John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Over recent years both in Senate committees and in this chamber I have raised concerns about the senior management of the Department of Parliamentary Services. I have said in the past I consider DPS to be the worst run government department in the Commonwealth of Australia. Unfortunately, nothing has changed. In recent Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee hearings another very serious issue emerged. In the last 18 months, two contracts have been awarded through a limited tender process to Anne Zahalka, a professional photographer. The first contract, in September 2013, was for photographic works for the 25th Anniversary of Parliament House last year. Under that contract, DPS paid $30,000 for 10 photos—$3,000 each. Last night we learnt of a second contract, in September 2014, for the supply of two photos about the Parliamentary Library—at a cost of $10,000, or $5,000 each.

The Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services has stated at estimates that she knew the photographer—Anne Zahalka—and in fact they live in the same street. At the most recent estimates round, I asked the DPS secretary, Ms Mills, whether this raised 'the obvious question of either a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest?' In response, the secretary informed the committee:

I did not interfere, involve myself or influence in any way any of that process.

Last night the committee heard that many of the DPS records regarding these contracts with Anne Zahalka were missing. It is an utter shambles. There is no documentation between March 2013, when there was a short list of nine photographers, and 14 June 2013 when, the committee was told by DPS officers, they approached Anne Zahalka. I described this last night as a 'black-hole of transparency'. There are no notes, no records, no minutes. We do not know who chose Anne Zahalka. We do not know how Anne Zahalka was chosen. We do not know when Anne Zahalka was chosen. And we do not know why Anne Zahalka was chosen. This just does not stack up.

Last night, the committee was informed by DPS, despite Ms Mills's earlier assurances, that she was involved in the final decision to contract Anne Zahalka. Despite her October statement to the committee that she 'did not interfere, involve myself or influence in any way any of that process', she actually signed off the contract offered to Anne Zahalka. According to evidence from DPS officers to the committee, the secretary was being briefed and kept in the loop about the photography contract. The secretary also signed off on a decision relating to some of the commercial aspects of the arrangements with Ms Zahalka.

This raises very serious questions about the probity and transparency of decision making in the Department of Parliamentary Services. I can assure the Senate that its Finance and Public Administration Committee will not let these serious questions go unanswered. I suggest that senators read the Hansard transcript of last night's inquiry into the Department of Parliamentary Services conducted by the Senate's Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I suggest that senators read the Hansard of the last estimates round, as the committee examined the estimates of the Department of Parliamentary Services—and watch this space.