Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 9:08:18 to 9:41:27
Discussion on security infrastructure at Kirribilli House and ministerial compliance with travel expense rules and budget savings correspondence.
Topics: Travel and event costs, Integrity, Government spending
Speakers: Hon Penny Wong, Hon James McGrath, James Paterson, Hon Jane Hume, Andrew Walter, Arthur Spyrou, Blair Exell, Karen Grogan, Speaker 51, Speaker 63
>> Thank you. I have some questions in relation to official residences, >> Just a very short line.
>> Whenever he's about to do something I might not like, James blinks. That's his
>> I do a lot of a lot of blinking.
>> When you're trying to be, you know, hold the word butter wouldn't melt my mouth,
good boy. I promise. Um >> Excellent. Uh thank you. Some questions there. Some privacy screens have been installed I think on the gates at at Kiraability House and and maybe Admiral T house. I was just wondering if you can when were these screens installed.
>> Uh other spiru first secretary ministerial support division. Uh, Senator, the screens uh were put up by the Department of Home Affairs and I understand they were put up before Christmas.
>> Okay. >> So, questions questions go to the public home affairs or these can you answer these questions?
>> Uh, well, the questions in terms of those particular uh works would go to home affairs.
>> Okay. Okay. Can you answer where they are in relation to Cuz I understand they're at Curably House and Admiral T House. Is that correct?
>> I'm not sure about Admiral T House. Um, Home Affairs has responsibility in terms of security, the built security of uh both those residences. What we have responsibility of is the residences that the prime minister um lives in. I'm aware of the fact that there has been a privacy screen that's been placed on the um the front gate of Kira House. It's um it's just an opaque piece of perspect.
>> Is that for security or is it for privacy?
>> It be for both.
Do you have a >> a cost for this or is this something that Department of Home Affairs?
>> Home Affairs would give us the the number for that sir.
>> Okay. And this was a decision of the Department of Home Affairs.
>> That would be a decision of the Department of Home Affairs.
>> Okay. And so it'll be funded through their through their budget rather than
>> they have um specific funding that relates to built security infrastructure for all of the official establishments including those that the governor general resides in.
>> I have some more questions but I think I'll put them towards the time of home affairs in relation to that. Now thank you. So it'll be short and sweet. So thank you very much. But I also have some questions not in relation to your area in relation to uh I suppose the [snorts] expenses uh issue that that arose uh recently. So I might put that to you deputy secretary or or you minister >> well I'll put the question. So um um on the 21st of December last year, the prime minister was asked the following. Prime Minister on politician expenses, you sought advice from EPA. Will you be making any changes to the rules? Then the prime minister responded, I received that advice from EPA. I received that advice on the weekend, nine days ago, n 10 days ago, and determined with right to the REM Can the department please provide a copy of EP's advice to the prime minister and then the subsequent letter that was written to the REM tribunal?
Uh Senator um in terms of um the advice from your I'd like to um take that on notice. The the reason I want to do that is um it's prefaced as um uh personal advice to the prime minister under section 12 of IPIA's legislation. Uh and because that preface, I'd like to um well check with the prime minister obviously, but also consult with the CEO of IPIA uh because of their legislation.
Minister, is this something that you'd be happy to to release in relation to that the letter uh that was um sorry, the EP's advice to the prime minister and then the subsequent letter that the prime minister sent to the REM
>> on the the the second one. So a letter was sent from a special minister of state and finance to the remuneration tribunal.
>> Okay. So that's a smallest one. But in relation to to EPIA back to the prime minister, >> I I I don't think this is something that I'm not putting words that's secret. >> If you want to take it on notice,
>> we'll take it on notice. to to be honest probably best if you ask Senator Farrell and the Department of Finance, but my understanding is the letter to the tribunal was from ministers Farrell and Governor Gallagher. I'll take on notice your request. So you're asking for that one, but that's obviously a matter for them. But um you're asking for will the prime minister release the response to that?
>> The the advice from from Mr. Walter said it was personal advice whereas I think the prime minister. >> Yeah, I'll take it on. I was saying it's a policy issue.
>> My concern is only the way the response is framed and I just want to make sure that we consult with IPA and obviously
since uh, November 2025, has the prime minister or his office requested that the secretary or the department evaluate whether any minister has breached the ministerial code of conduct in relation to the use of expenses?
