Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In most workplaces, whether it's a small business—it doesn't matter what type, like manufacturing, retail or hospitality—whether it's a busy office, whether it's an aged-care home where people are caring for our oldest Australians, whether it's a manufacturing facility or whether it's a large corporate organisation, the integrity and accountability of the leadership are the guiding principles that determine how people feel. They determine how decisions are made, and they determine how smoothly things operate.

Integrity in the workplace means acting ethically. It means acting honestly. It means being honest in communication and making decisions that align with organisational values. Accountability means taking responsibility for actions, decisions and outcomes. It relies on clear expectations and the willingness to own results, whether positive or negative. It's not about blame; it's about learning, improving and maintaining transparency. Together, integrity, accountability and leadership create workplaces that function smoothly, build trust and deliver better outcomes. They strengthen culture, guide behaviour and form the foundation of organisations that are respected by the employees, the community and customers.

When it comes to workplaces, Labor has always been the driver of better and safer workplaces, of fairer workplaces, of workplaces where everyday Australians are treated right. We've seen that in the introduction of such seminal reforms like superannuation, making sure that everyday working people have the ability to put a nest egg away and make sure that they are set up for their future. We saw it in workplace legislation to make working people safer, and we've seen it in the practical real wage increase for working people.

This is true for the range of workplaces I mentioned, and it's also true for organisations led by statutory office holders across the Commonwealth. In fact, the stakes are even higher in the public sector. Government institutions operate under a unique level of scrutiny and a unique level of responsibility. The same principles that strengthen non-government workplaces, that keep them fair, safe and trustworthy, are just as essential, if not more so, in the institutions that serve our communities and uphold the public's confidence.

The Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 highlights the Albanese Labor government's commitment to improving the integrity and accountability of appointments of statutory office holders across the Commonwealth. Statutory office holders play an important role in serving the Australian community. They're given significant authority. They lead organisations, they make key decisions and they approve the use of public funds. With responsibilities of this scale, Australians rightly expect these roles to be carried out with integrity, with good judgement, with accountability and that strong commitment to the public interest and, indeed, in doing so, our national interest.

Because of that, it's crucial that the systems we use to appoint and hold these office holders accountable reflect the workplace standards Australians expect in 2026. Community expectations are evolving, shaped by modern workplace culture, shaped by stronger calls for transparency and a focus on ethical leadership. Our frameworks need to keep pace with these expectations so we can maintain that trust, so we can support effective governance and ensure those in these roles are equipped to be recognised for the important work that they do, day in and day out.

This bill updates the appointment arrangements across the Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Attorney-General portfolios. It will apply to the statutory office holders of the following three agencies within Foreign Affairs and Trade: firstly, the CEO of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research; secondly, the CEO of the Australian Trade and Investment Commission, Austrade; and, finally, the Director-General of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, known as ASNO.

Currently, there are limited provisions for ending an appointment when conduct or performance falls short. That's why this bill introduces a set of changes designed to make the rules around ending a statutory appointment clearer and more responsive. It expands the grounds on which a statutory officer may be terminated, and, for the very first time, it provides a mechanism to suspend an office holder from their duties when serious concerns arise. These amendments will ensure that the office holders can be held to account for serious misconduct or for unsatisfactory performance. It's what these agencies deserve, and it's what Australians deserve when they think about senior office holders of the government.

In cases where behaviour or performance falls well below the expected standard, termination would be available as an appropriate consequence. The strengthened termination provisions would only apply from the date the bill commences. They are not intended to capture or reassess any conduct that occurred before the new framework comes into effect.

The provisions for ASNO are built different—they're a bit different. ASNO operates as a nuclear regulator, and maintaining its regulatory independence is absolutely essential. This independence may require limits on when and how officials can be removed from their positions. As a result, for ASNO, the amendments mean that the statutory office holder could be held accountable for serious misconduct but only where that misconduct has been formally established through the existing statutory assessment process.

