Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Those opposite are right to highlight the importance of integrity in government, because without integrity there is no trust—and, of course, it is impossible to govern without trust. We are getting on with the business of generating jobs and driving growth because that is what Australians want us to do, but I accept that there is a time and a place to reflect on integrity in government.

I sit on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—and I am disappointed that the member for Charlton, who also sits on that committee, has left the chamber—which looks at the way in which government programs are put in place and administered. It looks at important programs that Australians depend on to ensure that money is being well spent and delivering good outcomes for Australians. In sitting on the public accounts committee over the last two years, I have seen an absolute smorgasbord of failures in integrity and competence. We saw the National Rental Affordability Scheme and the Regional Development Australia Fund, but I want a focus for a few moments on the Early Years Quality Fund, because this was absolutely distinctive for its lack of integrity. The Early Years Quality Fund was a $300 million fund launched by Peter Garrett and the member for Adelaide in March 2013, and its stated objective was to upskill childcare workers. If the plan was to spend $300 million, who were the beneficiaries and did the real clients of child care, our kids and their parents, benefit from this program?

The first group that benefited from this $300 million program were United Voice union officials. The childcare industry union, United Voice, was heavily involved in a misleading campaign to recruit members during 2013 on the back of this program. The Australian National Audit Office said that United Voice had engaged in a grassroots campaign to recruit into the union, and the PwC told us that United Voice had sent inaccurate information to childcare providers, indicating that the majority of their staff had to be members of the union for the grants to be approved. So union officials were using $300 million of public money to recruit members. But the second beneficiary—

Mr Conroy interjecting—

It is great to see the member for Charlton here, because the second beneficiary was the Labor Party—those opposite. Until 2013, United Voice and its predecessor unions had regularly given around $600,000 to the Labor Party. But suddenly, at the exact time of the last election campaign and the establishment of the Early Years Quality Fund, United Voice almost tripled its donations to $1.5 million. They had never got near that before. The Labor Party gained an unprecedented donation to its coffers at the last election campaign in the very year that United Voice was running a recruitment campaign supported by taxpayer money—and you want to talk about integrity.

The third beneficiary was Goodstart, the preferred childcare provider of United Voice and the Labor Party. Goodstart was given the bulk of the money, which was allocated on the eve of the last election—and, when I say the eve, I mean the very eve. Of the $137 million ultimately allocated, $132 million went straight to Goodstart. Goodstart was on the advisory board, against the advice of the department, which said that early childhood employer organisations should not be invited to join the board to avoid perceived or real conflicts of interest. But the minister ignored it, with what was clearly a lapse of integrity. When questioning the integrity of the program, the relevant department was told by the PMO that it was 'over-thinking the process.' The Auditor-General was asked how many programs like this he had seen in his 40-plus years with the ANAO. He answered:

I am struggling to recall others.

…   …   …

I do not recall any other example like this.

This is a grubby episode in the recent history of Australian politics—the sort of lapse of integrity that I would never stand for, and nor should those opposite. I am proud to be part of a coalition that would not stand for this sort of behaviour.

See this speech in context