David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What did the recent hearing of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit uncover about procurement and contracting in the government services portfolio?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot continue to give commentary when ministers are approaching the dispatch box. I call the minister.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 24 November last year, the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald disturbingly reported that de facto Canberra lobbying firm Synergy 360 received secret advice from the member for Fadden. I ordered a review into the contracts which may have been tainted. As has been made clear by agency task force representatives and the reviewer, Dr Watt, the review was limited to only looking into the conduct of public servants and not that of vendors, former ministers, MPs and their officers.

On 14 April this year, the JCPAA, chaired by the member for Bruce, held public hearings into the findings of the Watt review. The member for Fadden's former business partner, political fundraiser and part-owner of Synergy 360, Mr John Margerison, gave evidence. The chair's first question to Mr Margerison was: 'What's APUT?' Mr Margerison was asked by the chair what APUT was. He replied—and I quote from the transcript:

It's the Australian Property Trust. It's a unit trust.

The chair then read aloud an email Mr Margerison sent to his Gold Coast accountant, Mr Sean Beasley, about directing who was to receive the profits from Synergy 360. The transcript reads:

On 13 September 2017, you emailed your accountant, Mr Beasley, and advised him: 'FYI, anything that comes in from this in the future, I will end up sending to APUT—

the Property Trust—

the same amount that comes in.'

Mr Margerison went on to say that the trust that he controlled was, according to his instruction to his accountant, to direct profits from the consulting company derived from Commonwealth contracts. This property trust had as one of its beneficiaries the member for Fadden. I quote the transcript where Mr Margerison explains the member for Fadden's pecuniary interest in the Property Trust receiving profits from Commonwealth contracts. It reads:

I had a business relationship with Mr Robert at one point in time. That finished around about, give or take, the end of 2018. He would have been a unit holder through whatever mechanism, whether it be his family trust or personally … up until … that time, give or take.

Money derived from Commonwealth contracts was being funnelled through to a member of parliament. The evidence presented to the committee is crystal clear. We know that in a few weeks the member for Fadden is leaving the Australian parliament. The evidence is crystal clear. The question for the member for Fadden and the Leader of the Opposition is: did the member ever, directly or indirectly, seek to or receive a financial benefit from Synergy 360 and is there still a potential benefit owed to him? A further question for the Leader of the Opposition is: do you endorse the conduct of the member for Fadden in light of the evidence that we've heard?