2: Youth Advisory Groups
• Commitment 3: Commonwealth Integrity Strategy
• Commitment 4: Beneficial ownership reform
• Commitment 5: Integrity and accountability in procurement and grants
• Commitment 6: Commonwealth whistleblower protections
• Commitment 7: Transparent political donations and truth in political advertising
• Commitment 8: Combatting misinformation in non-English-speaking communities

We received 10 responses to this consultation. The submissions came from a range of stakeholders, including businesses, not-for-profit groups and individuals.

The responses included helpful suggestions to support the implementation of commitments for Australia’s next National Action Plan.

All respondents identified which commitments they felt were of the highest importance, and provided valuable insight on how each commitment might be successfully implemented.

We thank everyone who took the time to engage with us and provide their feedback.

Analysis and summary of the responses was provided to all forum members and included in the meeting papers for the fifth forum meeting on 4 December 2023. There was clear alignment between most of the responses and the commitments the forum chose.

The consultation responses will be used to inform the development and implementation of the commitments in the NAP3. Read the consultation analysis report and further updates on the progress of NAP3 at the Australia’s Open Government Partnership site. The forum consulted on the co-creation process and the working group themes during Phase 1 consultation.

On 27 October 2021, the Australian Government launched the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030 (National Strategy), and committed $307.5 million for implementing 62 measures under the National Strategy’s First National Action Plan (NAP) and First Commonwealth Action Plan.

Under the National Strategy, the National Office for Child Safety (National Office) is establishing a national point of referral to help victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, practitioners and the general public to navigate the service system and access information and resources (National Action Plan Measure 7).

We understand that the current service system in Australia is complex, often difficult to navigate, and that there is no single-entry point for victims and survivors and other people seeking information and support. We sought feedback on how best to design a service that meets people’s diverse needs in a trauma informed, culturally safe and accessible way.

We received 38 responses to this consultation and 12 written submissions. We also conducted targeted consultations with sector representatives, peak bodies and government agencies, and engaged First Nations Collective Consulting who partnered with Impact Co., to undertake dedicated trauma-informed, culturally safe, accessible and inclusive consultations with people with lived experience, First Nations people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, and people with disability.

We heard from a range of stakeholders including:

• people with lived experience of child sexual abuse and their advocates
• First Nations people
• people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities
• people with disability
• people who identify as LGBTQIA+
• health services 
• service providers 
• government agencies 
• advisory groups 
• Children’s Commissioners 
• legal services 
• peak bodies 
• advocacy services 
• research organisations
• religious organisations.

Stakeholders told us what makes services feel trustworthy, safe and effective, as well as the enablers and barriers to accessing services. Stakeholders highlighted that victims and survivors need to be at the centre of the national point of referral and they need to feel confident and safe when seeking help. Qualified staff providing localised knowledge and referrals are important, as is the capacity and capability to meet demand. Stakeholders want a trauma-informed, culturally safe, intersectional service that provides specialist information and advice about child sexual abuse and quickly connects people with local services and support.

As part of the Supporting Quality Engagement with Children project, the National Children’s Commissioner consulted with children and young people to inform approaches to help seeking and service access. These consultations were undertaken in urban, regional, and remote locations across all Australian states and territories and will contribute to the evidence base informing the design and implementation of the national point of referral. Please visit the Supporting Quality Engagement with Children page for more information.

Thank you to everyone who took part and provided their time and expertise.

The Final National Point of Referral – Community Consultations Summary 2023 provides a summary of feedback from individuals and communities. The Final National Point of Referral – Service Sector and Government Consultations Summary 2023 outlines a summary of the feedback from sector representatives, peak bodies and government agencies. 

Stakeholders who participated in these consultations were invited to provide feedback on the draft summaries, which has been incorporated into the final documents.

The consultation outcomes will inform our approach to developing, delivering and evaluating the preferred service model for the national point of referral. We are working with states and territories to finalise the proposed service model in 2024.   

