Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No. 1) 2025-2026

Appropriation items. The Act recognises four types of item (s 3). A departmental item is the total amount set opposite a department under the heading “Departmental” - it can be applied for any departmental expenditure of that department without restriction to a particular outcome (s 7). Administered items are amounts set opposite an outcome for a department; expenditure must be for the purpose of contributing to achieving that outcome (s 8(1)). Administered assets and liabilities items cover non‑operating expenditure such as asset purchases or liability payments; they can be applied for any outcome listed for the department in Schedule 1 (s 9(1)). Other departmental items (relevantly only equity injections) can be applied for departmental expenditure (s 10). The amounts in Schedule 1 opposite outcomes under the “Departmental” heading are “notional” and do not restrict how the departmental item is spent (s 3 definition of departmental item, note). This is an important design feature: departmental appropriations are effectively a block grant, while administered appropriations are tied to specific outcomes.

Notional transactions. Section 5 treats payments between non‑corporate entities of the Commonwealth as real transactions for appropriation purposes, even though no cash leaves the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This aligns with the PGPA Act’s section 76 and ensures that internal transfers are recorded against the paying entity’s appropriation, preserving budget integrity.

Portfolio statements. The Portfolio Budget Statements tabled with the Bill are declared to be “relevant documents” for interpretation under section 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (s 4(1)). They also determine what counts as expenditure for a particular outcome: if the statements indicate that activities of a kind were intended to be treated as contributing to an outcome, expenditure on those activities is deemed so treated (ss 8(2), 9(2)). This gives those statements legal force for the purpose of delimiting how administered items may be spent.

Advance to the responsible Presiding Officer. The responsible Presiding Officer can, by legislative instrument, amend Schedule 1 to increase an item if urgent need arises after the Bill’s introduction, due to omission, understatement, or unforeseen circumstances (s 11). The determination is not disallowable and does not sunset (s 11(8)). The caps in ss 11(3)‑(6) are shared across this Act and the separate Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No. 1) 2025‑2026 - that is, the same $300,000 limit applies to total advances under both Acts for the Senate, for example.

Special accounts. Section 12 permits amounts to be debited against an appropriation item and credited to a special account if the special account’s purposes are covered by the item. This allows flexibility in managing earmarked funds.

The Act directly affects the four Parliamentary Departments: the Department of the Senate ($12.22 m), the Department of the House of Representatives ($12.584 m, including $151,000 administered), the Department of Parliamentary Services ($110.766 m), and the Parliamentary Budget Office ($3.943 m). Their secretaries and officials must ensure that expenditure is within the scope of the relevant items, draw down from the Consolidated Revenue Fund only as authorised, and comply with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) which governs financial management. The responsible Presiding Officers - the President of the Senate (for the Senate Department), the Speaker (for the House Department), and both jointly (for the Department of Parliamentary Services and the Parliamentary Budget Office) - have the power to authorise urgent additional expenditure under section 11. The Department of Finance, though not named, is indirectly affected because it administers the Consolidated Revenue Fund and monitors compliance with appropriation limits.

Outside government, the Act affects suppliers, contractors, and grant recipients who receive payments from these departments. The legal basis for those payments - the relevant appropriation item - determines whether the payment is lawful. If a payment falls outside the item’s scope, the recipient may face recovery action under the PGPA Act. Parliamentarians are indirectly affected because the departments exist to support them (e.g., Outcome 1 for the Senate: “Advisory and administrative support services to enable the Senate and Senators to fulfil their representative and legislative duties”). The public is ultimately affected as taxpayers funding the appropriations, though the Act itself imposes no direct obligations on citizens. There is no private right of action under this Act to compel or restrain expenditure; enforcement relies on public law mechanisms and the Auditor’s scrutiny.

The Act imposes duties only on public officials and entities. The secretaries of the Parliamentary Departments have a duty to apply the appropriated money only for the purposes for which it was appropriated. Failure to do so could constitute a breach of the PGPA Act (misuse of public resources). The responsible Presiding Officers may determine urgent additional expenditure under s 11, but only if they are “satisfied” of certain grounds - an objective condition that could be reviewed by the Auditor or the Federal Court in the event of challenge. The Presiding Officers also have the duty not to exceed the cumulative caps across both supply and main appropriation Acts (s 11(7) makes the caps in this Act prevail over any conflicting caps in the main Appropriation Act).

The Act confers rights (or authorities) rather than private rights. The Crown (the Commonwealth) has the right to spend money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to the amounts specified, subject to the item conditions. The responsible Presiding Officer has the right to issue a determination amending Schedule 1. The Parliamentary Departments have the right to incur expenditure and make payments within the items. No individual taxpayer or citizen has a right to object to particular expenditure under this Act, though a legal challenge could be brought on the basis that expenditure is outside the appropriation (e.g., constitutional “appropriations must be for the purposes of the Commonwealth” requirement under s 83 of the Constitution, not cited in Act but background law). The portfolio statements serve as interpretive aids, so persons relying on the Act to understand the scope of authorised expenditure have a right to use those statements in interpretation proceedings (s 4, linking to Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s 15AB).

