Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's Report 515: inquiry into the effectiveness of Australia's National Anti-Doping Scheme.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

I ask leave of the House to present a report to the committee by Dr Martin Parkinson AC PSM entitled Independent Post-Election Review of the Parliamentary Budget Office 2025-26.

Leave granted.

I present the Independent Post-Election Review of the Parliamentary Budget Office 2025-26 and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the reports.

Leave granted.

On the independent review of the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, in accordance with its legislative responsibilities, requested an independent post-election review of the Parliamentary Budget Office after the 2025 federal election. The review was conducted by Dr Martin Parkinson AC PSM and examined the effectiveness and efficiency of the PBO, the appropriateness of its mandate, its resourcing and service demand levels, stakeholder feedback and the impact of its work on public debates.

The review makes it clear to the committee that, 13 years after its establishment, the PBO continues to be a highly regarded institution in the public policy landscape and its work is considered to be insightful and highly credible. The review concluded that the PBO's mandate continues to be appropriate and should remain unchanged and that altering it could jeopardise the PBO's established credibility and strong working relationships. It identified opportunities to further strengthen engagement with parliamentarians, parliamentary parties and the broader public.

The review made 23 recommendations across themes including enhancing credibility, improving transparency, strengthening the PBO's service offering and maximising its long-term impact. Together, the recommendations are intended to facilitate more efficient support to parliamentarians and to strengthen the ability of the PBO to continue delivering high-quality, credible support on all dimensions of its mandate going forward.

The committee extends its appreciation to Dr Parkinson and the PBO review secretariat for their work. The committee will further consider the findings and recommendations as part of its ongoing oversight of the PBO.

In relation to Report 515: inquiry into the effectiveness of Australia's National Anti-Doping Scheme, this inquiry of the JCPAA examined Sport Integrity Australia's management of Australia's national antidoping scheme. SIA is Australia's national antidoping organisation and holds the primary authority and responsibility for collecting and testing athletes' samples and for detecting potential antidoping rule violations.

The Australian National Audit Office conducted an audit to assess the effectiveness of Sport Integrity Australia's management of the national antidoping scheme. Overall, it found that SIA's management of the scheme was partly effective. The inquiry evidence was consistent with the ANAO audit findings. The aspects of SIA's regulatory activities the committee examined included SIA's approach to preventing, detecting and responding to antidoping rule violations, its governance arrangements, its regulatory approach to managing Australia's antidoping testing program, and the robustness of its investigative framework and quality assurance practices.

During the inquiry, the committee was particularly concerned to find that SIA's approach to regulation, specifically in relation to sports that pay for their own antidoping testing, is not consistently risk based. SIA has chosen to administer the arrangements for these sports in a manner different from that of sports that receive government funded testing. In the absence of clear, documented processes demonstrating how risk assessments inform decision-making, arrangements with user-pays sports can create the perception of unequal treatment or regulatory capture. The committee is not satisfied that SIA has demonstrated adequate controls to mitigate regulatory capture risks or ensure consistency in its regulatory activities. As to SIA's approach to investigations of potential antidoping rule violations, which is critical to maintaining the integrity of Australia's antidoping system, shortcomings were found in investigative practices, quality assurance processes, documentation and adherence to procedures.

The committee makes three recommendations to SIA in this report. The first is that SIA prioritise the development and implementation of effectiveness and efficiency performance measures for its key regulatory activities, in line with the Commonwealth Performance Framework. The second is that SIA establish, publish and actively communicate a formal policy of gifts and benefits, to clearly set professional boundaries with the regulated population. The third is that SIA require information from sports to include documented risk factors, to strengthen transparency and support SIA to make risk based and data informed decisions.

The committee acknowledges that SIA has undertaken a body of work in response to issues identified by the ANAO. However, as demonstrated throughout the audit and this inquiry, policies, procedures and documentation alone are not sufficient. The practical application of these controls, and assurance that they are operating as intended, is critical.

I acknowledge the chair, the deputy chair and members of the committee for their considered contributions to this inquiry. I also thank the ANAO and SIA for their cooperation and the committee secretariat for its continued professionalism and support. I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context