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

On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report 500: Inquiry into procurement at Services Australia and the NDIA: Interim report.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—This inquiry is examining procurement issues at Services Australia and the NDIA relating to consulting firm Synergy 360 and the former minister the Hon. Stuart Robert. While the Watt report examined some of these issues, its scope was limited and related solely to the conduct of Australian Public Service staff. Ongoing investigations by Services Australia relate to Synergy 360 and Infosys; they're both similarly limited. The committee's inquiry here complements the Watt review by examining the conduct of all parties involved in the relevant procurements, including ministers, lobbyists, consultants and vendors.

Concerning evidence has been received by the committee regarding serious allegations and questions about financial impropriety, improper relationships and undisclosed conflicts of interest, with parties receiving contracts from the Commonwealth. Some matters raised in the allegations were established in public hearings and corroborated by other evidence, although many remain unresolved.

Previously undisclosed meetings were revealed through the inquiry between former minister Stuart Robert, Synergy 360 and Infosys, including during a tender process when Infosys was being performance-managed by Services Australia. There is no evidence of probity advisers or public servants being present at 11 meetings, no contemporaneous notes or records of what was discussed made available, no apparent declaration of any conflicts of interest being made and no evidence that other bidders in this tender process, unrelated to Synergy 360, were afforded similar treatment or access. These matters are of concern and may be considered further in the committee's final report.

Rebutting these allegations, Mr Robert; his longtime friend, business partner and political fundraiser Mr John Margerison; Synergy 360 principal Mr David Milo and others strongly deny any improper conduct. The committee has not been provided with direct evidence of financial liabilities owed or payments occurring from Synergy 360 to the Australian Property Trust or other entities to the benefit of Mr Robert. Efforts in this direction have been frustrated, though, as, despite multiple requests be made for documents, witnesses have refused to date to respond to questions in full or provide documents, and Mr Margerison claims to have left Australia. His whereabouts remain unknown to the committee, and no evidence has been provided to support his claim.

The evidence before this inquiry in relation to these issues, therefore, is both directly conflicting and mutually incompatible. In these circumstances the committee is not able, given the resources available to it, including the lack of forensic accounting expertise, to make clear findings in relation to the truth or otherwise of the allegations raised. The committee therefore considers that, in light of the serious and systemic nature of the allegations, an agency with compulsory questioning, document-gathering and investigatory powers should take up the matter so that these questions may be properly assessed.

A referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the NACC, by a parliamentary committee should never be made lightly and certainly is not done so here. In these circumstances, however, there appears to be no other appropriate course of action. The report recommends that the NACC examine all of the evidence gathered by the JCPAA to date to inform its decision on whether a fuller investigation of the matter is warranted to establish the substance of these claims.

Through the inquiry, questions have also arisen regarding the nature of the committee's statutory powers under sections 13 to 15 of the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951. The committee therefore recommends that the Speaker approve the commissioning of legal advice which can guide this and future committees where necessary, including but not limited to situations where a person claims to be resident overseas. There are a range of complexities around the operation of parliamentary privilege, the issuing of summons, the operation of the warrant provisions and so on. It seems best that we seek advice because it's rightly beyond the scope of what the Department of the Senate, who provide procedural advice to the committee, are able to provide. The Speaker has budget approval, hence the need to consider both houses.

The committee acknowledges in this interim report the difficult personal circumstances that sit alongside this inquiry, and the committee has studiously avoided referring to or publishing matters relating to family court proceedings or the private information of witnesses. Given the high public interest in these matters, some have sought to conflate the committee's proper acquittal of its responsibilities with politics; however, accusations of partisanship are unfair and unfounded. Throughout this inquiry, the committee has sought procedural advice on sometimes complex questions and has always sought to act in the public interest.

I acknowledge also that, as is their right, the opposition members have chosen to provide additional comments—technically a dissenting report. That is their right; that's appended to the report, and I've just read it now. I have to say that, while it is their right to provide these comments, it really is quite silly and confused. They say in their additional comments in the dissenting report:

… it is not the role of the Committee to request that the NACC conduct an investigation …

That is absolutely right—I 100 per cent agree. As the report acknowledges, the report is not asking that the NACC conduct an investigation. The report recommends that the NACC simply 'examine material gathered' through an inquiry to 'determine whether or not to conduct an inquiry'. I'll quote, nevertheless, from paragraph 1.9, where the opposition comments say that the committee 'seeks to direct the NACC'. Paragraph 1.22 refers to 'Labor's direction to the NACC'. I say again, very clearly: that is nonsense. The committee's report and recommendations do no such thing. As they say, people are entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts.

The opposition also refers to 'the independent auditor's report'. I have no idea what they're referring to. They may be referring to the two independent inquiries which are underway by Services Australia into Synergy 360 related matters and another into the Infosys procurement, including forensic accounting, as the CEO of Services Australia confirmed again to the committee on Friday. The dissenting report spends some paragraphs talking about the Watt review. The House has heard before, in question time and other forums, that the Watt review was led and handed down by Dr Ian Watt AC, the former secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the former secretary of the Department of Finance and one of Australia's pre-eminent impartial public servants. But, as I said, the Watt review was limited in scope to the conduct and actions of Australian public servants. As Dr Watt told the committee—and as the CEO of Services Australia and the CEO of NDIA have all confirmed—the Watt review could not and did not consider the actions of ministers, lobbyists, vendors, consultants or their agents. Yet the opposition say 'there were no examples of clear misconduct' found in the Watt review, as if that cures the matter. Yes, but there were misconduct issues being considered further—I'm not going to speak for the agency. The second point is that there were five procurements of ongoing interest and two ongoing inquiries, as I mentioned. The third issue is the scope of the Watt report.

Let's be clear. What's really going on is the coalition, as you can see from the additional comments, is split on what to do about this scandal and former minister Stuart Robert. The committee's report is incredibly careful not to prejudge or express a conclusion or a finding on the veracity or otherwise of the allegations made, but we cannot just ignore the evidence which has been provided. Frankly, the additional comments are a whole lot of tortured words in search of a purpose but strangely silent on many issues. They don't talk about the fact that key witnesses have refused to provide documents or answer questions in full or claim to have left the country. They have absolutely nothing to say on the 11 secret meetings between the former minister and Infosys, including when Infosys was in a competitive tender process and including when Infosys was being performance managed by the department for a contract. As the CEO of Services Australia made clear on Friday in a public hearing, Services Australia knew nothing about those meetings, at which there were no probity advisers and no public servants present. The opposition may wish to comment on those matters. When you raise them, you get one of two responses. They either play statues—remember that primary school game where you stare straight head with no expression?—or play with their phones. They're the two responses we get.

I'll finish with just a couple of quotes. I'll quote the opposition leader, Peter Dutton. On 28 June, Phil Coorey in the Fin Review reported that Mr Dutton would not stand in the way of a referral to the NACC. Mr Dutton said:

If there is evidence that people believe they have, it should be referred for independent investigation, so we would support that process.

Here we are. That's exactly what the committee is doing. Yet the opposition members are all over the shop with this tortured set of additional comments that contradict what the opposition leader said. We've considered this through a proper process in the public interest, and I stand by the committee's process. The coalition know perfectly well that it is appropriate in these circumstances that a committee refer evidence it has received to the NACC, including, I might note, public evidence and in camera evidence and testimony, which I can't go into for obvious reasons. That is in no way seeking to direct the NACC.

I thank the committee secretariat for their professionalism throughout this inquiry. As I said, it's raised a range of difficult issues, and they've conducted themselves with impartiality and professionalism at every step. So I thank them for that, and I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.