The Act also provides the right to credit amounts to special accounts (s 12), which gives departments flexibility to park money for future use without requiring further appropriation.

The Act itself does not create any criminal offences or civil penalties. Enforcement occurs through the PGPA Act, which is explicitly referenced and interactively relied upon (s 3 definition of non‑corporate entity, s 5 note, s 6 note 2 referencing ss 74‑75 PGPA adjustments, s 13). The PGPA Act contains offences for misuse of public money (s 88), failure to keep proper accounts, and fraudulent conduct. A person who authorises expenditure outside the scope of an appropriation item could face civil sanctions (e.g., financial penalties, recovery orders) under the PGPA Act’s civil penalty provisions. Criminal misappropriation charges under the Criminal Code could also apply for dishonest conduct.

The only enforcement mechanism internal to this Act is the requirement that the responsible Presiding Officer’s determination under s 11 must be a legislative instrument. While it is exempt from disallowance and sunsetting (s 11(8)), it is still registered, published, and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. If the determination is invalid (e.g., made without the required satisfaction), the resulting expenditure would be unauthorised and officials could be personally liable to repay the amount. The Audit Act (via the Auditor‑General) provides external enforcement through performance audits and financial statements audits. The courts also provide enforcement: a taxpayer could potentially seek an injunction to restrain unauthorised spending, relying on constitutional limits on appropriations. However, the Act’s short life (repealed 1 July 2028) and interim nature make direct litigation unlikely unless a significant over‑expenditure occurs.

Notably, the Act’s provision that notional transactions are treated as real (s 5) means that internal transfers between Commonwealth entities are subject to the same appropriation controls, and any breach could also be enforced under the PGPA Act as if real money were involved.

The Act is designed to sit within the broader Commonwealth appropriation framework. Most directly, it interacts with the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No. 1) 2025‑2026 - a separate Act that covers the same departments for the same financial year. The supply Act here is intended to provide funding for the first part of the year (the term “Supply” in the title signals an interim measure) until the main Appropriation Act passes. The two Acts share the same advance caps: determinations under this Act and under the main Act are aggregated for each department (s 11(3)‑(7)). If the main Act is also passed and provides substantially larger amounts, the supply Act’s items may be wholly or partly superseded, but the Act remains in force until repeal.

The primary financial framework is the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act). The definition of “non‑corporate entity” in s 3 cross‑refers to the PGPA Act, and the note to s 5 explains that the notional transaction rule is “consistent with section 76 of the PGPA Act”. Section 6 note 2 states that “Sections 74 to 75 of the PGPA Act also provide for the adjustment of amounts appropriated by this Act”. Those PGPA provisions allow for certain types of re‑allocations and adjustments between items without further parliamentary approval, effectively modifying the appropriation. Section 13 appropriates the Consolidated Revenue Fund “as necessary for the purposes of this Act, including the operation of this Act as affected by the PGPA Act” - meaning that if the PGPA Act later reduces or increases an amount, the appropriation follows.

The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 is invoked by s 4 to make the portfolio statements relevant documents for interpretation. The Legislation Act 2003 applies to the responsible Presiding Officer’s determinations under s 11, though the key exemptions (no disallowance, no sunset) are expressly stated, limiting parliamentary and executive controls. The Act also interacts with special accounts established under the PGPA Act, as s 12 allows appropriations to be credited to those accounts.

Constitutionally, the Act implements section 83 of the Constitution (“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law”). By appropriating specified sums for stated purposes, it satisfies that requirement for the Parliamentary Departments.

The Act is newly enacted (assented to 27 March 2025) and has no amendment history. It is a supply Act for a single financial year, so no amendments are expected; it will be repealed at the start of 1 July 2028 (s 14). However, the Act could technically be amended by a later Act if, for example, a supplementary supply were needed before the main Appropriation Act passed, but that would more likely be done through a separate Supply Act (No. 2) rather than by amending this Act. The possibility of amendment is not excluded, but the structure of federal budget legislation (annual supply followed by main appropriation, then subsequent adjustment Acts) makes it improbable. Readers should check if a Supply Act (No. 2) or an Appropriation Act later replaces or amends this Act within the 2025‑2026 financial year.

The source text records no litigation history involving this Act. It is too new (enacted March 2025, due to commence 1 July 2025) for any cases to have been decided. Moreover, supply Acts are rarely litigated directly because they are short‑term, routine, and rarely challenged for constitutional validity or administrative law grounds. Challenges to Commonwealth appropriations typically focus on the main Appropriation Acts or on specific spending programmes. The most plausible litigation scenario would involve a challenge to a determination under s 11, on grounds that the responsible Presiding Officer was not objectively satisfied of the urgent need. But no such case is recorded. The Act’s provisions are clear and contain no novel legal tests likely to generate interpretation disputes. Practitioners should be aware that any litigation would more likely involve the PGPA Act’s enforcement provisions than this Act itself.

