Does not stop pork-barrelling
Critics said the bill preserves the legal basis for grants and spending programs but does not add safeguards to stop politically targeted grant decisions or misuse of public money.
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment
Current status
This bill became law on May 30th, 2024.
Policy area
Government & democracy
What does this bill do?
Federal spending programs can keep using this law even when another CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. law could also authorise the same payment or grant, which removes doubt about how the government can fund programs.
Why was it introduced?
Doubt about the Financial Framework Act’s wording left uncertainty about whether spending programs and government company activity stayed valid when another CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. law could also authorise them. The bill removes those limiting words and validates past actions so listed grants, spending deals and company involvement can keep relying on this framework.
Broader context
The Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act had long been used as a legal basis for CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. grants, spending programs and company activity, including emergency payments during COVID-19 and the 2020 bushfires and floods, even when another federal law might also have supported the same spending. In 2024 the government moved to remove doubt created by limiting words in that framework, and Parliament passed the bill to confirm it could keep being used that way and to validate past actions that might otherwise have been questioned.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill fixes legal uncertainty around CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. spending without fixing the bigger risk of pork-barrellingUsing public money to target votes or favour electorally useful areas rather than funding on merit., weak grant oversight and limited parliamentary scrutiny of executive spending decisions. That concern was raised mainly by crossbench MPs Helen Haines and Kate Chaney, while the major parties supported the bill and no party represented in the debate opposed it outright.
Who supported it?
Senator Katy Gallagher introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, some crossbench members; opposed by Greens, some crossbench members.
Introduced in Senate 07 Feb 2024
Passed Senate 27 Mar 2024 Aye 25 No 12
Passed House 16 May 2024
Became law 30 May 2024
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 30 May 2024
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
113 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
Federal spending programs can keep using this law even when another CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. law could also authorise the same payment or grant, which removes doubt about how the government can fund programs.
-
The CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. can make, change and run grants or other spending deals under this law when they are listed in regulations, fall within a listed class, or belong to a listed program.
-
The CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. can set up a company or buy into one under this law when the regulations name the company and state its purpose or planned activities.
-
Past CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. spending, grants and company involvement are validated if they may have been questioned only because another legal power was also available.
Show source excerpts
-
The amendments would ensure that the Principal Act operates as it has been understood to operate. They would also regularise the status of past spending (and other activities) that may not have been authorised by the Act because of the words that the amendments would remove. Accordingly, the Bill is intended to provide certainty that spending and other activities, where appropriately set out in the FFSP Regulations (eg in the form of a program), are supported by the Principal Act (whether or not they might also be supported by other Commonwealth legislation). This clarifies that these powers can be exercised where other general powers are available.
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment explanatory memorandum -
(2) However, the Commonwealth may only make, vary or administer an arrangement or grant under subsection (1) if the arrangement or grant, as the case may be:
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment as-passed bill text -
(2) The Commonwealth may acquire shares in, or become a member of, a company in circumstances that would result in the company becoming a Commonwealth company if:
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment as-passed bill text -
The amendments to sections 32B and 39B would commence prospectively and the Bill would include validation provisions to regularise the status of past spending and government activity in reliance on sections 32B and 39B, in the event that any such past spending or activity may not have been valid by reason of there having been an alternative source of power. The validation provisions would not adversely affect any person.
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment explanatory memorandum
Context
Broader context for this bill
The Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act had long been used as a legal basis for CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. grants, spending programs and company activity, including emergency payments during COVID-19 and the 2020 bushfires and floods, even when another federal law might also have supported the same spending. In 2024 the government moved to remove doubt created by limiting words in that framework, and Parliament passed the bill to confirm it could keep being used that way and to validate past actions that might otherwise have been questioned.
- 07 Feb 2024
Government introduces a bill to remove doubt over CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. spending powers
The minister said the amendment would delete limiting words from the spending framework after uncertainty arose about whether it still operated when another CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. law could also authorise the same payment or activity.
Hansard ↗ - 07 Feb 2024
Ministers link the 2024 fix to the post-Williams spending framework
The second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. speech said the framework had originally been set up after the High Court's Williams decisions and had become a key source of authority for CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. expenditure.
Hansard ↗ - 15 May 2024
House debate stresses the law had been used for years across governments
During the House debate, government and opposition speakers said the bill was intended to preserve the long-running understanding of a framework used by both sides of politics to support grants and other spending.