The bill does not introduce a new ground for termination based on unsatisfactory performance. A new provision, which will apply to each of these agencies, will be giving the responsible minister the capacity to suspend an office holder from their duties. This power could be used where there are reasonable concerns that allowing the office holder to continue might pose a risk to staff, undermine the agency's reputation or compromise the interests of the statutory authority.

The bill also includes sensible but more minor modernising updates. One example is the proposal to reduce the ACIAR CEO's term from seven years to the more common five-year appointed period, aligning it with modern public sector practice. The changes in this bill will amend the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act, and the Australian Trade and Investment Commission Act.

In the Attorney-General's portfolio, this bill affects the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, making amendments that concern the appointment duration and the termination of the first and second parliamentary counsel. At present, these office holders can only be removed by the Governor-General and only in a very narrow set of circumstances. This limited approach no longer reflects contemporary expectations for workplace behaviour or for workplace accountability. Modern workplaces require clearer and more comprehensive standards, particularly when it comes to dealing with repeated bullying, harassment or other forms of unacceptable conduct. Quite simply, modern workplaces—regardless of whether you are in the private sector, the public sector or an agency—should uphold those values and meet the expectations that Australians deserve to see.

The current provisions do not provide a way to address these types of issues, leaving a gap between community expectations and what the existing legislation allows. Under the amended framework, a broader range of grounds for ending an appointment would be introduced. These include unsatisfactory performance, conviction for an indictable offence, bankruptcy, extended or unexplained absence from duties and undertaking paid work outside their role without approval. These changes ensure that the same basic expectations applied to employees across Australia also apply to these very senior statutory roles. Together, these updates would bring the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970 in line with what most Australians would view as fair and reasonable minimum standards in a modern workplace. They strengthen accountability while ensuring the integrity of the offices is supported by clear and contemporary safeguards.

The bill also amends the tenure of the first and second parliamentary counsel office holders from seven to five years. This brings these positions in line with the statutory office holders at other Commonwealth entities, such as the Administrative Review Tribunal. Labor promised to return integrity, honesty and accountability to government, and our progress has been substantial already. This is another important part of that puzzle.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission was established in July 2023, an independent statutory entity empowered to investigate serious or systemic corruption involving Commonwealth public officials. Later that same year, Labor established the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, PWSS, as an independent statutory agency through the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Act 2023. This implemented recommendation 11 of the Set the standard independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The act provides for a dedicated human resource function to support parliamentarians and support safer and more respectful Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. In 2024, the Albanese Labor government drove through reforms of the Australian Public Service, designed to reinforce the expectation that the APS continues to strengthen its skills, continues to deepen its institutional knowledge and continues to stay focused on serving the public interest both now and into the future. By embedding these principles into the framework, we ensured the APS operates with impartiality and a strong service ethos and that it remains accountable, respectful and grounded in the highest ethical standards.

In October 2024, Labor replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with the ART. This was necessary to introduce a more open, merit driven approach to appointments. The ART also benefited from stable long-term funding to ensure effective ongoing operation. There was a focus on efficiency and clearing the significant backlog of cases with streamlined procedures, improved workflows and strengthened support services. In December last year, the government released the Australian Government Appointments Framework.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 17:13 to 17:32

This provides a clear set of expectations and guidance to strengthen transparent, capability based selection for Commonwealth public roles. It outlines the standards ministers must follow when making appointments, ensuring decisions are grounded in merit and aligned with effective governance and positive outcomes for the Australian public. Under the framework, ministers are accountable for appointments within their portfolios and are expected to be open about how those decisions are made. Appointees should reflect the diversity of the Australian community. They should look like the communities that we represent. Ministers are encouraged to work closely with their departments when designing and carrying out recruitment processes. It also emphasises a focus on continually strengthening the capability and performance of boards and public bodies. These standards apply broadly, across appointments to Commonwealth public offices, including secretaries, agency heads, statutory officers and board members.

