The short answer

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Ban Unethical Contractors) Bill 2025 explained

The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Ban Unethical Contractors) Bill 2025 is a private senator's bill introduced by Senator Barbara Pocock (Greens, South Australia) on 4 September 2025. It amends the PGPA Act 2013 to require that Commonwealth procurement contracts cannot be entered into with potential suppliers or tenderers who have engaged in unethical conduct. The bill is before the Senate and has been examined by a committee, which reported on 26 March 2026, and if passed would take effect as drafted.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill proposes

The bill amends the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 — the central legislative framework for Commonwealth resource management and procurement. It inserts a requirement that a Commonwealth entity must not enter into a procurement contract with a potential supplier or tenderer who has engaged in unethical conduct.

The concept of "unethical conduct" is central to the bill's operation. While the exact definition would need to be confirmed from the bill text, it would likely encompass conduct such as wage theft, exploitation of workers, serious environmental breaches, corrupt practices, modern slavery in supply chains, and similar misconduct. The bill effectively creates a legislative barrier to government contracting for entities with a record of unethical behaviour.

Commonwealth procurement totals tens of billions of dollars annually, covering everything from office supplies to defence equipment, IT services to infrastructure construction. A legislative ban on unethical contractors would affect a significant proportion of this market.

Evidence review

The sponsor and the policy context

Senator Barbara Pocock is a Greens senator for South Australia who has been a prominent voice on procurement ethics, government accountability and workers' rights. The bill reflects the Greens' broader platform of using the government's purchasing power as a lever for social and environmental outcomes.

The bill sits within a broader policy conversation about ethical procurement. The Commonwealth already has the Modern Slavery Act 2018, which requires large businesses to report on modern slavery risks in their supply chains. The Commonwealth Procurement Rules already allow consideration of ethical factors. This bill would go further — making unethical conduct a mandatory exclusion rather than a discretionary factor.

The PGPA Act has also been the target of other private members' bills in this shard, including Dai Le's local industry preference bill and Allegra Spender's small business payment bill. The concentration of PGPA amendment proposals from the crossbench suggests that the government's procurement framework is seen as a vehicle for policy change that the crossbench cannot achieve through other means.

Evidence review

Committee inquiry and findings

The bill was referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on 30 October 2025 — nearly two months after introduction. The committee reported on 26 March 2026, a five-month inquiry period that suggests the committee took the bill seriously and received submissions from a range of stakeholders.

The committee report is publicly available and would contain the committee's recommendations, any dissenting reports from government or opposition members, and a summary of the evidence received. Committee reports on private senators' bills often identify practical implementation issues — for example, how "unethical conduct" would be defined, who would make the determination, what standard of proof would apply, and how suppliers could challenge a decision.

Without access to the full committee report, readers should note that the bill's progress through the committee stage represents a significant step for a private senator's bill. Committee referral and reporting indicate the bill is being taken seriously, even if it has not yet been brought to a vote.

Evidence review

Implementation challenges

The bill faces several implementation challenges. Defining "unethical conduct" in a way that is legally certain, administratively workable and not vulnerable to legal challenge is difficult. The Commonwealth Procurement Rules already struggle with the boundary between legitimate procurement criteria and discrimination against suppliers.

Due process concerns arise: would a supplier be permanently barred, or for a period? Would there be a right of review? Who bears the burden of proving unethical conduct — the Commonwealth (which would need to investigate potential suppliers) or the supplier (which would need to prove its ethical standing)?

Practical enforcement is also a challenge. Large government contractors are often complex corporate groups with subsidiaries, subcontractors and supply chains spanning multiple jurisdictions. Determining whether a parent company's conduct attaches to a bidding subsidiary, or whether a subcontractor's conduct disqualifies the prime contractor, requires detailed rules that are not captured in a short amendment bill.

The Department of Finance, which administers the PGPA framework, would likely be required to issue guidance or maintain a register of debarred suppliers. This would be a new function requiring resources, systems and legal advice.

Evidence review

Parliamentary pathway

The bill is before the Senate. It was introduced on 4 September 2025 and the second reading was moved the same day. The committee has now reported. The next step is for the Senate to debate the second reading and decide whether to proceed to a vote.

As a private senator's bill introduced by a Greens senator, the bill faces the standard obstacles: the government controls the legislative program, and private senators' business time is limited. The bill would need support from either the government or a majority of non-government senators to pass the Senate. If it passes the Senate, it would then need to pass the House of Representatives, where the government has a majority.

No proposed amendments have been circulated, which may indicate either that the bill is in its intended final form or that further drafting is expected after the committee report is considered.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer

Does the government already check whether contractors are ethical?

The Commonwealth Procurement Rules require entities to consider ethical factors, and the Modern Slavery Act 2018 requires large businesses to report on supply chain risks. However, there is no legislative ban on contracting with unethical suppliers. A supplier that has been found to have engaged in wage theft, for example, could still win a government contract under current law — though the procurement officer could choose to exclude them. This bill would make exclusion mandatory.

What counts as 'unethical conduct' under this bill?

The exact definition would be in the bill text. The committee report of 26 March 2026 likely addresses this question. Defining unethical conduct in legislation is challenging — it needs to be specific enough to be enforceable but broad enough to capture genuine misconduct.

Would this bill stop the government from buying from major tech companies or defence contractors?

It would depend on the definition of unethical conduct and whether any particular company had been found to have engaged in it. The bill would not ban any company by name — it would create a general test that applies to all potential suppliers. A company could be excluded only if there was a finding of unethical conduct that met the bill's criteria.

Source spine

Primary material used for this guide

Review trigger: Review when the Senate debates the bill following the committee report, if the government announces procurement ethics reforms, or if a similar bill is introduced in the House.

Archive note: Written from the bill's APH page, first reading text, Explanatory Memorandum and the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee report (26 March 2026).

Primary links are provided without affiliate or tracking parameters. Confirm that the source still applies to the bill, sitting date, jurisdiction or reporting period before relying on it.