From 18 September to 10 November 2023, we sought feedback on an exposure draft of the Family Law Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2023 (the exposure draft). The exposure draft proposed amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to make sure separating couples can better understand the decision-making framework used in family law to resolve their property and financial matters confidently and safely.

The proposed amendments aim to address the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Final Report No. 135: Family Law for the Future - An Inquiry into the Family Law System and implement elements of the Government Response to the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System.

The release of the exposure draft was an opportunity for the community to provide feedback on the proposed amendments. We asked for feedback about the proposed amendments, including whether they achieve our intended policy outcomes, using specific questions set out in a consultation paper.

We received 86 submissions on the exposure draft. These came from:

• members of the public
• legal professionals
• family law services sector representatives including family dispute resolution professionals and Children’s Contact Services
• women’s safety advocacy groups
• First Nations bodies
• academics.

Many submissions supported the policy intention of reforms in the exposure draft, particularly the focus on recognising the economic effect of family violence in family law matters and simplifying the property decision-making framework.

The responses included helpful, technical suggestions to support improvements to the exposure draft, and provided useful insights based on experience within the family law system.

We have published submissions from authors who gave their permission. We redacted some submissions to avoid breaching section 121 of the Family Law Act, to protect privacy and to respect copyright.

We thank everyone who took the time to engage with us by providing feedback.

The feedback has informed our advice to government on improvements to the proposed amendments.

On 29 November 2024, the Australian Parliament passed the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024. Read the Attorney-General’s media release announcing the Bill’s passage.

In September 2023, we sought submissions on a discussion paper presenting 4 proposals to meaningfully improve the personal insolvency system in Australia.

This consultation followed a national personal insolvency roundtable in March 2023, chaired by the Attorney-General. The roundtable brought together 23 organisations from a wide range of sectors with an interest in the personal insolvency system. Read a summary of the roundtable.

The discussion paper was open to public consultation between 1 September 2023 and 29 September 2023. We received 44 submissions, 4 of which were provided on a confidential basis.

View the 40 published submissions.

Respondents to the consultation represented a diverse range of sectors within the personal insolvency system, including:

• financial, accounting, banking and credit institutions
• insolvency practitioners, legal advisers and consumer advocates
• academia, industry representatives and individuals who have experienced the personal insolvency system
• registered trustees and debt agreement administrators.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the consultation process.

The feedback to the discussion paper informed our advice to government. On 8 July 2024 the Attorney-General announced that the government will introduce the following reforms to the personal insolvency system:

• Increase the threshold for involuntary bankruptcies from $10,000 to $20,000, with the threshold to be indexed each year.
• Increase the timeframe in which a debtor may respond to a bankruptcy notice from 21 days to 28 days.
• Reduce the period of time a discharged bankruptcy is publicly recorded on the National Personal Insolvency Index from a permanently public record to a record that is publicly available for the duration of bankruptcy and for 7 years following discharge from bankruptcy.
• Remove the proposal, or acceptance, of a debt agreement as an ‘act of bankruptcy’ for the purposes of section40(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

The timing of any reform is a matter for government.

Australia’s Open Government Forum is developing Australia’s third National Action Plan (NAP3) in consultation with civil society and government. The NAP3 will outline commitments by the Australian Government to activities that promote transparency, accountability and collaboration between the government, civil society and the business community.

The Open Government Forum (forum) agreed on a co-creation process in June 2023. This process outlined 2 phases of public consultation. We undertook Phase 1 public consultation through an online survey from 21 August 2023 – 17 September 2023.

The forum established 3 working groups to consider, develop and prioritise potential commitments for inclusion in Australia’s third National Action Plan. Phase 1 consultation focused on the co-creation process and the working group themes:

• Working group 1: Public participation and engagement
• Working group 2: Government and corporate sector integrity
• Working group 3: Strengthening democratic processes

We received 31 responses to this consultation, which included 1 emailed submission. Submissions were received from a range of stakeholders, including businesses, representative bodies, not-for-profit groups, academics and individuals.