The breadth of these reforms illustrates Labor's commitment to restoring trust and faith in government institutions. You need only to think about robodebt, which the Prime Minister described as 'a gross betrayal and a human tragedy' to understand why this was necessary. The Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 continues this record of progress. Through this ongoing work to strengthen how appointments are made, the government is reinforcing its commitment to upholding public confidence and safeguarding trust in our national institutions. These improvements bolster trust and reflect a modern Australian workplace. For this reason, I commend the bill to the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is, supposedly, presented as a governance modernisation measure. It is aimed at aligning certain statutory office holders with, apparently, contemporary accountability standards. It applies to the following entities: the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, the Australian Trade and Investment Commission, the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

Australians are, at present, living under one of the most secretive and least transparent federal governments that we have seen. I recall as a boy growing up on a farm at Brucedale—nine miles, we used to say, from Wagga Wagga. I can remember the then federal member—he'd been a state member before that—the honourable Wal Fife, the late Wal Fife. He was the member for Wagga Wagga in the state parliament from 1957 to 1975 and then he stood for federal Parliament and won. He served Farrer from 1975 to 1984 and then, after a redistribution of boundaries, Hume from 1984 until his retirement in 1993. When my late father, Lance, was farming along the Olympic Way and Wal was driving past back to his home in Wagga Wagga and saw Dad, he'd pull up. I can remember the two of them having long conversations over the fence. Dad would always say to me, 'Now there's the local member,' and he was so highly respected—as he should have been.

I don't think the electorate in general has the same respect for politicians—certainly not for party politicians—and that is of deep regret. It is a shame, because you don't get to be elected to the House of Representatives unless you get a high proportion of votes, and we should have accountability, transparency and respect for those office holders. We should.

I can remember when I first came to this place in 2010. Harry Jenkins, the then speaker, said, 'Don't ever look across the parliament and think that someone there doesn't deserve their place here, because they've earned the number of votes required, they've earned the respect of their electorates and they've earned their place to sit in the House of Representatives.' The Senate's a different story altogether. I'm not paraphrasing Mr Jenkins, but that is a truism. But, regrettably, there isn't the same respect for members of parliament these days. And these things—mobile phones and social media—have had a part to play in this.

This particular bill, the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, might be seen as being a perfunctory bill, and it is. But we've just seen, in the House of Representatives just now, another successful bid by the government to shut down debate, unfortunately. The Chief Government Whip, the member for Lalor, has gone in and moved a motion to stifle debate, and this happens again and again and again. When Labor came to office in May 2022, the Prime Minister elect, the member for Grayndler, said at the time, 'We will be more accountable; we will be more transparent than the last mob.' Labor hasn't been. And, unfortunately, that has added to the distrust of party politics. And I love party politics; I do. I think it's important for the Westminster system.

Does this particular piece of legislation assist and aid that process? Time and again, this government's instinct is to control information, to sidestep scrutiny and to move what would be seen as key decisions out of the parliament's line of sight. And that is a pity.

As I said, I am a believer in the Westminster system, and a big believer that ministers have to have accountability. Ministers must have the final say. I have stood in this place and in the House and talked about my concerns about how our ministers' responsibilities are being watered down because, at the end of the day, the buck has to stop somewhere. And, generally speaking, it always was the minister's office—the minister's pen. I don't think that we should have a bureaucracy down the hill getting the final say or rubber-stamping ministers' decisions. I say this with genuine intent: it's up to ministers and future ministers—and I'm looking at the member for Sturt because I'm sure she will one day be a minister—to not just take the word of their bureaucrats when they put papers that they need to sign into their in-tray, papers that will into law or into regulation matters or issues that are important and of vital concern to the general public. Make sure you read every item.

What we've seen from this Labor government is a pattern of watering down a minister's responsibility. I think what it also does is erode the culpability, the transparency and the 'buck stops here' axiom for ministerial responsibility. The party political system has served Australia well since 1901, since Federation. We have seen—and I can say that safely in this room right now because there aren't any of them here—the Independents and the teals make out as if they're running the show, and they are not. Labor's in power now. They won the most seats; government is formed in the House of Representatives.

