Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Parliamentary Frameworks Legislation Amendment (Reviews) Bill 2026. This bill, at its heart, is about efficiency and how governments can employ efficiency when it comes to spending public money. Governments are tasked with spending public money, and their overriding duty is to spend responsibly, which means that they must spend that money in service of the public good. This includes spending with respect to how our great parliament operates and how the people who work in this building, elected and unelected, are treated. The efficient use of maximum available resources to create a dignified workplace is therefore a key driver behind this bill. Using maximum available resources can mean using all the tools at the government's disposal to influence or compel action in order to create the conditions where people can work in their workplaces safely and with dignity. For example, this could mean using legislative or policy tools to ensure that employers provide decent working conditions for employees, which again is what this bill goes to the heart of.

Getting this right is a big job, and it's the government's duty to put everything it has behind it, because what is for sure is that the spending of public money is not something to be taken lightly. Governments must account for and be held accountable for using public funds, including with respect to how our parliament operates as well as with respect to other categories of spending like health care, education, housing and defence. It all matters. When we look at government budgets or at government spending on particular programs, such as conditions for staff employed under the MOPS Act or how the Parliamentary Business Resources Act is functioning, our primary concern should not always be just how much will be spent—although, this is a concern—but rather how that spending will support the working conditions of staff and how this will qualify as efficient use of taxpayer money. Again, whilst quantum is important, it's not everything. So we shouldn't just ask how much it will cost but rather what we will get for it.

Spending too much, of course, risks failure when it comes to value for money. But spending too little creates a risk that services are not provided or are provided poorly. And there is a risk that employment conditions are not sustainable, compromising staff retention, which ultimately leads to additional costs and creates the unacceptable risk that the parliament doesn't operate as effectively as the Australian people deserve. Effective spending is about allocating resources to improve desired outcomes. It's not just about reducing costs; it's about making strategic decisions that will enhance productivity, efficiency and the bottom line.

To do this in business, a business needs to completely understand its spend data. This includes knowing where the money is going, what is being received in return and how this compares to other options. Once a business has this information, its leaders can start making more informed decisions about where to allocate resources. Considering this is not 'set and forget'. It is an exercise that needs to be done with a regular cadence in government as well. We ask: What is the best way to spend your budget while ensuring you deliver quality products and services? How can a business ensure it's getting the most bang for its buck? The answer lies in understanding what effective spend looks like, which is again a key driver of this bill.

Spending and costs must be both reasonable in amount and reasonably incurred. In my former career as a lawyer before being elected to parliament, it was not enough to send a bill to a client with just the dollar amount on it and to seek payment. Quite rightly, clients are entitled to an itemised bill, which details the task completed, who completed it, when they completed it and how long it took, together with the corresponding amount. A small bill containing items that were meaningless or which did not produce value to the client could be worse than a large bill which contained meticulously detailed information that enabled the client to determine not only whether the bill was reasonable in amount but whether the costs were reasonably incurred. Reasonable in amount and reasonably incurred must be at the heart of all spending decisions, because a small bill with no discernible value is not fair, just as a large bill with no discernible value is not fair. Any bill with no easily identifiable value for money cannot be acceptable.

So effective spend management is about more than just cost saving. It's about making smart expenditure decisions that will improve productivity and efficiency. Spend efficiency methodology is part of this as well because it helps ensure that businesses and governments make the most of their time and money when they acquire goods and provide services. Efficient spend is achieved through data driven strategies like cost optimisation, spend visibility, examination of personnel and, of course, competitive bidding. Then we have probity. Probity and conflict management in government spending, in the operations of parliament and in the parliamentary workplace is critical. Probity is much more than just avoiding corrupt and dishonest conduct, and conflict management is more than just avoiding actual conflicts of interest.

