Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, governing the financial resource management of government departments, has no provision to impose civil or criminal penalties. In 2024, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit tabled an inquiry report and found:

NDIA officials failed to disclose years of secret gifts and hospitality received from global IT giant Salesforce despite the company securing lucrative government contracts and massive variations.

Minister, will the government commit to closing this corrupt loophole—affecting approximately $80 billion of taxpayer money spent each year on government tenders—by amending the PGPA Act to implement civil or criminal penalties for breaches of this act?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have enacted the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and, if there are concerns of corrupt conduct in the National Disability Insurance Agency, they should be referred to the appropriate body for investigating that.

In terms of the Public Service more broadly, around gifts or anything received during a role as a public servant in dealings with others, there is a requirement to disclose those matters. The PGPA Act is there, of course, to provide legislative rules around appropriate conduct in a whole range of areas. I think departments take those responsibilities seriously, in terms of reporting through annual reports and attending estimates to be accountable for decisions that they may have made or, if they haven't provided appropriate transparency, to be held responsible for that. If they are, as Senator Payman says, corrupt dealings, then that is a matter for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That would not be dealt with through the PGPA Act. I have no plans at this point to amend that act to incorporate the penalties that Senator Payman has outlined. The appropriate avenue and authority for investigating corrupt conduct in public office is the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payman, first supplementary?

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is intended to stamp out the sort of corruption which contributed to last year's $18 billion blowout across Defence projects, has not been able to punish people for the corruption, as the PGPA Act gives it no avenue to do so. Why is it that a government elected when the public was crying out for leadership on integrity has so comprehensively failed to enact anything more than a toothless, Victorian style anticorruption commission? (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't agree with that at all. I don't agree with that assessment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and I don't agree with that in terms of assessment about integrity measures that we are putting in place across the Australian Public Service. We have made amendments to the Public Service Act to improve integrity and transparency since coming to government. Those amendments have passed this place, with the support of senators. We have sought to strengthen the independence of the Public Service. We have resourced the Public Service appropriately so that it is able to do the job that we ask it to do, because the quality of the delivery of work through the Public Service matters. If they don't have enough workers to do the work, we rely on contractors and others to do that. I think concerns have been raised about the quality of the delivery of public service. We've put a range of integrity measures around procurement processes across the APS as well, and there is more to do.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The previously mentioned blowout is nothing compared to the mother of all rorts, and that's the AUKUS submarine deal, with costs expected to reach at least $368 billion over the coming decades. This program will be a burden on taxpayers and the budget. It's a deal that is more political than strategic. How can the minister justify shipping billions of dollars of taxpayer money overseas to multinationals during this cost-of-living crisis?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, I don't believe that's a supplementary question.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Senator Payman, that was not a supplementary question. It needs to be related to your primary and your first supplementary question. I will invite the minister, if she wishes to make a contribution, to do so, but she's not obliged to.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I'd say, regarding the examples that Senator Payman seeks to identify as corrupt behaviour including a blowout of $18 billion, that if she does believe that that is corruption then she should refer that matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In relation to AUKUS, we are proud supporters of AUKUS. We believe it is in our national interest and our national security interest to have the AUKUS program. I think, in terms of Senator Payman being a senator from WA, there are significant economic benefits from AUKUS, including jobs and opportunities, in her home state of WA. We do not agree at all that the resourcing going in to support the delivery of AUKUS in any way constitutes—as she is seeking to smear it as—inappropriate allocation of resources.