The responses included helpful suggestions to support the development of commitments for Australia’s next National Action Plan.

A majority of stakeholders stated that the consultation provided appropriate opportunities to consult and that they supported the 3 themes. We thank everyone who took the time to engage with us and provide their feedback.

Analysis and summary of the responses was provided to all Working Group members and included in the meeting papers for the fourth forum meeting on 5 October 2023. There was clear alignment between most of the responses and the key priority areas that were identified by the Working Groups.

The Working Groups used the consultation responses to inform the development of potential commitments for NAP3. Read the consultation analysis report and further updates on the progress of NAP3 at the Australia’s Open Government Partnership site. The forum will consult on the draft commitments during Phase 2 consultation.

In July 2023, we sought public submissions for a proposal to amend the Statutory Declarations Act 1959 and the Statutory Declarations Regulations 2018 to introduce new ways of executing Commonwealth statutory declarations.

The framework would allow a Commonwealth statutory declaration to be executed in any of the following ways:

• traditional paper-based execution (requiring wet-ink signatures and in-person witnessing)
• e-execution (allowing electronic signatures and witnessing via audio-visual link)
• digital execution (end-to-end online execution, with digital identity providers to verify identity and satisfy witnessing requirements).

We received written submissions from a range of stakeholders, including interest groups, academics and individuals. Stakeholders noted that the proposal would provide options for making statutory declarations that will increase accessibility for all Australians, regardless of their circumstances.

Stakeholders generally noted that electronic execution can save individuals and small businesses time and money, that the temporary measures have worked effectively, and that the COVID temporary measures should be retained. Stakeholders were also strongly of the opinion that the traditional, paper-based method be retained.

The digital option was also well received. Stakeholders noted the reform would have the following benefits:

• • convenience and efficiency savings
  • the potential to save individuals and small businesses both time and money
  • accessibility gains, particularly for those in the community with restricted mobility, sensory or anxiety concerns, or individuals in remote areas or with limited access to witnesses
  • increased accessibility corresponds to increased access to justice where the statutory declaration is being used within legal system frameworks in particular.

The digital option was seen to reduce the risk of invalid declarations (e.g. failure to comply with the formalities). The ability to leverage an individual’s established digital identity with appropriate protections would also result in welcome efficiencies and flexibility, saving time and money. Some stakeholders supported the digital option, provided that there were appropriate privacy protections, data security, and fraud detection and prevention measures.

Thank you to all who provided a response.

The input we received made a substantial contribution to the development of the final proposed reform, including a number of safeguards that will address the issues raised by stakeholders.

The Attorney-General introduced the Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023 into the House of Representatives on 7 September 2023. Access the Bill and accompanying Explanatory Memorandum on the Australian Parliament House website. 

We held a first round of consultation on proposed reforms to modernise Australia's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regime between April and June 2023, following the release of our first consultation paper. 

We sought feedback from industry on proposals to streamline the AML/CTF regime and expand the regime to professional service providers. We also welcomed and considered general feedback on industry experience with the AML/CTF regime. The consultation paper asked 36 questions on a wide range of matters relating to how the AML/CTF regime functions. We sought public input through written submissions and targeted consultation with affected sectors.

During 2023, we held over 40 targeted consultations with industry, including roundtables with national peak bodies of affected sectors, bilateral engagements with industry members and addresses at industry conferences.

We received 142 submissions to the consultation from stakeholders across all affected sectors, as well as from government, academics and individuals. With consent, we have published 115 of these submissions.

Key themes

There was broad support for the reforms, with submissions reflecting the diversity in affected sectors. Submissions provided beneficial insights into how the AML/CTF regime could be improved to remain fit-for-purpose and maintain pace with the emerging threat environment. Overall, stakeholders supported the proposed reforms to clarify the application of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (the Act) and remove ambiguity from the current provisions. Submissions highlighted the need for us to consider other government reforms. This includes initiatives such as: 

• scams reform underway by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and how information sharing could support National Anti-Scams Centre activities,
• use of new and evolving technologies, and how this could interact with proposed Customer Due Diligence (CDD) measures
• payments reform and beneficial ownership initiatives.

