John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week in this chamber, I raised my continuing concerns about the administration of the Department of Parliamentary Services, in particular two contracts that had been awarded through a limited tender process to Anne Zahalka, a professional photographer. The contracts were for photographic works for the 25th anniversary of Parliament House last year, and then the supply of two photographs about the Parliamentary Library. All up, the contracts were worth $40,000. Twelve photos were supplied. The first 10 photos were for $3,000 each, and the last two photos were for $5,000 each. Of course, we also now know that many of the DPS records regarding these contracts are missing—lost. Three months of notes, records, documentation and minutes are missing—all gone!

But tonight I want to address another issue, first raised by the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Senator Bernardi, at that committee's November hearing into DPS. Despite the lack of documentation and the shambolic process, the committee was assured that Anne Zahalka was first contacted by DPS on 14 June 2013 in relation to the photographic works for the 25th anniversary. The secretary and other DPS officers assured the F&PA committee there was no contact with Anne Zahalka before 14 June 2013. However, in the Lake Macquarie City Art Gallery's Education Resource Kit, published in May 2013, there is a case study on Ms Zahalka. Ms Zahalka was asked in this May 2013 publication, 'What is next for Anne Zahalka?', to which she replied:

… I have been invited to do a commission about the public and private areas of Parliament House for their forthcoming anniversary.

This is not an offhand comment. It would appear she knew about the specific contract well before decisions were made at DPS. And not only did Ms Zahalka know about the contract; she said she had been 'invited' to do the work. How could this be? Who made this invitation? I hope that we soon get some answers to these questions.

I am also concerned by what appears to be inconsistency over DPS's approach to the longstanding project to develop a central reference document for this building. In its submission to the current inquiry by the Senate F&PA committee, DPS stated at page 1:

DPS does not intend to complete the CRD at this stage.

And yet, when the DPS Secretary, Ms Mills, appeared at the committee hearing this month, in November, she stated:

… we have made allowances to complete the CRD in the second portion of this financial year and into the beginning of the next financial year.

Ms Mills reiterated that three times, assuring the Senate committee that DPS has had the funds set aside. Once again, with the Department of Parliamentary Services, we are left wondering if the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. These are just another two of the very many serious issues that need to be pursued about the administration of the Department of Parliamentary Services.