Question Time AU

Bill Debate · In Committee

Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026; In Committee

Senate · Tuesday 24 March 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate focused on the transparency and accountability mechanisms within the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. Senator Cash opposed the bill, arguing it transferred power to the executive without parliamentary oversight, specifically regarding secret performance standards and ministerial directions. Senator Green defended the bill as a modernisation measure to ensure integrity and accountability in four Commonwealth entities. The committee stage concluded with the bill being reported without amendment.

Outcome

The bill was agreed to and reported without amendment.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Michaelia Cash (WA) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Senator Cash opposed the bill, arguing it established a culture of secrecy by allowing ministers to set performance standards that were not legislative instruments, not subject to disallowance, and not required to be tabled or published. Cash contended that this removed parliamentary scrutiny and allowed for termination or suspension of statutory office holders based on undisclosed criteria. Cash also raised concerns about new ministerial direction powers over the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and suspension powers for the Director of Safeguards at ASNO, questioning their impact on independence and transparency.

Government response

Nita Green (Assistant Minister for Tourism; Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs; Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) ALP QLD

Senator Green supported the bill, stating it modernised appointment frameworks to align with community expectations and the APS Code of Conduct. Green confirmed that performance standards would not be legislative instruments or tabled in parliament, arguing this allowed flexibility to adapt to government priorities. Green maintained that procedural fairness safeguards applied to all decisions and that suspension powers were necessary to address misconduct promptly. Green also clarified that ministerial directions to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel would be general in nature and subject to the First Parliamentary Counsel's statutory responsibilities.