Simplification and modernisation of the regime

Existing regulated entities supported changes to simplify CDD obligations and AML/CTF program requirements, with most highlighting this as a significant reform priority. Submissions expressed a strong interest in understanding how new technologies like biometric databases and digital identity could be adopted in CDD procedures. Submissions were broadly supportive of streamlining AML/CTF program requirements and proposals to facilitate and safeguard appropriate information sharing between relevant entities.

Regulation of tranche-two entities

Some stakeholder groups were supportive of expanding the AML/CTF regime to cover certain high‑risk services provided by some professions, including lawyers, accountants, trust and company service providers, real estate professionals and dealers in precious metals and stones (also known as tranche-two entities). Others, including some new sectors to be regulated, sought further information on their sector-specific risks and the regulatory impact of being brought into the AML/CTF regime. Many submissions from tranche-two entities indicated interest in leveraging existing processes and practices to help avoid duplication and reduce regulatory costs, including for CDD obligations.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the consultation process and provided a submission.

We carefully considered all feedback received during the first round of consultation and used this to inform a second series of consultation papers. These papers provide further detail on the proposed reforms as requested in the submissions. 

Find out more about the second round of AML/CTF consultation.

Feedback from both the first and second round of consultation will inform government consideration on reform to the AML/CTF regime.

The Administrative Review Taskforce (Taskforce) conducted public consultation on reform to the administrative review system between April and May 2023. An Issues Paper was published seeking views on the development of a new federal administrative review body. The Issues Paper asked 67 questions on a wide range of matters relating to the design of the new federal administrative review body.

We sought public input through:

• short survey
• Issues Paper 
• meetings with selected individuals and organisations, including AAT staff and members 
• user experience sessions. 

During the consultation period, we spoke with:

• 147 stakeholders with wide-ranging interest in the reform, including:
• people with experience as applicants in the AAT 
• migration and refugee representatives and advocacy groups
• disability representatives and advocacy groups
• social security representatives and advocacy groups
• veteran support
• legal organisations, including Legal Aid Commissions and Community Legal Centres
• academics
• government
• State and Territory civil and administrative tribunals.
• Over 400 AAT staff
• Over 160 AAT members

We received 287 short survey responses and 120 submissions in response to the Issues Paper.

• Administrative Review Reform: Short Survey Data Summary [PDF]
• Administrative Review Reform: Short Survey Data Summary [DOCX]

Feedback provided through the public consultation is being used to inform the development of legislation and to plan the implementation of the new federal administrative review body. 

The Expert Advisory Group, chaired by former High Court Justice, the Hon. Patrick Keane AC KC, has considered the results of consultation to inform their advice to government on the reform. 

The Administrative Review Taskforce (Taskforce) conducted public consultation on reform to the administrative review system between April and May 2023. An Issues Paper was published seeking views on the development of a new federal administrative review body. The Issues Paper asked 67 questions on a wide range of matters relating to the design of the new federal administrative review body.

We sought public input through:

• short survey
• Issues Paper 
• meetings with selected individuals and organisations, including AAT staff and members 
• user experience sessions. 

During the consultation period, we spoke with:

• 147 stakeholders with wide-ranging interest in the reform, including:
• people with experience as applicants in the AAT 
• migration and refugee representatives and advocacy groups
• disability representatives and advocacy groups
• social security representatives and advocacy groups
• veteran support
• legal organisations, including Legal Aid Commissions and Community Legal Centres
• academics
• government
• State and Territory civil and administrative tribunals
• Over 400 AAT staff
• Over 160 AAT members.

We received 287 short survey responses and 120 submissions in response to the Issues Paper.

Feedback provided through the public consultation is being used to inform the development of legislation and to plan the implementation of the new federal administrative review body. 

The Expert Advisory Group, chaired by former High Court Justice, the Hon. Patrick Keane AC KC, has considered the results of consultation to inform their advice to government on the reform.