James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the lecture from those opposite who are opposing a probity motion and a governance and integrity motion merely to look at something. If there's nothing to be concerned about, the government should have no fear whatsoever in seeing the motion progress, but we seem to have touched a nerve. They seem to be very concerned about any avenue that would see a bit of sunlight shone upon what seems to be a very, very murky deal that the government has done over this massive grant to PsiQuantum of Commonwealth and state funds.

I congratulate Premier Crisafulli and express some relief that we now have him at the helm in Queensland. The Queensland government shares the same concerns that the federal opposition do about just what is going on with this billion-dollar allocation of state and federal funds to this American company to build a quantum computer to a specification that has never before been successfully constructed. In the process, we seek to find out why it is that so much murkiness and such a shroud of secrecy have been cast over the decision-making process. As I say, it really does surprise me that the government has a problem with what this motion will do, which is to establish an inquiry into all these things. If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear and you should have nothing to hide. If successful, this motion would have a process that, if you believe the government, would merely confirm that everything they've done regarding this half-a-billion commitment of Commonwealth funds to an American company called PsiQuantum is completely above board.

The member for Bradfield, who has moved this motion and brought it to this chamber, has made very important points in the past in scrutinising this. We know there has been correspondence with the Auditor-General. Other integrity bodies may or may not want to look at this murky deal and, in particular, some of the personalities involved in getting special access to the ministers that made these decisions and the past connection those lobbyists might have had with said ministers. All these things would be good to flesh out in the inquiry we are proposing through this motion.

There was a time in the last parliament—which I was a part of—when we got very consistent lectures from the now government about integrity and looking at what the executive of government was doing. In fact, if the shoe were on the other foot, I could just hear, and my ears could ring, from the sorts of bellowing that would be coming from the now Labor government about the need to support this motion. So they have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is—half a billion dollars of money where their mouth is. They can honour their piousness from previous parliaments on topics like this and, in particular, explain why, if they're not supporting this, what holding an inquiry into allocating half a billion dollars of Commonwealth funding through very murky and questionable processes, with no merit based opportunity for others to compete for the sorts of funds being allocated, be something to fear? Why would there be a problem with the parliament exercising its responsibility, which is the oversight of the executive and the expenditure of Commonwealth funds, and why would there be anything to fear in supporting the establishment of this inquiry that the member for Bradfield brings before us today?

I want to get to the bottom of the questions we would be probing through this committee. I want to tell my constituents why this half-a-billion-dollar deal was done the way it was done, why it wasn't merit based and why certain lobbyists were able to secure meetings with ministers and spruik the investment of this scale. It's very interesting that the new Queensland government has the same concerns and is questioning whether it will invest in what was announced by the previous Labor government. Supporting this inquiry, if there's nothing to fear, should be something that this government does.

See this speech in context