Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Hansard source

In speaking to this matter, let me say that there were revelations yesterday relating to the fact that Ms Forrester, from the parliamentary secretary’s office, who I gather is employed as a childcare specialist, was, until 30 September, an owner of Allen Consulting Group by way of a shareholding. This apparently was divested on 30 September, but Ms Forrester had commenced working on 12 May, so it was some five months after the employment event. I note with some interest the commentary from the parliamentary secretary yesterday in relation to this matter. It is what was not said that is probably more important than what was said. The statement says:

Upon commencing her employment with Parliamentary Secretary McKew, Ms Forrester advised the then deputy secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations of her previous employment with Allen Consulting Group.

The question would be, why was the shareholding specifically excluded from that statement? Yes, Ms Forrester was an employee, but she was also a shareholder. One would have thought that if she had advised the secretary of her department she would also have advised him of her shareholding and therefore her ownership of the Allen Consulting Group. But there was no reference to it, and we are therefore quite entitled to assume that indeed she had not advised the deputy secretary of the department that she was still a shareholder.

The person is in charge of early childhood development. There was a contract for $112,173, a select procurement contract. This tender was for developing the structure of the National Early Years Workforce Strategy—contract notice CN 118028. So there was a direct source tender contract to Allen Consulting and this employee was the adviser to the parliamentary secretary for this specific part of the portfolio. It absolutely beggars belief that the adviser would not have had any discussions at all with the department in relation to a direct source contract in relation to an area which was this adviser’s specific responsibility.

This matter comes on the back of the CMAX affair. Honourable senators will remember a matter that is still under investigation from the Australian National Audit Office, investigating the office of the Prime Minister, senior staff in the Prime Minister’s office and senior staff in the Minister for Defence’s office. So we have CMAX under investigation from the ANAO, still not completed, and we have another example of the attitude of the Prime Minister and his staff in relation to matters of integrity, probity, openness and transparency. It is another clear example that, when it comes to commitments by the Prime Minister or his ministers, they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Just out of interest, on 26 June Senator Faulkner announced a new code of conduct—with some fanfare, as with all these things that have been announced, which all mean nothing at the end of the day. He trumpeted:

The code reflects this government’s commitment to integrity across government and our expectations that ministerial staff, who play such an important role working within government, will understand and meet high standards in carrying out their duties.

I appreciate the CMAX affair occurred before this code of conduct, but most certainly this matter was post that ministerial staff code of conduct. We want some very clear answers as to whether— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.