Hansard ↗ - 16 May 2024
Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, clearing the way for the spending framework to keep operating without the disputed limiting words.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 30 May 2024
Royal AssentThe step where the Governor-General signs a bill, turning it into an Act of Parliament. confirms the clarification and validation changes
Royal AssentThe step where the Governor-General signs a bill, turning it into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into an Act, giving legal force to the clarification and to the validation of earlier spending and company actions affected by the wording doubt.
Parliamentary timeline ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 07 Feb 2024
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. opened 07 Feb 2024
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. moved
Scrutiny of Bills review 28 Feb 2024
The scrutiny committee recorded that it considered the bill in Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2024.
Considered
Collected source bundleSenate second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. agreed Aye 28 No 11 27 Mar 2024
Recorded vote: 28 to 11.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. agreed to
Senate third reading agreed Aye 25 No 12 27 Mar 2024
Recorded vote: 25 to 12.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Introduced 14 May 2024
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. opened 15 May 2024
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. moved
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. debate 15 May 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Sent to Federation Chamber for debate 15 May 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. debate 16 May 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. agreed 16 May 2024
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. agreed to
Consideration in detail 16 May 2024
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
Returned from Federation Chamber 16 May 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
Consideration in detail 16 May 2024
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
House third reading agreed 16 May 2024
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Passed both houses 16 May 2024
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
Assent 30 May 2024
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe step where the Governor-General signs a bill, turning it into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
The main criticism was that the bill fixes legal uncertainty around CommonwealthThe federal government of Australia, as distinct from state and territory governments. spending without fixing the bigger risk of pork-barrellingUsing public money to target votes or favour electorally useful areas rather than funding on merit., weak grant oversight and limited parliamentary scrutiny of executive spending decisions. That concern was raised mainly by crossbench MPs Helen Haines and Kate Chaney, while the major parties supported the bill and no party represented in the debate opposed it outright.
Criticism was targeted and conditional rather than broad opposition to keeping grants lawful.
Too little scrutiny and oversight
The bill was criticised as a technical validation measure that leaves the wider accountability problem untouched, with calls for stronger reporting, parliamentary oversight and closer scrutiny of grants administration.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
How the bill itself passed
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Passed House passed the bill
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed
House passed the bill
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Carried Senate passed the bill
Passed 25 to 12. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents.
Carried
Senate passed the bill
Party Aye / No
Labor 14 / 0
Greens 0 / 11
Unknown 4 / 0
Liberal Party 2 / 0
Nationals 2 / 0
Independent 0 / 1
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
One Nation 1 / 0
UAP 1 / 0
Earlier bill-stage votes
Carried Senate cleared second reading
Passed 28 to 11. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens.
Carried
Senate cleared second reading
Party Aye / No
Labor 14 / 0
Greens 0 / 11
Unknown 5 / 0
Liberal Party 3 / 0
Nationals 2 / 0
Independent 1 / 0
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
One Nation 1 / 0
UAP 1 / 0
Amendments at a glance
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Defeated Haines grants-reporting amendments defeated
Defeated 15 to 75. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Centre Alliance, and Liberal Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Haines grants-reporting amendments defeated
This was an amendment vote about grants reporting and oversight, not a vote on whether to accept the bill in principle.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 63
Unknown 6 / 10
Independent 8 / 0
Greens 1 / 0
Centre Alliance 0 / 1
Liberal Party 0 / 1
Senate
Defeated Pocock grants-reporting amendments defeated
Defeated 14 to 25. Support came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Pocock grants-reporting amendments defeated
This was a main vote on the principle of the bill.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 14
Greens 11 / 0
Unknown 1 / 4
Liberal Party 0 / 3
Nationals 0 / 2
Independent 1 / 0
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
One Nation 0 / 1
UAP 0 / 1
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
Katy Gallagher
Gallagher supports the bill, saying it simply clarifies the existing financial framework so government spending and related company activity remain valid where other powers also exist.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Luke Howarth
Howarth says the opposition will support the bill because it keeps the supplementary powers framework robust and consistent with long-standing practice, which matters for programs such as emergency response payments, drought assistance, health, education and employment.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead non-major voice Mixed
Helen Haines
Haines supports the bill in principle because she wants grant spending to remain lawful, but says it does nothing to stop pork-barrellingUsing public money to target votes or favour electorally useful areas rather than funding on merit. and wants stronger transparency and oversight rules added through amendments.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead voice Mixed
Kate Chaney
Chaney says the bill is only a technical fix and does not solve the larger accountability problem with executive spending, so she wants stronger parliamentary scrutiny and grant oversight before she is satisfied.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
2 speakers · 2 support
Labor
2 speakers · 2 support
-
Katy Gallagher ★ Gallagher supports the bill, saying it simply clarifies the existing financial framework so government spending and related company activity remain valid where other powers also exist.