Probity involves proactively demonstrating that a process, including a process of review, is robust and that the outcome achieved through that process is beyond reproach. It's about acting in such a way that there can be no perception of bias, influence or lack of integrity. Probity is a demonstration of ethical conduct that often exceeds legal requirements. Probity in decision-making, particularly the exercise of decisions regarding the use of public funds, must always be business as usual. Integrity and impartiality, promoting the public good, commitment to the system of government, and accountability and transparency are key elements of this, as is ensuring that value for money is achieved in an environment underpinned by ethical behaviour and fair dealing.

Probity is the evidence of ethical behaviour and can be defined as complete and confirmed integrity, uprightness and honesty in a particular process. It should not, however, be used to justify avoiding reasonable discussion with stakeholders or failing to engage with innovation, new ideas and new solutions as part of a review process. The level of detail and formality in providing information should be appropriate to the risk of the task at hand and the breadth of the desired outcome to be reached once the task is completed.

Probity and spending efficiency are key factors that will be taken into consideration when examining the MOP(S) Act, the PWSS Act and the Parliamentary Business Resources Act. It's important because these are the pieces of legislation that facilitate the operation of our parliament and the conduct of parliamentary business by elected members. Taxpayer money funds this, so regularly measuring the effectiveness of the legislation, testing whether spending that takes place to facilitate the operation of the legislation is both reasonable in amount and reasonably incurred, and examining whether the processes used to carry out those tests have been underpinned by the highest standards of probity is essential.

We know that parliamentarians and their staff experience complicated employment and expenses frameworks. They are complex. They're often difficult to apply. They're often difficult to administer. They require dealings with many departments and agencies relating to the parliament, and the roles of people who work in those agencies are often difficult to understand and fit within the system. If the system is not understood, or it is hard to operate efficiently, then it's hard to find efficiencies and it's hard to know whether the system is fit for purpose. So, after a series of reviews across some parts of the parliamentary workplace in recent years, this bill seeks to join up multiple required legislative reviews so that the government can complete a holistic review of the frameworks that govern our parliament to ensure they are fit for purpose for a modern, diverse and evolving parliamentary workplace.

The bill seeks to amend the commencement dates of the statutory reviews of the PWSS Act, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act and the Parliamentary Business Resources Act so these reviews can occur at the same time. The bill will ensure that the reviews of those three acts can be combined into this larger review of all legislation, departments and agencies interacting within the parliamentary workplace.

Each of these pieces of legislation plays a critical role in supporting parliamentarians and supporting the parliament. Firstly, the PBR Act established the legislative framework for the provision and use of public resources by parliamentarians in connection with their parliamentary business. The periodic independent review of the PBR Act is aimed at ensuring that the act continues to meet its objectives of improving the accountability and transparency of parliamentary work expenses, which are funded by the taxpayer and which must be efficient and effective, reasonable in amount and reasonably incurred.

Secondly, the provision of staff to assist parliamentarians with their parliamentary business is governed by the MOP(S) Act and the PWSS Act. The MOP(S) Act establishes the legislative framework for parliamentarians and office holders to employ people on behalf of the Commonwealth, and the PWSS Act established the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, known as the PWSS, to provide centralised human resources and other employment related support to parliamentarians and their staff.

The periodic review of the PWSS Act aims to ensure that the performance of the PWSS and the underpinning legislative framework are operating effectively to further the objectives of the PWSS on a regular basis. Combining these reviews within a broader review of all the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces provides an opportunity to test and measure how the recent reforms other members have spoken about are performing, to make absolutely sure that the legislative frameworks supporting parliamentarians and the parliament continue to be fit for purpose and accord with community expectations. Incorporating the PWSS Act, MOP(S) act and PBR Act statutory reviews within the broader review of the systems and frameworks will enable an integrated examination of these statutes, which will not only reduce the risk of contradictory outcomes but examine the entire parliamentary legislative infrastructure as a whole.

So, let's look at it. Is the system working for those who use it? Is it working for those who fund it? Is it fair? Is it sustainable? Does it reflect community expectations? And does it facilitate the conduct of parliamentary business to the benefit of the Australian people? Let's look. Let's find out and make any changes that are necessary to further the overriding objective of parliament, which is to facilitate our democratic system of government and serve the Australian people. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context