What we don't want to see—and this is just learned advice; take it on board if you will—is a situation that's happened in some European countries, where the independents or minorities are running the show and they're changing the prime minister every five minutes. We've done enough of that since, quite frankly, Kevin Rudd got speared halfway through his first term. But what we don't want to see is the teals—they're already out there making out as if they're running every precept of parliament and every procedure, yet they will never be around a cabinet table—let's hope they're not—making the decisions. Ministers make the decisions. The buck has to stop with them. I don't like to see the watering down of the ministers' responsibilities. But what we are seeing is transparency being eroded.

Instead of lifting the parliamentary standards, what we've seen is Labor making accountability harder. I'm not that in favour—although I have had discussions with the Prime Minister about this—of charging for freedom-of-information access. That said, when I was the deputy prime minister, I would have about two staff members doing almost nothing other than answering freedom-of-information requests most days. Usually, the requests were from Labor—would-be ministers and shadow ministers pretending as though there was something behind every closet and under every box that needed to be in the full glare of the public. The Prime Minister himself said to me that it is just bogging down good democracy. I don't necessarily disagree with him on that score, but we do need to have public accountability. We do need to have transparency. I don't think, as with a lot of things, that this government is getting it right, with all due respect.

The matters here—because this bill is not being proposed in a vacuum—do sit squarely within the same culture: reduce transparency, centralise control and weaken parliamentary oversight. I don't think that is a good thing. That just gives rise to these teals and the Independents thinking, 'There is obviously something to be seen here, so we'll make a big fuss of it, and we'll go out into the media and we'll get all the undue attention that Senator Pocock and his cohort in the upper house often get about the power of statutory offices and the power of ministers.' Heaven help us! Ministers are there because they are given that responsibility by the Prime Minister because somebody has to look after certain portfolios, and hopefully Independents never will. That's the core issue. If you combine greater ministerial powers with weaker visibility, you won't get what's called in this bill 'modernisation'. I know this bill is there to supposedly 'modernise' governance measures.

According to what Labor's trying to do, it's going to move some maximum terms to five years. It's going to expand termination grounds to include serious misconduct—I would have thought that would have been there already—and, for most roles, unsatisfactory performance. If it were in the private sector, sometimes you can't get rid of people for unsatisfactory performance to save yourself. I know. I've been in those sorts of positions, and you have to manage people out. The difficulty there is that, if you make a mistake in the private sector that's going to cost millions or billions of dollars, you lose your job like that in an instant. You do it in the federal parliament, you get promoted. That's just the way it is.

The bill would allow ministers to set written performance standards which can be used when assessing unsatisfactory performance—okay. It would introduce express suspension powers and give the minister a new power to issue general written directions to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I'm not against ministers just doing their job. If only they would! If only sometimes they could! I'm really not. But, individually, many of these elements are not unprecedented. Again, I refer to the fact that it's just getting ministers to do their job. We certainly, as a coalition, as Liberals and Nationals together—

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amen!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Amen!' the member for Fisher says. May that long occur. We're not opposing accountability, certainly not. I wouldn't want anybody reading this Hansard,quite apart from sending themselves to sleep, to think that we are opposing accountability, because that is not what we are about. But what problem, I do ask, is this bill actually solving? Why are there only four agencies—the ones I mentioned before? Why them, and why at this point in time? Why are their new performance standards not subject to tabling, to disallowance and to publication? These are genuine questions, and I know they'll probably be answered by the member for Sturt, who follows me. I have a high regard for her knowledge of the law and for her history in that regard and her legal work in the past. But are suspension and termination safeguards strong enough to protect procedural fairness and independence? These are all the sorts of questions that that people who are of a like mind will be asking. They certainly are. And do these governance procedures or architecture—call it what you like—preserve the right balance between executive control and parliamentary oversight?