“The changes in this Bill simply clarify the position to what has always been the common understanding.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Ed Husic Ed Husic supports the bill, saying it clarifies the financial framework, confirms the validity of government spending programs and company activities, and regularises any past actions that might otherwise be in doubt.
“The amendments will put beyond doubt that the FFSP framework operates consistently with how it has been understood to operate, including in circumstances where another general spending power may be available. The amendments would clarify the operation of the FFSP framework and confirm the validity of government spending programs that rely on section 32B of the FFSP Act, as well as any government involvement in companies in reliance on section 39B of the FFSP Act, in circumstances where other general powers could also be relied on.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
1 speaker · 1 support
Coalition
1 speaker · 1 support
-
Luke Howarth ★ Howarth says the opposition will support the bill because it keeps the supplementary powers framework robust and consistent with long-standing practice, which matters for programs such as emergency response payments, drought assistance, health, education and employment.
“The opposition will be supporting this legislation. The coalition notes the importance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 and the programs it supports, including ones relating to emergency response payments, drought assistance payments and programs relating to health, education and employment.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Minor parties and independents
2 speakers · 2 mixed
Minor parties and independents
2 speakers · 2 mixed
-
Helen Haines ★ Haines supports the bill in principle because she wants grant spending to remain lawful, but says it does nothing to stop pork-barrellingUsing public money to target votes or favour electorally useful areas rather than funding on merit. and wants stronger transparency and oversight rules added through amendments.
“The bill before us is an opportunity to get the right processes in place for the government to spend taxpayer money transparently and to be accountable for their decision-making; to make sure the projects that are most in need of funding have the best chances of getting it; and to make sure that, if the government decide to pork-barrel, voters know about it. I will be moving amendments to this bill which set out a best practice model in government spending.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Kate Chaney ★ Chaney says the bill is only a technical fix and does not solve the larger accountability problem with executive spending, so she wants stronger parliamentary scrutiny and grant oversight before she is satisfied.
“This amendment that we're discussing today is a small technical change that changes words that may be construed as limiting this catch-all power. It just shores up a shaky extension of the power of executive government to spend what it likes.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Act title
- Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Act 2024
- Act number
- Act No. 27, 2024
- Became law
- 30 May 2024
- Takes effect
-
- Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table 30 May 2024
- Schedule 1, Parts 1 and 2 31 May 2024
- Schedule 1, items 17 and 18 The later of: (a) the start of the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent; and (b) immediately after the commencement of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur.
- Schedule 1, item 19 The later of: (a) the start of the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent; and (b) immediately after the commencement of the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Act 2024. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur.
- Schedule 1, Part 4 31 May 2024
- Registered
- 31 May 2024
- Administered by
- Department of Finance
- Final law metadata was collected from the APH progress table; commencement rows were parsed from the bill text.
- Status
- Act -- Collected from the APH bill page.
- Originating house
- Senate
- 07 Feb 2024
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 07 Feb 2024
Senate · Second reading moved
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 27 Mar 2024
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 28 to 11.
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
- 27 Mar 2024
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 25 to 12.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 14 May 2024
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 15 May 2024
House · Second reading moved
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 15 May 2024
House · Second reading debate
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 15 May 2024
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 16 May 2024
House · Second reading debate
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 16 May 2024
House · Second reading agreed to
Second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages. agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingA major parliamentary stage where members debate the purpose and overall principle of a bill before later stages., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
- 16 May 2024
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
- 16 May 2024
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 16 May 2024
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
- 16 May 2024
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 16 May 2024
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
- 30 May 2024
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe step where the Governor-General signs a bill, turning it into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered
The scrutiny committee recorded that it considered the bill in Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2024.
Considered by scrutiny committee (28 Feb 2024): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2024
Collected source bundle