Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Government Services. In light of the findings of the Watt report into procurements and contracts in the Government Services portfolio, why is it so important for publicly elected officials to act with integrity towards those they represent?

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

Yesterday I updated the House on issues raised in Dr Watt's review into procurements and contracts entered into by Services Australia and the NDIA. A key thread in this reporting was the presence of de facto lobbying firm Synergy 360, owned by Mr David Milo and Mr John Margerison, friends of the member for Fadden. Synergy 360 was being paid by companies including Indian software giant Infosys and American technology giant Unisys for access to the member for Fadden's office. Leaked emails today in the Nine newspapers reveal that the cash-for-access business model of Synergy 360 extended beyond the member for Fadden and his office and to the important Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI. It received sensitive briefs on Australia's national security. ACLEI at the time was inquiring into the integrity of Australia's seaports and borders. Leaked emails reveal that Unisys had paid Synergy 360 in order for the member for Fadden to help the company set up the commercial pitch of its border security software called LineSight. We have an endorsement from the ACLEI committee that Unisys were hoping to sell this product to the Australian government.

Leaked emails reveal that Unisys were set to make millions if they could reach a deal with the Australian government to purchase this product. Furthermore, these emails revealed that Synergy 360 would also receive 10 per cent of the contract value plus a $10,000 retainer per month. In anticipation of the pitch to ACLEI, the member for Fadden was provided by a Unisys executive with information about their product. I quote an email from an Asia-Pacific vice-president of Unisys to the American head office:

I told Stuart I would get him something tonight. Tomorrow at the joint committee on Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI), he will be proposing that the committee formerly meets with Unisys for a briefing on our work with the US government …

Furthermore, the member met with Synergy 360, his friends, the chairman of his fundraising group and Unisys reps on the Gold Coast at Mr Margerison's house to help them prepare a run-through for the committee. He lunched with them on the 29th as a thankyou from Unisys. He then helped arrange meetings not only with Unisys and with ACLEI but also with the now Leader of the Opposition—and I'm not saying the now Leader of the Opposition was aware of all the backstory.

All these matters go to the core of the Watt review—the need to declare conflicts both real and perceived. I think, in order to assure the parliament and the Australian public that he's acted with integrity, the member for Fadden needs to immediately state whether he declared his conflict of interest before suggesting Unisys make a commercial pitch. I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to say if he's satisfied with the member for Fadden's conduct in all of these matters, which have dominated the front pages of the media.