Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. In light of the serious findings of the Watt review, what information can the minister provide about procurement investigations and tainted contracts?

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

The findings of Dr Watt's review of procurement practices under the previous coalition government are extremely troubling. The review examined 95 contracts awarded to de facto Canberra lobbying firm Synergy 360 clients, and it identified irregularities in 19 of those 95 contracts. In other words, about one in five of the contracts were found to be questionable. As we know, a common ingredient in this was the former member for Fadden, Stuart Robert. Just last week, in a critical report from the Auditor-General, Stuart Robert's name again popped up, this time in relation to a procurement for the permissions capability system.

For the benefit of the House: on 17 October 2020, Home Affairs commenced a new procurement process for the broader permissions capability system that was to extend beyond visas, to citizenship, customs, functions and personnel security clearances. The announcement was via a joint media release issued by the then Acting Minister for Immigration, Alan Tudge; and NDIS government services minister Stuart Robert. However, at this time, Stuart Robert appears to have had no official responsibility, portfolio or otherwise, related to the project, but he's on the press release. Then, on 15 April 2021, ExCo signed off on the then prime minister Scott Morrison's transfer of responsibility of the Digital Transformation Agency from Minister Linda Reynolds to—guess who? Minister Stuart Robert. Then, on 13 July 2001, Stuart Robert met with Accenture. They were subsequently awarded a contract that the ANAO states would have cost $111 million. The Auditor-General has found that Stuart Robert's meeting with Accenture was contrary to probity plan and protocols. At page 44: the minister held a meeting with personnel from the preferred tenderer before the commencement of contract negotiations. Contrary to probity plan and protocols, the meeting was not recorded on the probity register.

The latest troubling revelation is relevant to Australians and an upcoming public audit committee on June 23 for several unanswered questions: (1) did Mr Robert have a series of undisclosed or poorly disclosed relationships with private interests seeking to make profit from taxpayer dollars; (2) did Mr Robert's associates seek to monetise Mr Robert opening doors, providing privileged, commercially advantageous insights and access; (3) did Mr Robert's associates have a scheme to digitise government services worth billions of dollars, starting with Home Affairs and then across the government, with Mr Robert as their 'special friend' inside government; (4) did Mr Robert's former colleagues, now silent in the House, endorse his actions and conduct; and (5) why do 114,000 Gold Coast voters have to go to an unnecessary by-election on 15 July merely because Mr Robert was feeling the heat in the kitchen at long last?