Notional transactions are real for appropriation purposes. Section 5 means that if the Department of Parliamentary Services “pays” the Department of the Senate for shared services, that internal transaction must be recorded against the Department of Parliamentary Services’ appropriation, even though no actual cash moves. This can cause confusion for budget managers who may think an internal recharge is cost‑neutral to the appropriation. It also means each transaction must be tracked and justified, increasing compliance burden for small amounts.

Advance caps are shared with the main Appropriation Act. The caps in s 11(3)‑(6) for urgent additional expenditure apply to the total of determinations under both this Act and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No. 1) 2025‑2026. So if the main Act is passed later and the responsible Presiding Officer has already used $200,000 for the Senate under this Act, only $100,000 remains available for advances under the main Act. This interaction is easy to overlook when relying solely on the text of one Act.

Appropriation items are not restricted by the notional outcome amounts. The departmental item for each department is a single dollar figure; the amounts opposite outcomes in Schedule 1 under the “Departmental” heading are described as “notional” and do not restrict expenditure (s 3 definition note). This means the Department of Parliamentary Services could spend its entire $87,448,000 departmental appropriation on any departmental purpose, regardless of which outcome the portfolio statements assign to that spending. Only the administered items are tied to specific outcomes. This gives departments wide discretion but can mislead those reading the Schedule who assume the outcome amounts are binding.

Portfolio statements are legally binding for interpreting administered items. By declaring the Portfolio Budget Statements “relevant documents” under Acts Interpretation Act s 15AB, and by providing that expenditure on activities described in those statements as contributing to an outcome is deemed to be for that outcome (ss 8(2), 9(2)), the Act makes those statements effectively binding on how administered money can be spent. A department cannot defeat a parliamentary intention expressed in the Portfolio Statements by arguing the Act is silent. Auditors and Commonwealth lawyers will test compliance against those statements.

Repeal date is far after the financial year. The Act is repealed at the start of 1 July 2028 - two years after the end of the relevant financial year. This is standard for appropriation Acts to allow time for final accounting and adjustments. However, the prolonged life means the Act remains on the statute book and could theoretically be amended or repurposed. Practitioners should not assume the Act is spent after 30 June 2026.

Department of Parliamentary Services holds a large non‑operating item. The administered assets and liabilities item of $20,686,000 (compared to just $2,632,000 administered) is a significant capital injection. That amount can be applied for any outcome listed for DPS (only Outcome 1). This is a large sum with no outcome‑specific restriction, giving DPS considerable discretion over capital spending.

For the Parliamentary Departments themselves, compliance involves several steps. First, ensure that all proposed expenditure is within the scope of the relevant appropriation item. Departmental items permit expenditure for any departmental purpose, so scrutiny is light. However, administered items must be applied only for the purpose of contributing to the specified outcome; departments should document that each payment is linked to that outcome, using the portfolio statements as evidence. Administered assets and liabilities items are similarly tied to outcomes for the department. Departmental finance officers should maintain a reconciliation of actual expenditure against the item amounts, and note that notional transactions (s 5) also count against the appropriation.

Second, if an urgent, unforeseen need arises after the Bill’s introduction and the appropriation is insufficient, the responsible Presiding Officer must be briefed and a determination made under s 11 before any additional expenditure is incurred. The officer must be satisfied of the grounds (erroneous omission, understatement, or unforeseen need) and must not exceed the aggregated caps. The determination must be made as a legislative instrument, but without disallowance or sunset. Legal advice should confirm the instrument is validly made.

Third, compliance with the PGPA Act is mandatory. The PGPA Act’s sections 74‑75 allow for certain adjustments to appropriations; departments may use those provisions (e.g., to transfer between items within certain limits). The PGPA Act also requires proper accounts, annual financial statements audited by the Auditor‑General, and internal controls. Any possible misuse of public money must be reported.

Fourth, section 12 permits crediting to special accounts. Departments operating special accounts (like the Parliamentary Servicing Services Special Account) can debit the appropriation and credit that account, but must ensure the special account’s purposes are indeed covered by the item. The credit does not expand the total appropriation but segregates funds.

For external parties (contractors, grant recipients), compliance is simpler. They should verify that the paying department has lawful appropriation and that the contract or grant is governed by the correct item. They can request assurance from the department. If a payment is later found to be unauthorised (e.g., because it exceeded the item cap or was not for the outcome), recovery is possible under the PGPA Act. External parties should ensure their own invoices and acquittals clearly reference the relevant outcome (for administered payments). For large capital transactions with the Department of Parliamentary Services, confirming that the administered assets and liabilities item ($20.686 m) has been duly applied is prudent.

Finally, given the Act’s interim nature and the expected passage of a main Appropriation Act later in 2025, departments should plan for the eventual reconciliation of expenditure under this Act with any later appropriations. Any overspend should be covered by a determination under s 11 or by the later Act’s provisions. Practitioners should monitor whether Supply (No. 2) or the main Appropriation Act amends or replaces these items, and update compliance procedures accordingly. The Act’s repeal in 2028 is administrative; financial records must be retained for standard Commonwealth periods (usually seven years after the year of expenditure).