Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There can be no doubt about this government's commitment to integrity after a decade of decay, dodgy deals, rorts, slush funds, waste and the appointment of mates to everything they could see from those opposite. In this budget alone, we've allocated $262 million for the National Anti-Corruption Commission to establish its ongoing operations, staff, capability and capacity. That mob refused to even allow a vote. Not only did they fail to introduce it, they were too scared to even allow a vote, because they knew that so many of their own members would have crossed the floor and voted with Labor against the then Prime Minister.

We allocated in this budget $14.4 million over four years to boost the resources of the Auditor-General to hold government to account. Contrast that with the former government's failure and that for years they cut the Auditor-General's funding in real terms—a cut of over 25 per cent in real terms over six or seven years. Integrity agencies do incredibly important work.

It drove home to me, Mr Speaker—you were there in the chair at question time—just how much of a mess the former government has left, with the growing scandal around outgoing Liberal MP Stuart Robert. I can say his name now. It's a very peculiar response you get. They've got one of two responses. The first is that they play statues. It's a rare response. When the opposition know they're really in trouble, that they're really on the hook, they play statues. Remember that primary school game—who can't move? We just look straight ahead. We don't look at our phones. We don't blink. We don't even interject. There's no reaction. We play statues. That's one reaction. The other one is that they all look at our mobile phones obsessively: 'Nothing to see here. What's going on? There's no noise.' That's what happens when you raise the issue of Stuart Robert. There's no outrage. There's no pushback. There's nothing. They refuse to answer questions. The Leader of the Opposition hasn't said anything. Does he condone what's been revealed?

I'll summarise the facts. It is a tangled web we weave over there. That said, I won't prejudge the facts, as I'm chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which is currently examining procurement at Services Australia and the NDIA. But what's emerging is serious. There's a new inquiry into procurements at the NDIA and Services Australia linked to Canberra lobbying firm Synergy 360, which has been revealed to have had deep and cosy relations with Stuart Robert.

A couple of weeks ago, emails were published by the committee, with the support of the full committee, that outlined the key facts. It was actually at the request of the deputy chair in a public hearing that these documents be released. They're the things that drove media reports over recent months and that led to the Watt report by Dr Ian Watt, a former head of the Department of Finance and a former secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. He is one of Australia's most eminent and respected public servants. He found a litany of inappropriate and unacceptable procurement behaviour at those two agencies. He found 19 contracts of particular concern to do with Synergy 360, five of which required serious further investigation; insufficient value for money; conflicts of interests; failure to keep records; and inappropriately close relationships between Australian Public Servants and suppliers. However, it was a limited inquiry. As Dr Watt told the committee and the Minister for Government Services told the House, he wasn't able to examine the conduct of members of parliament, ministers, ministers' offices or lobbyists.

What did the emails reveal? They revealed years of secret activity by Stuart Robert from a six-digit Gmail account. It wasn't brotherstuey@gmail.com or sturobert@gmail.com. It was a six-digit Gmail account that he was using for years to communicate with Synergy 360—advising, helping and pimping out corporate entities for government work. The former member for Fadden said that he had zero involvement in procurements. That's difficult to reconcile with the emails: Centrelink's procurement of an entitlement calculation engine technology from Infosys; a failed bid by Unisys to supply border security software; and a failed bid by Oracle to supply technology to operate the National Criminal Intelligence System for procurement. And it wasn't just in Australia: he was having a go for the Singaporean government, to hook them up with deals for health services. He was even scouring the tenders for the Gold Coast City Council website for new lights. And there was a failed bid by Navy Health.

These are serious matters; it looks like there's more than just questions—there's a case to answer. Three respected senior counsel, retired judges and integrity experts said that the conduct revealed already warrants investigation by a competent body with power to compel evidence. We'll complete our inquiry and get to the bottom of things as best we can.