Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the minister's answer and I share the concerns of my colleague Senator Keneally in respect of this particular issue. I do note that Senator Keneally didn't raise some of the comments made by Senator Abetz, who was also concerned, but thank you very much for the summary.

I think we need to focus on paragraph 2.25 of the Statement of Ministerial Standards, which places a requirement on former ministers to not lobby. But, perhaps more particularly, there's a statement in that paragraph that says:

Ministers … will not take personal advantage of information to which they have had access as a Minister, where that information is not generally available to the public.

Now, I'm not accusing Mr Pyne of taking documents from his former role as the Minister for Defence and perhaps passing them on to EY—I'm not suggesting that that's occurring at all—but you cannot 'unknow' what you know. Mr Pyne was the Minister for Defence Industry and then went on to become the Minister for Defence. He would have been briefed by the department on every project that is currently running and on every future project that is coming down the pipeline. He would have been briefed on operations, including where there are problems that might need industry's help to fix. He would have been briefed by commercial entities on what their solutions are to particular problems. He would have been briefed by foreign governments, foreign agencies and, indeed, our own security agencies in respect of a whole range of matters that are simply not in the public domain.

It's not possible for Mr Pyne to form advice without considering what he knows. He doesn't actually have to say to EY, 'I know this.' He simply knows what he knows when he forms his advice, and that's hugely problematic. And, as Senator Keneally said, it does raise issues of probity. It's problematic in itself because it creates an integrity issue for the minister, who I presume signed something to say that he would comply with the standards. I guess that's something we need to explore further—whether or not these are standards that just get waved around and for which there is no legal enforceable undertaking made. I think we need to get to the bottom of that because that goes to the integrity of the standards themselves.

But there's a difficulty here in that there will be other companies that will be looking and saying, 'You know what, I'm going to tender on a particular project that Mr Pyne has knowledge about.' That may give rise to litigation. That may give rise to probity issues, which aren't just a cost to companies; they are also a cost to Defence when a procurement is slowed down because there is litigation on foot. So it's quite problematic.

I have read the statement that Minister Cormann tabled today, and it's troubling not because of what's in there but because of what's not in there. Dr Parkinson spelt out the lines quoted by Mr Pyne and, indeed, EY on 27 June that talk about the role, but it's interesting that he failed to discover the statements that were hidden in The Australian Financial Review on the 26th and, indeed, in my motion in this chamber. Let me just read out what the Financial Review has recorded, which is an email from EY's defence leader Mark Stewart on 26 June. He says:

EY is ramping up its defence capability ahead of a surge in consolidation activity and the largest expansion of Australia's military capability in our peacetime history – $200 billion over 10 years out to 2026.

We've engaged Christopher Pyne to assist with this.

Large domestic defence players are looking for mergers to bulk up. Big multinational players are also shopping for acquisitions to scale their onshore delivery capability.

Christopher Pyne is also here to help lead conversations about what South Australia needs to do to meet the challenges and opportunities this huge defence investment will bring.

He was the Minister for Defence. There's no question that he's going from his defence industry portfolio to the Defence portfolio and then on to a defence company to give advice in relation to defence projects which EY will, they hope, monetise. And, of course, the response text back from former defence minister Pyne said:

I am looking forward to providing strategic advice to EY, as the firm looks to expand its footprint in the defence industry.

There can be no ambiguity here about what was being said. Mr Pyne is going to this company to assist them with defence, and we know he cannot 'unknow' what he knows. In fact, Dr Parkinson says that it's not possible for him to forget the information.

How was this missed? The head of PM&C is on $914,460 per annum, okay? He's paid well to do a very good job. I'm not suggesting any incompetence in this particular circumstance. What's happened here is that he's missed it because the terms of reference of the inquiry were designed to fix a government's political problem. So he's just doing what the circumstances require. He's done the political fix. And I'm very concerned when we have neutral public servants, who serve the public, coming in with these sorts of political fixes. How could he possibly have not seen what Mr Pyne had said himself and what EY had said themselves? How could that not have been included in the letter? It's unbelievable.

There are also other details that are missing. What were the roles for Mr Pyne—and Ms Bishop? What was the reason for the company hiring? You can only get that if you talk to EY, and that appears not to have occurred. What were the expectations of the parties in terms of what EY intend to provide Mr Pyne for remuneration for a particular activity? There would be expectations in place in respect of what is to come in exchange for that remuneration. We don't know, because it's not in the details that have been provided to us.

Mr Pyne made reference to 'rigorous processes and procedures' to prevent a breach. Now, I presume that doesn't mean rigorous processes and procedures for Mr Pyne but rather for EY. Well, we need to have a look at that. We need to have a bit of a look-see and find out what those processes are so that we can be assured, moving forward over the next 18 months, which is the time frame that certainly relates to lobbying—and I point out that, in respect of using knowledge that is not in the public domain, there is no time frame; that is perpetual until such time as the information comes into the public domain by other means. So we don't know what those processes are and we need to know what they are. If the Statement of Ministerial Standards is to have any real meaning or any real effect, we must look to the detail of how the standards are being enforced, and it's my view that they are not.

This is a test for the Prime Minister and thus far he's failing. He's allowed ministers to go to these industry players in contravention of or at great risk to the Statement of Ministerial Standards and he's done very little. He could have picked up the phone and said to Mr Pyne, who I like—I like Christopher Pyne; he's a nice chap. I always got on well with him—