>> Um, so the prime minister does from time to time ask the department for advice on matters that go to the code. uh we don't uh disclose the nature or the advice with nature of the advice requested or the advice provided but I can say that no minister since the this the um commencement of the Albanese government no minister has been found to have breached the code of conduct
>> so um not sending that answer uh did the secretary of the department provide any advice the prime minister or his office as to whether ministers Wells Butler Farrell and Roland's uh use of entitlements violated the ministerial code of conduct.
>> Senator, I can only repeat what I've just said, which is uh that we don't disclose the nature of requests in relation to the code or uh the nature of advice provided to the code or even, you know, whether specific requests or
Minister, can you explain what the prime minister's code of conduct or the ministerial code of conduct means when it states ministers and their staff are provided with resources and facilities at public expense for the effective conduct of public business? Such resources are not to be subject to wasteful extravagant use and due economies to be observed at all times. In particular, ministers must be scrupulous in ensuring the the accuracy of any claim for ministerial, parliamentary or travel expenses.
>> Well, I think the words speak for themselves. And
did how did Minister Wells observed your economy when she charged the taxpayer for a family weekend at the Snow?
look, I I think we all know, you know, this has got a lot of media attention. Um, I think the prime minister responded most quite clearly in December of last year. He said that taxpayers do have a right to expect value for money. He also referenced the fact that the rules exist and Minister Wells had referred herself to Ipia to examine the specifics of her travel and that he would await any recommendations.
How did Minister Butler ensure that resources were not subject to wasteful use when he flew himself and his wife to the Australian Open final on public money and charged the public for travel
Senator, yeah, there are a range of rules associated with ministerial and parliamentary travel and uh ministers and set members and senators have an obligation to ensure that they comply with those rules. as a um consequence of um some of these issues. Obviously, changes have been made. Um and I would ask that you speak to Senator Farrell about those. I think he's up next because he is taken responsibility along with Senator Galah for for management of those
But that I suppose I will happily do that and I'm sure Senator Farrell would would um welcome the questioning. But but Minister, how can you explain how violating EPU's rules is in line with the ministerial code of conduct? Because the ministerial code of conduct has a higher a higher um level for ministers and their staff. And if the ministers have breached and have had to repay money to surely it follows that they breached the ministerial code of conduct.
you might recall IPIA was U actually I think in response or as a consequence of Ms. Lee's um multiple visits to the Gold Coast and purchases of property and my recollection is and as I said Senator Farrell has been and Senator Galla have been dealing with this in part it was also to provide advice to parliamentarians uh about uh their expenses uh and that is you know what what Minister Wells
>> But we also have the instance of the attorney general that the chief law officer of this country breaking the rules and repaying money back to uh Parliament. Yeah. How is the attorney general in compliance with the ministerial code of conduct when they've had to repay I think it's $10,000 or over $10,000?
the fact is the attorney general and minister Wells have asked for their advice about their expenses and then obviously I think we're minister Wells is still awaiting that advice. uh the attorney general acted upon that advice. That's a reasonable thing to do.
>> But the the attorney general has admitted on one level rules have been breached. But when it comes to or otherwise they would not have repaid the money uh or she would not have paid the money. Sorry. So I'm just trying to understand how is it that a a minister can admit that they have breached the rules in relation to politicians travel and therefore not be in breach of of the ministerial code of conduct which has such a higher bar for the conduct of and the expenditure of taxpayers money. Yeah, and I can go back to the quote, such resources are not to be subject to wasteful extravagant use and due economy is to be observed at all times.
>> Well, Senator, it is IPIA. It is a principlesbased framework. You and I both know you know that there are times where there are questions about the operations of that framework and parliamentarians across this parliament uh have sought advice and have received that advice and have acted accordingly and that is what >> the ministers have or are doing uh and it's a process that is arms length and
>> uh has prime ministry Haven't provided any advice to the prime minister or the PMO on risks to the ministerial code of conduct from the use of taxpayer funded family travel entitlements before November 2025.
parliamentary business resource framework is a matter for the department of finance special minister of state and finance minister so I think your question is better directed to them senator
>> but I suppose my question is have you I the question will go to them also but that has prime minister provided any advice to the prime minister or his office on risks to the the ministerial code of conduct act which he has carriage of concerning the use of taxpayer funded family travel entitlements before November last year.