Again, it gets back to the balance. I earnestly don't believe that Labor is getting the balance right in so many areas of endeavour. If this bill is about, as Labor will claim, restoring public trust and modernising accountability, then consistency is important. Keep to your word. Stick to your promises. If you say you're going to do something, then for goodness sake do it. I don't think we get that right these days. The days of Wal Fife leaning over the back fence with my father, talking about the government of the day and what things are happening in Canberra or Macquarie Street, as the case was, are long over, and people unfortunately have this distrust. It is such a shame. Rather than sometimes squabbling over the scraps off the table, the parliamentary dispatch box, I think we should be talking up what we do as a profession, because we're just playing into the hands of One Nation, of the Independents and of those dreaded teals. We are. We should be proud of what we do as party politicians. We should, because we have provided the best form of government since Federation. Long may that continue. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that, if the Independents ever get hold of the Treasury benches, control of the blue room, the blue carpeted offices and the cabinet table, then we are all in a lot of trouble—a world of hurt.

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

I rise today to speak in support of the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill of 2026, but I do start by thanking the member for Riverina for his very kind words. I also talked politics with my dad non-stop, and both of us shared a great love for our wonderful democracy and our parliamentary system, and a respect for those who put their hand up for public work. I also will do my best to address some of the concerns the member for Riverina raised during his remarks, particularly with respect to the watering down of ministerial powers which, with respect, I don't accept is happening with respect to this bill.

The purpose of the bill is to amend appointment, suspension and termination arrangements for statutory office holder positions that lead four Commonwealth entities: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Australian Trade and Investment Commission, Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, and my favourite, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. This objective is being achieved to update and clarify integrity and accountability settings for certain statutory office holders, just as in the Foreign Affairs and Trade and Attorney-General's portfolios. It does so by reforming the statutory framework for appointment, suspension and termination.

The intent is to reflect modern community and workplace expectations for Commonwealth officials. These are primarily governed by the Public Service Act 1999 for Australian Public Service employees, and also the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act for all officials. These quite rightly set very high standards of integrity, professionalism and accountability. Officials are expected to behave honestly, act with care and diligence, disclose conflicts of interest and use Commonwealth resources properly. The Australian public demands this, and the Australian public deserves this.

In terms of the operation of the bill, there are two schedules. Schedule 1 amends a number of acts—the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act, the Australian Trade and Investment Commission Act and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act—to reflect community expectations of Commonwealth statutory office holders and reflect modern workplace standards. In addition, it expands and clarifies the grounds on which the appointments of the statutory heads of those agencies may be terminated. There are new discretionary grounds for termination. These include serious misconduct and unsatisfactory performance, which I think most reasonable Australians would consider to be fair enough, given serious misconduct would include serious breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct; unlawful discrimination; serious or repeated bullying or harassment; and corrupt conduct, which may result from breaches of public trust, abuse of office as a statutory office holder, misuse of information gained in the capacity of their role, or if the person does something that adversely affects a public official's honest or impartial exercise of powers or performance. Corrupt conduct is defined in section 8 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022.

The Australian Public Service Code of Conduct, to which agency heads and statutory office holders are bound—what is actually in it? It can be found in section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999. It requires employees to behave honestly and with integrity in connection with APS employment, and to operate with truthfulness, sincerity and frankness. The code prevents employees from improperly using inside information or the employee's duties, status, power or authority to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or an advantage for the employee or any other person. It also requires employees to act with care and diligence in connection with their APS employment, and for the employee to treat everyone with respect and courtesy, without harassment and in compliance with all applicable Australian laws.

Compliance and breaches are determined by reference to an objective standard following a lengthy and transparent process which is underpinned by procedural fairness. This is one of the concerns the member for Riverina raised in his remarks, but there is a clear and transparent process underpinned by due process and characterised by procedural fairness, with significant opportunities for response and engagement.

There are some reasonable exceptions to the objective standard, such as if an employee has a level of experience or any specialised skills or training that they might have received which may mean they ought to have had a higher degree of awareness about their conduct. So, in addition to termination of a statutory office holder's role on this basis, the bill would also enable the minister to suspend the appointments of the statutory heads of the agencies in question for a maximum period of 12 months. This is not a watering down of the minister's powers; it is putting power in the hands of the minister.

The initial period of suspension would be capped at three months, but it can be extended for more than three months and up to a total duration of 12 months in certain circumstances. The minister has the power for the first three months of suspension and then may consult with the Prime Minister or cabinet for any suspension with a total duration of longer than three months. This approach aligns with the expectation as set out in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's Cabinet Handbook when seeking approval for acting arrangements for significant office holders. This is a necessary power. It's not unchecked, but it's a necessary power in the hands of the minister that is appropriately filtered by time requirements and by consultation requirements.

The final element of schedule 1 to the bill is that the new maximum term of appointment for the CEO of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research and other agencies would be five years, which is contemporary. It is very similar to the length of time CEO's stay in listed entities in the private sector. It is contemporary and is reduced by the current arrangements by only two years.

Then we have schedule 2. This schedule will amend to the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970 to insert new ministerial directions power—again, this is not a watering down of ministerial power; this is a new ministerial power—and to ensure appointment provisions for the Office of Parliamentary Counsel reflect modern community standards and expectations of Commonwealth statutory office holders.

The Office of Parliamentary Counsel is responsible for drafting and publishing the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. This is significant. It also publishes legislation, maintains the Federal Register of Legislation and provides training in relation to drafting and Commonwealth legislative processes. It's led by statutory office holders who are appointed by the Governor-General to draft and publish Commonwealth laws, and these office holders are the First Parliamentary Counsel and the Second Parliamentary Counsel. These are roles that are established under the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970.

Schedule 2 contains another new power for the minister—not a watered down power, a new power. This is in relation to giving written directions of a general nature to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel about the performance of its functions. Then, like schedule 1, the new maximum term of appointment for the First Parliamentary Counsel and Second Parliamentary Counsel is five years. Again, it is a contemporary approach which is very much reflective of the private sector and other offices of similar function in the public sector.

With respect to termination, the bill expands and clarifies the grounds on which the appointment of Office of Parliamentary Counsel statutory office holders may be terminated. These grounds would remain mandatory in respect of bankruptcy related issues, but the new list of discretionary grounds for termination comprise conviction of an indictable offence, physical or mental incapacity, serious misconduct, unsatisfactory performance, absence from duty in certain circumstances, engaging in paid work outside official duties without the consent of the minister—another power of the minister—and failing to disclose interests under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act.

Like schedule 1 serious misconduct pursuant to schedule 2 includes serious breaches of the APS Code of Conduct, unlawful discrimination, serious or repeated bullying or harassment, and corrupt conduct. These expanded provisions are entirely appropriate and reflect community standards and expectations for statutory office holders who are carrying out the type of critical work that is performed by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

From a human rights perspective, bills of this nature necessarily engage with human rights. In this case, the bill engages with the right to work and rights in work under article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the right to a fair hearing pursuant to article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

With regard to the right to work, the new expanded grounds for termination—serious breaches of the code of conduct; bankruptcy; corrupt conduct; conviction of a serious indictable offence; mental or physical incapacity; serious misconduct; unsatisfactory performance; absence from duty in certain circumstances; engaging in paid work outside official duties without the consent of the minister; and failing to disclose interests in accordance with the PGPA Act—are proportionate, necessary and reasonable. They are proportionate to the need to protect and promote integrity and public confidence in the work that statutory office holders are doing. They are also consistent with the termination provisions under other Commonwealth statutes governing statutory office holders. Reasonable Australians would expect that statutory office holders with management responsibilities would be removed from the workplace by terminating their employment where their behaviour created an unsafe working environment—for example, through bullying or harassment, or where trust and confidence is irretrievably gone because of a failure to disclose a disclosable interest.

Further, the minister's powers of suspension for the statutory heads of the agencies in question also engages the right to work and rights in work. These are also proportionate, reasonable and necessary in order to promote the right to safe working conditions by staff, and they will operate to protect the health, safety and welfare of employees in those offices. The new powers are also consistent with suspension clauses in other Commonwealth statutes for statutory office holders.

In relation to the engagement of fair hearing rights under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the bill does not alter any of the existing procedural fairness requirements that would already apply in relation to any termination decision under any of the acts that would be amended by this bill, and the new and expanded grounds for termination will also be subject to procedural fairness requirements. I can confidently say that the member for Riverina's concerns about procedural fairness can be put to rest because there is a serious degree of procedural fairness and due process already afforded. This legislation brings the system into line, as already set out in other acts.

This bill does not seek to impose onerous or unfair requirements or processes on statutory office holders just because of their position, which is another nod to fairness. Instead, it recognises the significance of being a statutory office holder appointed by the Governor-General and demands the highest standards of personal integrity be practised in recognition of that. Australians quite rightly expect this of each other, and they certainly expect it of their office holders. This bill brings expectations for the relevant statutory office holders in line with other existing frameworks and with community expectations. I commend the bill to the House.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. This legislation, I believe, is perfectly unobjectionable. It brings the statutory office holders who lead four Commonwealth agencies into line with our other government organisations by reducing their maximum term of appointment from seven to five years and by adding grounds for suspension or termination of office holders similar to what exists for other positions.

The question I have for the government is: at a time when inflation is high, when productivity is in the doldrums, when house prices mean young people are struggling to get into the housing market and achieve the same outcomes as their parents, when social cohesion is under pressure, when trust in government is at a low ebb and when Australia's clean energy transition is happening more slowly than we would like, is this legislation really the best use of our parliamentary time? Is tweaking the employment contracts of four government appointed officials really an issue at the top of the government's precious parliamentary agenda? I would genuinely hope that this sort of bill would come in a big omnibus bill of uncontentious pieces of legislation that we could push through parliament, so we can focus on more important things, but in this case it hasn't. This is the question I ask the government in relation to this: where is the ambition and how is it reflected in the legislative agenda? Every week we have a crossbench briefing from the government on legislation for the coming weeks. They cancelled it tonight because there was only one bill to bring forward and it was a very minimal one. Again, we're going to have sat six out of nine weeks. Where is the legislative agenda that really justifies this?

There is important work to be done. For instance, the government has indicated—very rightly, I think—that there's a significant deregulation agenda that is required. Where's that legislation? They have taken steps forward on things like the 'tell us once' policy, but there is much, much more work to do. This is the sort of legislation I think people expect us to be dealing with in the parliament. What about the whistleblower protections—they're long overdue—or gambling reform, or protections for LGBTQ+ students and teachers so that they can't be fired or expelled because of who they love, because of getting divorced or because of having a child out of wedlock? What about forcing companies to allow you to opt out of social media algorithms, or dealing with the CFMEU and the impact that has had on government procurement, with $15 billion worth of expected impact in Victoria, of which probably $2 billion is federal money?

That really is the question here. I respect this piece of legislation. I have no problems with it as a piece of legislation. But the country expects us to be doing much more on issues that matter to them. The government's legislative agenda is absolutely surprisingly light, given the challenges facing our country. The question for the government is: is this the ambition that you should be approaching, given you have a supermajority in the House and you have two different and achievable pathways through the Senate? Surely there is more that the government can do with its legislative agenda than this.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the chamber for debate on this bill. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring integrity, honesty and accountability in government. The community expects public officials, especially those who are the subject of statutory appointments at senior levels, to perform their duties with the highest integrity. The Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 will ensure that, where statutory office holders engage in behaviour that breaches the APS Code of Conduct, amounting to discrimination, bullying and harassment or corruption in their workplaces, they can be removed from office. The bill also ensures statutory office holders are held accountable for their performance, with unsatisfactory performance being appropriately addressed. These are standards expected of most working Australians. They should apply to statutory office holders too.

The Albanese government remains committed to the principles of regulator independence, and the bill is sensitive to the independence of decision-making by statutory authorities. To this end, the amendments in this bill are not designed to fetter the independence or discretion of statutory office holders but to ensure they are accountable for their performance and conduct in the workplace. The bill will strengthen appointment safeguards for a range of statutory office holders, and the government will continue its focus on returning integrity, honesty and accountability to government, ensuring we better reflect community expectations. Through these ongoing efforts, the government will continue to ensure the Commonwealth is the model employer we expect other employers to be. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.