Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What were the findings of the Watt review about probity and transparency in awarding government contracts?

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

A report by Dr Ian Watt AC and a taskforce were released on Friday. This was a report that was commissioned by the heads of Services Australia and the NDIA on or around 24 November last year to investigate matters which had been uncovered in the media about contracts awarded in the procurement process to an organisation called Synergy 360. The report found that of the 95 procurements that were in the scope of the review, 19 were flagged for further investigation due to inconsistency with Commonwealth procurement rules. Five of these were within the NDIA and 14 were within Services Australia. The total value of the 19 procurements requiring further investigation is approximately $374 million. Many procurements, according to the report, lacked appropriate conflict-of-interest documentation, there were inaccessible records, procurements had been poorly managed, and there were actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest.

However, this morning, in light of the report by Dr Watt, there were disturbing reports in the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald concerning decisions to award a government contract to Milo Consulting, also known as Synergy 360. Synergy 360 is partly owned by Mr David Milo, who is a friend of the member for Fadden. Another part owner of Synergy 360 is a Mr John Margerison, who is the long-time chairman of the member for Fadden's fundraising body, the Fadden Forum. The reporting notes that the public servant who oversaw this procurement had a close relationship with one of the owners of Synergy 360, and Services Australia cannot identify any record of disclosure. The contract that was the focus of today's reporting ran from 23 May 2019 to 28 June. It began at just under $10,000 and moved up to $30,000. This figure is significant because anything above $10,000 would have needed to have been reported in AusTender. There was another follow-up Milo Consulting contract awarded to the value of $79,585. Again, this is a significant number. Procurements entered into for over $80,000 are considered complex and would need to go to market.

The scope of this work was to advise the Department of Human Services on how to reform its identity verification systems. At times before and after the Milo Consulting contract within the department, Milo Consulting was informing Infosys and Unisys—bidders for Department of Human Services contracts—on how to do so. There are emails, in December following the issue of the Milo Consulting contracts, reporting that there were opportunities to partner with Infosys to submit a joint bid response. In October 2019, there were emails about the American giant Unisys, saying that Milo Consulting had found an opportunity.

I wish that the Watt review had come back clean. We've now got 19 contracts that warrant deeper and further investigations. I think it's well past time for the member for Fadden to explain these conflicts and the poor procurement practices on his watch. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, it being 3:20—

Put the member for Banks in the first 22 questions. The Leader of the Opposition didn't get one—you could have had his. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.