>> Uh so I'm just going to confine your question to you know let's say the last 12 18 months not that I'm aware of. Um and obviously the code it's a ministerial code it's the the prime minister's code. So, um, while we support the prime minister where he requests it, it's it's ultimately it's the prime minister's code.
>> I I'll put some questions on notice to the times and um, chair and I think my colleagues have some questions.
>> Yes, senator.
>> Thank you, J. Um, in the last round of Senate estimates, the Department of Finance confirmed that the acting prime minister wrote to ministers on the 26th of September seeking options for budget rep prioritizations and that responses were due by the end of October 2025. Is
Uh, Senator, I'll refer to one of my colleagues in relation to the day just to uh check that.
Senator Louis Rings, chief economist and fed assistant secretary economic division. Sorry, I'll have to take the date on notice. We don't have it to hand.
>> Okay. Um, but the substance is right. It was the acting prime minister who wrote to ministers [clears throat] in about September.
>> I think if this is the um this is probably this is I think Senator Gallagher responded on this in relation to an OPD both on behalf of the PM and treasurer and in her capacities finance minister. >> Is that the one you're talking about?
>> Uh well for the moment I'm just trying to establish that it was the acting prime minister who sent the letter.
We'll take that on
>> notice when it was sent. >> Um I I think the officials were nodding so I'm going to assume that's correct unless someone contradicts me. Um why just for for interest, why was it the acting prime minister who wrote this letter?
>> Probably because the prime minister was away.
>> Well, that's one other person who could have written the letter. But for example, why wasn't it the treasurer or
the finance? >> Because the acting prime minister,
>> please enlighten me, Senator.
>> No, no. I'm just the prime minister's away. the duties are undertaken by the prime acting prime minister.
>> Yes, but this is a letter seeking savings from departments and agencies.
Not unusual for as part of um well there are a set of um the prime minister has uh um it's not unusual and in fact it would be a normal part of the budget process for the prime minister to uh ask ministers to do certain things um to provide authorities for things to come forward in an orderly system of government where the prime minister is not trying to be the treasurer as well. Um the prime minister does um including not only is the prime minister of the country but also he's the chair of ERC.
>> Well, I was going to ask thank you for answering my question. I just was interested as to why it him being the chair of ERC is one logical reason for it. Um does PMC have a copy of the correspondence?
>> we'll have to take it on notice. Senator
>> that that whether or not you have a copy, you don't know whether or not you
have a copy. I'll check with the team, but we'll have we'll take it on notice.
>> We do have a copy of the letter, but not to hand. We have to provide that.
>> Um All right. So, we have a copy. That's good. Um could you take on notice uh providing it to the committee, please?
>> I we we'd have to take it on notice given it part of normal budget
deliberation.
>> Yeah, it may may well be cabinet inconidence.
>> Please take it on notice. Um what which ministers did the acting prime minister write to?
>> We'll take that on notice too.
did PMC draft the letter?
>> Senator, can I refer you to the response I refer to Senate OPD agreed to by the Senate on Wednesday 26th November. I respond in my capacity as finance minister on behalf of the PM and the treasurer as I advised the Senate on Tuesday 25th November in relation to the assertions in the article referred to in the order one that the idea that we are imposing a 5% cut on agencies is incorrect. As I said in a radio interview this morning, what we have asked agencies to do is to think about all the things they are doing, all the programs they administer, and to consider whether they are still priorities because we need to ensure we have got the resources available to meet all of the pressures coming the way of the public service. The letter goes on to say, documents prepared for budget processes would reveal the deliberations of cabinet and accordingly are subject to public interest immunity claims. It is well recognized under long-standing conventions that it is in the public interest to preserve the confidentiality of cabinet considerations deliberations to ensure the best possible decisions are made following thorough consideration and discussion of relevant matters routine within cabinet. The letter then goes on with further information. Uh we will take it on notice but I suspect you have the answer to those your requests in what senator Gallagher has already provided the chamber with.
>> Thank you. That wasn't my question. My
question was because it refers directly to why there is PII claims in relation to documents associated.
>> My question was did PMNC draft the letter? How is that >> take that on notice? >> Why does that need to be taken on notice?
>> Because we are entitled to take documents associated with cabinet processes on notice.
>> This is not this is a question about who prepared the document.
>> Well, I'm taking it on notice.
