Mandatory Regulation Impact Statement Bill 2025: What Tyrrell's Proposal Would Change

The short answer

Mandatory Regulation Impact Statement Bill 2025: What Tyrrell's Proposal Would Change

The Mandatory Regulation Impact Statement Bill 2025, introduced by Independent Senator Tammy Tyrrell on 3 November 2025, is a private senator's bill that would legally require a regulation impact statement (RIS) to be prepared for certain bills and legislative instruments introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament. Currently, the RIS process is a non-statutory administrative requirement under the Australian Government's Regulatory Impact Analysis framework, meaning compliance is a matter of government policy rather than law. Tyrrell's bill would embed the obligation in legislation for the first time, making it enforceable and justiciable. The bill would apply to government bills and legislative instruments that impose measurable regulatory burdens, with the scope to be defined in the legislation and any accompanying regulations. At the time of writing, the bill remains before the Senate, having been introduced and had its second reading moved on the same day in November 2025. It has not yet been debated or voted upon, and being a private senator's bill without government backing, its path to passage remains uncertain. The bill does not specify penalties but would create a statutory duty; failure to comply could provide grounds for judicial review or parliamentary scrutiny committee attention, though the practical enforcement mechanisms would depend on the bill's final drafting. The proposal reflects ongoing concerns about the quality of regulatory impact analysis accompanying legislation, particularly following several high-profile bills that proceeded without completed RIS documentation.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the Bill Proposes

The Mandatory Regulation Impact Statement Bill 2025 would amend Commonwealth law to require that a regulation impact statement be prepared for certain bills and legislative instruments before they can proceed through Parliament. The bill is a private senator's bill — meaning it was introduced by an individual senator rather than by the government — and it targets the gap between the existing administrative expectation that RIS documentation accompanies regulatory proposals and the absence of any statutory obligation to do so.

Under the current system, the Australian Government's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) framework, administered by the Office of Impact Analysis (OIA), requires departments and agencies to prepare a RIS for proposals with more than minor regulatory impacts. However, this framework operates as policy guidance, not law. There is no penalty for non-compliance beyond adverse findings by parliamentary scrutiny committees or political embarrassment. Tyrrell's bill would convert this expectation into a legal duty, making the preparation of a RIS mandatory rather than aspirational.

The bill applies to bills introduced by ministers (government bills) and to legislative instruments — regulations, rules, and other delegated legislation made by the executive. The specific threshold for when a RIS is required would be defined in the bill itself and any regulations made under it. Based on the current RIA framework, a RIS is typically required where a proposal has a regulatory impact on businesses, community organisations, or individuals that is more than minor, though the bill may adopt its own definitions.

Evidence review

How the Current RIS System Works

At present, the requirement for a regulation impact statement is set out in the Australian Government Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis, a policy document issued by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Office of Impact Analysis (formerly the Office of Best Practice Regulation) assesses the adequacy of RIS documentation and can certify whether a RIS meets the government's standards.

A RIS must typically include: a clear statement of the problem the regulation seeks to address; the policy objectives; an analysis of feasible options (including non-regulatory alternatives); a cost-benefit analysis of each option; a consultation summary; and a recommended option with justification. The OIA can issue a 'certification' confirming a RIS is adequate, and government decisions that proceed without certified analysis may be noted in parliamentary scrutiny reports.

Critically, the Prime Minister can grant exemptions from the RIS requirement. This has been a point of contention in the past — for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many urgent regulatory measures were exempted from the RIS process. The current system therefore relies heavily on the discipline of the government of the day, which some critics argue provides insufficient accountability.

Evidence review

Who the Bill Affects

The primary entities affected by the bill would be Commonwealth departments and agencies that develop regulatory proposals, as well as the ministers who introduce bills into Parliament. The bill would impose a new statutory obligation on these actors at the policy development stage, before legislation reaches the chamber.

Parliamentarians would also be affected indirectly. A mandatory RIS requirement could change the information available during parliamentary debate and committee scrutiny. Committees such as the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation routinely examine whether bills and instruments are accompanied by adequate explanatory material. A statutory RIS obligation would give these committees a firmer basis for drawing attention to compliance failures.

Businesses and community organisations — the intended beneficiaries of better regulatory analysis — would not have direct obligations under the bill but would stand to benefit from more thorough analysis of regulatory costs and alternatives before regulation takes effect.

Evidence review

Legislative Status and Remaining Steps

As of July 2026, the Mandatory Regulation Impact Statement Bill 2025 remains before the Senate. It was introduced and read a first time on 3 November 2025, and the second reading was moved on the same day by Senator Tyrrell. There has been no second reading debate, no committee referral, and no vote on the bill.

For the bill to become law, it must pass the Senate (its originating house), then pass the House of Representatives, and receive Royal Assent from the Governor-General. As a private senator's bill, its prospects depend on whether it attracts support from the government, the opposition, or a crossbench majority. Private bills without government backing rarely become law, but they can influence the policy agenda by drawing attention to gaps in the existing system.

The bill has not yet been referred to a Senate committee for inquiry. If it were to proceed, a committee inquiry would typically invite submissions from government departments, the OIA, business groups, regulatory experts, and the public — providing a forum for examining the practical implications of making RIS preparation a statutory requirement.

Evidence review

Why Senator Tyrrell Introduced This Bill

Senator Tammy Tyrrell is an Independent senator for Tasmania who served in the Senate from 2022. She was originally elected as a Jacqui Lambie Network candidate but sat as an Independent from March 2024. Tyrrell has positioned herself as a crossbench senator focused on accountability and transparency in government.

The bill aligns with broader concerns about the quality of regulatory decision-making in the Commonwealth. Parliamentary committees and the Australian National Audit Office have previously identified instances where regulatory impact analysis was incomplete, absent, or conducted after key decisions had been made. By proposing a statutory requirement, Tyrrell's bill seeks to strengthen the institutional framework for evidence-based policy making.

The bill's introduction also coincides with ongoing public discussion about the volume and complexity of Commonwealth regulation and the need for more rigorous analysis of costs imposed on businesses and households through delegated legislation — which often receives less parliamentary scrutiny than primary legislation.

Evidence review

Evidence Gaps and Unanswered Questions

Several aspects of the bill remain unclear from the publicly available summary and first reading materials. The full text of the bill, published on ParlInfo, would clarify the scope of 'certain bills and legislative instruments' and the threshold for triggering the RIS requirement. It is not yet known whether the bill would contain exceptions for urgent legislation, national security matters, or appropriations — exemptions commonly found in similar legislative frameworks.

The bill does not appear to specify an enforcement mechanism in its summary. It is unclear who would enforce the requirement, what remedies would be available for non-compliance, and whether failure to prepare a RIS would affect the validity of legislation that is subsequently passed. These questions would be central to any committee inquiry if the bill progresses.

There is also an open question about whether a statutory RIS requirement would slow the legislative process and how it would interact with existing parliamentary procedures, including the ability of the government to declare bills urgent and guillotine debate. These procedural interactions would need to be addressed through parliamentary practice if the bill were enacted.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer