Claire Clutterham
Sturt · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“Some in this House have asked: how many cups of coffee can you buy with the Albanese Labor government's 1 July 2026 tax cuts? But I ask: how many cups of coffee can you buy with the money that you save from seeing a GP for free?”
“The eSafety Commissioner has identified serious compliance concerns and is actively investigating five major platforms due to their noncompliance.”
“But we need action from the entire parliament, in this place and in the other place, for that to happen. I call on all members and senators to walk together to take this action. I do that because this issue is also deeply personal for me. In my first speech to this parliament, I spoke about my own experience of bullying at school.”
“One of the early scenes in the 2010 movie The Social Network depicted young women at Harvard recoiling in disgust as they discover a website created by one of their peers that allowed male students to compare them based on their so-called 'hotness'. The website was a precursor to what would become Facebook.”
“Social media is a part of the world they have always known, yet they were remarkably forthright about its downsides. They spoke about algorithms that keep them scrolling, the pressure to seek approval through likes and followers, and the impact social media was having on their confidence, self-esteem and mental health.”
“That is why keeping children safe online should be a bipartisan issue. When the Albanese Labor government introduced the social media minimum age of 16 last year, we did so because we listened to parents, educators, experts and young people.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,071 lines we hold for Claire Clutterham, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 22.
“To the contrary, the failure is arguing that we should scrap aspirational targets, scrap net zero and just rely on coal and gas because the transition is taking too long, or hasn't already brought retail prices to where some would like them, or requires substantial investment over a significant period of time. To say that would be to fail the Australian people who have asked governments, industry and communities to act on climate change. In my electorate of Sturt, climate change and the environment are second only to cost of living in terms of issues people talk to me about. We know that climate change is in fact inextricably linked to cost-of-living issues. This government is listening, and we are seeing results. In my state of South Australia, we are leading the way. We've been at the forefront of the global energy transition.”
“If we overstate the risk and infect the debate with drama rather than science, people will stop listening. Conversely, if we understate it or dismiss it, communities and Australians will suffer. The balance based on science is where we need to be, and there is community support for prompt yet patient action that is designed to repair and protect our planet, noting that Mother Nature is a relative, not a resource; prompt yet patient action that protects economic livelihoods; and prompt yet patient action that invests in new technologies and new industries which underpin tomorrow's economic prosperity. Addressing climate change will take time and patience. There will be setbacks. The transition to renewable energy has not failed.”
“We need to continue investing, researching, exploring and walking together when risks don't always crystallise immediately. We cannot let perfect get in the way of good, and we cannot continue to have unproductive and time-wasting debates about whether climate change is real. At the same time, we cannot engage in debate that overstates the effects, paralyses the population and predicts the immediate demise of the planet. We need to have a balanced discourse which recognises that climate change is real, recognises the role that humans and industry have played in contributing to that, and listens to and respects the contributions of individual communities, businesses, health practitioners, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and government.”
“Climate change is a complex and multifaceted problem. It requires an ambitious and effective national strategy for emissions reduction and the development of clean industries underpinned by renewable energy. Substantial investment is needed. Although it will create new social and economic opportunities in all sectors and regions, it will need to be sustained over the long term. Mitigating the effects of climate change and the transition to renewable energy will not just happen overnight. We need to prosecute this and we need to be patient. We can't just say, 'Prices are too high, so the transition has failed.' We need to take risks and we need to recognise that risk is not only about what could go wrong but what could go right.”
“The creation of External Reporting Australia, through the amendments set out in this bill, will strengthen the framework for setting external reporting standards and ensure those standards are meaningful, produced after a cost-benefit analysis, future focused and dedicated to providing further trust and confidence in Australia's capital markets to encourage further investment. I commend the bill to the House.”
“It's important to report against meaningful standards so that governments can use the data to determine whether policy objectives are being met, whether they require amendment or improvement, or whether they should be simply cut out. If the data being produced is not capable of meaningful use, then it is not useful data. With useful data, good policy is made when it is relied on in conjunction with facts and evidence. This produces meaningful, sustainable and practical policy.”
“This objective is entirely appropriate to accommodate the development and ongoing maintenance of new sustainability standards, as well as to futureproof Australia's financial reporting system so that it can respond to future standard-setting needs. Sustainability standards produced only after the development of a cost-benefit analysis and reporting against those standards prepared in accordance with the law help maintain and promote confidence and integrity in Australia's capital markets and help users and investors make informed investment decisions. Sustainability standards and reporting are not, as some might argue, virtue-signalling.”
“This cost-benefit requirement retains but updates and simplifies to reflect current practices, and it's retaining the pre-existing requirements regarding cost-benefit analysis of proposed setting standards issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board and expands the requirement to also apply to auditing and assurance standards. This requirement supplements whole-of-government regulation impact assessment processes, which may require impacts of proposed regulation to be quantified and published, and ensures that a cost-benefit analysis continues to be required for all standards issued by External Reporting Australia. In this respect, one of the objectives of the bill is to create a more flexible institutional arrangement for standard setting to ensure the efficiency and adaptability of Australia's financial reporting system.”
“We do not want reporting for reporting's sake or something that is no more than a box-checking exercise. This is why it's important that the bill provides that, prior to making or formulating a sustainability standard or in fact before making or formulating any standard on accounting or auditing and assurance, whether or not in reliance on an international standard, External Reporting Australia must, to the extent practicable in the circumstances, carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of the proposed standard. It is intended that the cost-benefit analysis carried out may consider financial factors as well as other factors, such as anticipated environmental, social or governance costs and benefits.”
“Finally, a code of conduct will be developed, which will apply to people who are statutory appointees within External Reporting Australia, as well as any other staff or other persons assisting who are not otherwise subject to the APS Code of Conduct. Nothing less than a targeted and appropriately tailored code of conduct that meets community expectations will satisfy the level of integrity that must be applied to the External Reporting Australia framework. As to sustainability reporting, embedding this within Australia's financial reporting system recognises that environmental, social and governance information is now central to business decision-making. It is critical for investors, and it is now business as usual. However, the production of reasonably practicable sustainability reporting standards is critical.”
“Early and public consultation will remain critical to ensure standards are practical to implement and to support higher quality reporting, particularly for data systems and controls and assurance readiness. The bill also supports continuity and certainty as reforms take effect and seeks to maintain robust due process in every respect. Further nods to transparency include the setting of rules governing the disclosure and handling of material personal interests by any members of the governing council or the standard-setting boards that adopt and supplement the PGPA Rule, which simply means disclosures of personal interests must be made as soon as practicable rather than waiting for the next meeting. This is entirely appropriate, and it's hard to argue against this reform.”
“These actions include the establishment and setting of certain procedural requirements for the standard-setting boards, like providing for the broad strategic direction of the board and the manner in which it is to perform its functions, the conferral of responsibility for new kinds of standards or other functions on External Reporting Australia and the giving of any ministerial direction about the role of international standards. Again, this element is another signal to the market about capability. The bill also signals an important focus on transparency, because there is a requirement for meetings in which standards are discussed to be held in public. This is to improve visibility and to help reduce the risk of late-stage requirements.”
“The proposed governing council is required to include skills in sustainability or climate change, including scientific expertise, to strengthen the technical capability of the standard-setting boards. This is an important signal to the market about the capability of the governing council and the standard-setting boards themselves. The bill also includes a requirement that certain actions taken by the minister, the governing council and the standard-setting boards be done by legislative instrument, which has the effect that the actions will be subject to appropriate consultation requirements and scrutiny by the parliament.”
“As for appointments to the standard-setting boards, the governing council must ensure, to the extent practicable, that the composition of a standard-setting board reflects an appropriate mix of persons, with experience reflecting both the standards and the board issues, and that reports are prepared in accordance with those standards. In short, the obligation of the governing council is to set up standard-setting boards with the authority to make and formulate standards on behalf of External Reporting Australia to ensure that the day-to-day determination of the technical content of accounting, auditing and assurance, and sustainability standards are tasked to boards with expertise directly relevant to the standards being set.”
“The governing council will be the accountable authority and therefore responsible for approving External Reporting Australia's corporate plan, setting its priorities and ensuring appropriate management of its budget and resources. With respect to appointments to the governing council, the minister must have regard to the principle that the governing council should contain an appropriate level of representation of persons who are and are seen to be independent from Australian auditors and that it should, as far as practicable, have an appropriate balance of expertise or experience in fields relevant to External Reporting Australia's functions. The governing council is to consist of between five and nine members, including the chair, and the minister may also appoint up to four non-voting associate members to the governing council.”
“External Reporting Australia will be a listed entity, with the governing council as the accountable authority for the purposes of finance law within the meaning of the PGPA Act. Turning to the governing council, this is a key feature because it is one of the elements in the bill that is designed to instil confidence—in market participants, industry and other stakeholders—that integrity, a commitment to procedural fairness and due process, and adherence to relevant technical expertise in setting standards will underpin the operation of the governing council. The governing council will be a multimember accountable authority to promote collective and strategic decision-making and to ensure that no one particular industry, interest group or cause can unduly influence outcomes.”
“Under the previous framework, various responsibilities in relation to accounting, auditing and assurance, and sustainability standard setting were split across the separate statutory entities, their respective offices and the Financial Reporting Council. Now a single entity, External Reporting Australia, will be responsible for all of these relevant standard-setting functions. External Reporting Australia will be led by a governing council, the Governing Council of External Reporting Australia, and it will establish internal standard-setting boards that are authorised to exercise the powers and perform the functions in relation to standard setting within the accountability framework of a single entity. The minister may also give External Reporting Australia responsibility for formulating new kinds of standards in response to future needs.”
“To achieve this, the bill continues the existence of the Office of the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, a non-corporate Commonwealth entity, for the purposes of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act and renames it External Reporting Australia. The amendments therefore abolish the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, the offices and the Financial Reporting Council. External Reporting Australia's responsibilities will include making and formulating accounting, auditing and assurance, and sustainability standards. The difference between the previous system and what is being proposed in this bill is the facilitation of External Reporting Australia as the single source of standard setting.”
“The effect of this is that sustainability reporting will be embedded in core reporting systems, rather than treated as an adjunct. This is important because it promotes consistency and comparability, which are essential and useful ingredients for investors in their decision-making. With respect to the establishment of External Reporting Australia, the bill makes amendments to part 12 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act to combine the core functions and powers of the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and their respective offices and the Financial Reporting Council relating to standard setting. These will be combined into a single entity known as External Reporting Australia.”
“They will look to the market to provide opportunities to invest long into the future. They will look to the market for opportunities in general, and they will take them. A strong and productive economy requires this level of integrity to inspire confidence, and we know that only markets that investors have confidence in will grow. Good governance, accurate and timely reporting, fairness and transparency mean a stronger economy for everyone. The bill proposes reforms to the financial reporting architecture that will have meaningful implications for sustainability reporting in Australia. Most significantly, the bill proposes the establishment of External Reporting Australia, bringing sustainability standards setting into the same national infrastructure that governs accounting and assurance.”
“I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026, which represents the biggest reform to Australian financial reporting standard settings in 20 years, and, critically, it marks an important step in embedding sustainability reporting within Australia's core financial reporting framework. The reforms proposed in the bill will have positive implications for the integrity in our markets, which matters. If we want to encourage people to invest and innovate, to look to the future, to take calculated risks and to grasp opportunities, only the highest standards of integrity in the market will be acceptable. When people trust the system to be fair, transparent, stable and honest, they will invest and innovate.”
“This bill is the product of genuine consultation with communities like mine, and it reflects the collective spirit of Australians who want to see the superannuation system become stronger and even fairer so that it continues to deliver a more secure retirement for millions of working Australians today and into the future, and not just some working Australians. Of the three pillars of retirement savings in this country—the age pension, super and personal savings and assets—super needs to be maintained as the driver, and this bill is part of the reform necessary to further the objective of an equitable and sustainable system, providing all working Australians with a dignified retirement. I commend the bill to the House.”
“Did they love extra tax on their large super balances? Of course they didn't. But they understood and accepted the rationale for it. And this came across to me very clearly in every discussion I had and in most of the email correspondence that was sent to me on this topic. Many speakers in this House have spent most of their time talking about unrealised capital gains and the lack of indexation. They have asked a lot of questions about that, instead of spending their speaking time discussing what's actually in this bill. What's not in the bill is the taxing of unrealised capital gains. It's not there. What is in the bill is indexation of thresholds. That is there. So neither of those concerns remains justifiable; they are not in the bill.”
“Secondly, I thank those residents for explaining patiently the genuine consequences—what might happen—if their concerns were realised, and the genuine arguments against some of the initiatives that were being floated. I listened to those and passed those concerns on, as did a number of my colleagues, which has resulted in a bill that is fairer, is built on solid principles and is justifiable. That is civic engagement at work. Thirdly, what really struck me in all of these conversations that I had, particularly with two gentlemen, Paul and Nigel, both of whom had built successful careers and businesses—along with others who came to see me, they absolutely understood and in fact accepted that they were best placed to bear the risks and burdens associated with the ongoing equity and sustainability of the superannuation system.”
“When this reform to large and very large superannuation balances was being floated, I was contacted by a small but concerned group of individuals in my electorate of Sturt who had concerns with initial suggestions that earnings on large and very large thresholds would not be indexed and that unrealised gains would form the basis upon which the new headline concessional rates would be applied. I thank those residents who wrote to me and came to see me for a number of reasons. Firstly is for civic engagement. My door is always open to people who wish to share feedback and have a constructive, courteous and professional discussion with me, and pleasingly that was the tone of every discussion that I had on this topic.”
“Managing risks and burdens is an essential consideration in every aspect and in every transaction, because risk determines whether a transaction is viable, and it is always a component of the total overall cost of any transaction. The effective allocation of risks and burdens reduces the likelihood of failure. Poorly or unfairly balanced risk allocation, by contrast, can increase cost, deter participation, lead to unintended consequences and frankly defeat the purpose of the objective—in this case, a dignified retirement for all Australians founded on equity and sustainability. Systems and transactions can never be completely devoid of risks and burdens entirely, but these can be managed intelligently if the aim is to fairly allocate each risk to the party best placed to control it or bear it.”
“Whatever bucket you fall into or whether you fall somewhere in between, like most Australians, you've worked hard to get there, and the government respects that. You've worked hard to build a nest egg of whatever size to seek to provide for yourself in retirement and to enjoy a retirement as dignified and fulfilling as possible. The government respects that and, in crafting this bill, respects that but also, in this instance, places the weight of sustainability and equity of the superannuation system on those best placed to bear it. Risks and burdens are part of equity and sustainability and should be borne by those best placed to manage them. That is the fairest way to ensure the sustainability of our superannuation system.”
“The amendments in schedules 1 to 3 reduce the tax concessions by imposing additional tax of 15 per cent on earnings based on the percentage of the total superannuation balance exceeding the $3 million threshold and a further 10 per cent on earnings based on the percentage of the total superannuation balance exceeding $10 million, with the thresholds being indexed to CPI each year. We've heard statistics quoted in this House today that this will affect about 0.5 per cent of the working Australian population. This bill is instructive of the way governments seek to maintain sustainability and equity. The difference in financial position between someone with an annual taxable income of $45,000 and someone with a total superannuation balance of $3 million or $10 million is stark.”
“Firstly, for superannuation balances up to $3 million—that's almost every single working Australian—the concessional tax rate will remain at 15 per cent on earnings. This is unchanged. Secondly, for superannuation balances between the $3 million large superannuation balance threshold and the $10 million very large superannuation balance threshold, it's up to an overall 30 per cent on a percentage of earnings equal to the percentage of the individual's total super balance between these thresholds. Thirdly, for superannuation balances above the $10 million very large superannuation balance threshold, the rate is up to an overall 40 per cent on a percentage of earnings equal to the percentage of the individual's total superannuation balance above $10 million.”
“The number of low-income workers, mainly women, who are eligible for LISTO, will increase to over three million working Australians, with each of those receiving an average LISTO increase of $410, resulting in an average extra $15,000 in retirement. This will depend, of course, on the trajectory of the person's career, but an extra $15,000 will make a difference. Importantly, the LISTO eligibility threshold and maximum payment amount will automatically adjust in line with any future changes to income tax thresholds and the superannuation guarantee rate. Another key feature of this bill is the reduction of tax concessions available to people with balances over $3 million. This feature can be found in schedules 1 to 3 of the bill. Under this arrangement, the headline concessional tax rates applying to superannuation earnings are as follows.”
“It is essential that the objective of super remains front of mind and that improvements and adjustments are made fairly and transparently to further those critical objectives of equity and sustainability. At its heart, this bill speaks to the objectives by making Australia's super system stronger by examining those foundational principles of equity and sustainability. In terms of equity, the bill operates to boost the low-income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO, so low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their super earnings. From July 2027 the maximum LISTO payment will increase by $310 to $810, and the eligibility threshold will increase from $37,000 a year to $45,000.”
“Other features in place to make it equitable and sustainable in accordance with its objective include tax concessions and the practice of paying super into employer default funds, all of which must be MySuper compliant. This is important so workers who are perhaps not financially literate or just not interested—and there are some—still receive employer contributions. Stapling and performance benchmarks set by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority are also key elements underpinning the integrity of the superannuation system together with the equal representation model, where profit-to-member boards comprise an equal number of employer and worker representatives, keeping a focus on the best interests of members. Super in Australia is good policy and good politics.”
“Labor is and always has been the party of working Australians, and benefits to workers after they conclude their working life are a natural extension of this. A decade later in the early 1990s, the superannuation guarantee was passed, and all workers became entitled to minimum superannuation rates of three per cent. Coverage grew over time, and by 2019 national superannuation coverage increased to just under 80 per cent. Today it is over 90 per cent. Super is now the key driver of retirement savings. It's there together with the aged pension and personal savings and assets, but it's the key driver. All three of these pillars work together, and there will be a different mix for everyone. But super not only provides the bulk of retirement savings. It boosts living standards and drives investment.”
“In the 1970s, most Australians relied on the aged pension in retirement, and only about one-third of the workforce, mainly public servants and white-collar males, received super. It wasn't portable, and the payment was restricted to workers who retired with the employer controlling the fund. In the 1980s, the Australian Council of Trade Unions began a concerted effort to extend the benefits of superannuation to their members, which included blue collar workers, and a concerted effort to ensure that contributions were well managed and governed in funds that were designed to benefit members. When the Hawke Labor government took power in 1983, they had as a key objective the creation of a universal superannuation system so that all Australians, not just some, could benefit.”
“There are two main reasons super is such a powerful way to save for retirement. Firstly, it is taxed concessionally at a lower rate than other forms of taxable income. Secondly, super is reinvested and compounds over time, meaning that, in some cases, up to 75 per cent of the final balance at retirement has been generated by earnings rather than employer contributions. Super was created to boost the financial security of Australians in retirement. Its objective, as stated in section 5 of the Superannuation (Objective) Act 2024, is: … to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. It's now compulsory, but it wasn't always so.”
“I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. Australia's superannuation system is a savings system for retirement, and it is the envy of the world. It has a simple foundation. Over your working life, your employer puts money on top of your wages into a super account which stays invested until you retire. It's pretty clear: the more savings you've invested, the more you have to live on in retirement. As of 1 July 2025, the minimum amount—called the superannuation guarantee—is 12 per cent of an employee's wage. Our national superannuation rates have increased from three per cent, when the modern super system was established in 1992, rising incrementally to nine per cent by 2002 and then significantly higher in July 2025.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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 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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”