>> Senator Paterson, they have the right
they see fit. The government guidelines to witnesses at estimates are very clear and I quote, "While it is appropriate to take questions on notice if the information sought is not available or incomplete, officials should not take questions on notice as a way of avoiding further questions during the hearing. If officials have the information but consider it necessary to consult the minister before providing it, they should state that as a reason for not answering rather than creating the impression that the information is not available."
Senator P. We are all aware of that and that is why I've I've read out what Senator Gallagher, the minister for finance has said in the chamber which is uh relates to what you are asking. So on that basis I will take it on notice as the minister representing for considering whether or not any of the documents or questions you have uh are not the subject of a PII claim.
>> So I can't even
>> I'm allowed to do that. You can ask the question.
>> Thank you Mr.
>> But it doesn't mean we'll answer it. Why
is there so much political sensitivity about this letter? Is it because you're worried that you know the the contents are damaging that it will expose that you're seeking cuts or savings or rep prioritizations? What what is the reason?
>> What's the reason you're asking about it?
>> Uh because I think the public's entitled to know if the government was seeking savings and how they were doing so. I mean this expenditure of public money, Senator Wong.
>> Yes, I'm well aware of that, Senator. and and I'm also aware of budget and uh cabinet and ERC processes which I respect.
>> Okay. Were any uh departments or agencies of government excluded from having to provide these 5% lowest priority savings?
>> We we'll take that on notice. Senator,
>> why do you need to take
>> because that goes to budget and cabinet considerations. >> How? >> The whole I refer you to Senator >> Well, then read it.
>> I've read it and I'm still going to ask
questions. >> Then you're just ignoring it. No, that's fine.
>> Senator Wong, this is Senate Estimates where we ask questions about the
>> You can ask questions. I'm just going to continue to say
>> I thought this is going to be a transparent government. I thought that's what you promised.
>> Transparent doesn't mean inviting you into our ERC process.
>> That's very kind of you to consider, but ask me for that.
>> So, sorry you don't get an invitation.
No, I think the public's entitled to know about how the government makes decisions to spend public money and not
>> The public the public >> is entitled to know that we have an orderly approach to government unlike the government that you weren't.
>> You assert that, but you're actually not providing evidence. No, that's not
correct. That is not correct. We do.
>> Well, then provide questions. Orderly
doesn't mean giving it to you. That's the public. That's not the test. Secondly, the public will will have um you know a budget uh where the where decisions are made informed by the budget process and which are the result of the budget process which will be scrutinized including in this place. So that the normal transparency will apply to budget decisions.
>> But this is
>> yeah this is not we haven't had the
>> Well no in fact this was a process in the leadup to myo wasn't it minister? It informed decisions in my FO, didn't
>> It was an announcement.
>> Oh, well, no, it wasn't an announcement. You're wrong. I don't know what you're talking about.
>> Well, Minister, you said that we haven't had the budget yet, but this is a letter sent in September asking for responses by October to inform my EO, was it not?
>> Well, I'll take it on notice and refer you to Senator Gallagher's answer. Were
defense and national security agencies excluded from this process or were they required to find the 5% of lowest
>> They can't respond.
>> Well, you can.
>> No. Well, I'm not I don't disclose deliberations associated with the budget process.
>> Well, I think it is a matter of public interest whether security.
>> I'm sure there's a lot of interest.
>> Well, yeah. Indeed. That's right. And I think
>> and the results the result of any consideration is in will be in the budget and any subsequent budget updates.
>> But I but it's the decisions aren't the only thing that's relevant. the process is relevant too because I think it would be of public interest to know for example minister whether or not you asked Azio to go and find their lowest 5% uh value work
>> and I think and and and the the um
there's been additional resourcing both the AFP and OIO since we came to government senator
>> thanks minister but that wasn't my question did you ask them to go and spend time and energy and resources to find savings for my ef whether they were acted on or not.
>> There've been additional resourcing of those agencies since we came to
>> that's not relevant at all to my question. I want to know whether or not >> to spend time finding savings. All of
this is being taken on notice, Senator.
>> Indeed. And I think that is very revealing. Uh chair, I'm happy to
>> That's because you haven't got anything. So, you have to say it's revealing.
>> No, I didn't catch that. Sorry.
>> I said sorry.
We'll move on to Senator Hume. >> Thank you, Chair. I want to follow on on >> just Oh, sorry. Just before we start, um, we are going to break at 6:45 just for everyone.
>> Is the break, are we moving then? Sorry, can I just clarify we moving then after the break to uh audit office or not?
>> Yeah, that's the plan. >> I have some questions following on from questions from Senator Roberts about Roberts about um the port of Darwin. I just want to better understand what PBC's role is in that election commitment to return the port of Darwin to Australian ownership and get a a better sense of which agency is taking the lead and which agencies are involved. So, it's Treasury, Finance, Home Affairs,
>> Infrastructure,
>> Defense, and Infrastructure. >> Am I right in saying that it's finance that is taking the lead?
>> No, Senator, uh, Department of Infrastructure has the lead.
>> Infrastructure is taking the lead. Okay. So, that would make the lead. minister on this issue. Uh Minister King.
>> Uh yes, Katherine King. Mr. Katherine
King. >> Okay. Thank you. And what's the time frame? Well, sorry, I should first of all say what is PMC's role in this?
>> Uh PNMC's role um we're a shadow function. We oversee the work in at the department of infrastructure, but they actually have the lead,
>> right? So, it's this coordinating role.
>> Department of infrastructure have the
explain to me again what PMC's role then
is. >> So we we provide um advice to the prime minister's office and uh in relation to uh the port of Darwin. Um but we receive that advice from the from the department of infrastructure.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um does PMNC then track um it as an election commitment?
>> Uh I'd have to take that on notice.
>> you do track election commitments. election commitments. Correct. >> Yes. So you have a tracker of some sort as to, you know, what has been committed to and what's been delivered. >> Right. And the sale of the port of Darwin obviously was it was announced with a fair bit of fanfare. You >> have to take notice.
>> Yeah. We have to take a notice in terms of it if it's there
>> if it's on the tracker. >> That's right. >> So sorry. So what you're saying to me is that there are potentially things that were announced during the election that aren't on the tracker. No, I'm just >> Right. So, if it's not on the tracker, then there are things that were announced during the election campaign that aren't on the tracker.
>> I think you're making assumption there.
assumption. >> No, it's not a logical conclusion. If it's >> Sure. logical conclusion. >> Yes. Okay. So, given the significance of this election commitment and the prime minister is obviously very keen to make the announcement. He dialed into radio stations and announced it by surprise. What has been the interest of the prime minister in this sale and how many times have PMC briefed him?
>> Uh, I'd have to take that on notice, Senator, in terms of the times we the amount of number of times that we've briefed the prime minister and also to understanding um I don't want to go into anything that uh has um cabinet implications as well.
>> Okay. If you were to brief the prime minister on an issue like this, what's the format of a briefing? Is it in person? Is it something that's done in writing? What's the sort of standard procedure?
>> Uh standard procedure is uh writing.
>> In writing. Okay. Thank you. And do you know whether the prime minister has met with any prospective buyers or consortiums that might be interested in buying the port of Darwin?
>> Not not to my knowledge.
can I ask? No, I don't think you'll be able to tell me. But if we let you go, there must be somebody in the room that can tell me though whether it actually appears or >> Surely I mean you
>> the question well first the lead department is infrastructure and minister key. Well, I know I know that's there is a tracker and it's run by Let me please Senator >> Secondly, your question is does it appear on a reg like a database of election commitments? Is that the
>> Well, it was an election commitment.
>> No, no, no. I'm just trying to clarify what your question is.
>> What I would like to know is if PMS runs a tracker of election commitments, what's been delivered? what is yet to be delivered, what's on time.
>> Why don't we take on notice the the delivery, you know, how we track the delivery of election commitments. Um, we will do that.
>> Well, that I wasn't exactly what I asked for though. What I asked for is I know that there is a tracker. We've already had that discussion. If there is a tracker, well, because we know that there is a tracker, is this selection commitment on it? If it is on it, terrific. We'd like to understand that. If it isn't on it, well, does that mean that there are other election commitments that aren't on the tracker?
>> Happy, you know, we've indicated we'll take that on notice where this is on on the tracker itself.
>> Right. There's a lot of people in this room. Are you seriously telling me that there isn't anybody here that has the election
>> I I don't have it, Senator. That's all I
>> Okay. All right. Thank you, chair.
>> Thank you. Um, thank you very much for your time. Um, we will move to the dinner break and we will return after dinner with the Australian National Audit Office. Yeah.