E&OE TRANSCRIPT

SUBJECTS: Stuart Robert, Synergy360, Watt Review, NDIS reforms

BILL SHORTEN, MINISTER FOR THE NDIS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES: Good afternoon. We're here today because of a signed statement provided to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, featuring a series of very serious allegations involving the outgoing member for Fadden, Stuart Robert. It is important to note that Mr. Robert and his associates have denied any wrongdoing. I want to briefly outline how we've arrived to today. Beginning in November of last year, there have been several detailed reports in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers detailing the relationship between former Liberal minister Stuart Robert and the Canberra consulting firm Synergy360. And furthermore, the awarding of government contracts worth millions of dollars from within Services Australia and the National Disability Insurance Agency, for which I am now responsible. On the 24th of November, the heads of the National Disability Insurance Agency and Services Australia commenced a review of Commonwealth contracts linked to Synergy360. The resulting investigation has become known as the Watt Review into procurement practices in these agencies, led by the eminent public servant, Dr. Ian Watt. I've updated the Parliament on these reports on several occasions. I refer you to the Hansard for the specifics of statements on the 24th of November, the 1st of December, 27th, 28th and 29th of March, the 9th of May, 24th of May, the 13th of June and June the 22nd.

As a result of the findings of the Watt review in March, I wrote to the chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit – JCPAA, Mr. Julian Hill on the 29th of March, noting that these are issues which the committee may consider warrant further examination in the context of their ongoing inquiry into Commonwealth procurements. Although I did note that whether or not the inquiry was to be done would ultimately be a matter for the JCPAA to determine. The JCPAA held a hearing on the 14th of April, a public hearing, in which a former part owner of Synergy360 and coincidentally the former chair of Mr. Robert’s Fadden fundraising forum vehicle, there was evidence presented at the hearing in the form of emails which showed Mr. John Margerison instructing his accountant to direct money derived from Synergy360 to the Australian Property Trust. It is a matter of public record that Mr. Stewart Robert had previously disclosed the Australia Property Trust on his register of members interests. The JCPAA subsequently resolved to split matters arising from the Watt Review, into a standalone inquiry under the committee so they could be investigated more thoroughly. Following this, an individual with knowledge of Synergy360’s operations, Mr. Anthony Daly, has provided a signed statement to the JCPAA in which he makes a number of serious allegations about the operation of Synergy360 and its interaction with Mr. Stewart Robert. I shall not repeat the details of the signed statement. However, I encourage you to read it for yourself and direct you to the JCPAA’s website where it is published. The allegations that a member of Parliament, a former member of Parliament, could be financially benefiting by the arrangement outlined in the statement are very serious and deserve further investigation. And I do note, of course, Mr. Robert's strenuous denial as to the truth of that matter. So therefore, these are serious allegations before a parliamentary committee and do require further investigation. So I have asked my agency, Services Australia, to advise what the next appropriate avenues are, including implications for my agency where a former public servant of the agency is referred to. Further, given that this is in relation to the conduct of a former member of Parliament, my agency has limited means to further investigate of itself. So I do call upon anyone else, who may have information in relation to these matters to provide it to the JCPAA at the earliest possible time. Happy to take questions.

JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten, would it be quicker to cut to the chase and refer this to the National Anti-Corruption Commission? Would you consider a ministerial referral?

SHORTEN: In light of today's signed statement which has been uploaded, I have immediately asked for advice from my agency as to what are the most appropriate avenues to satisfactorily investigate this matter, and I await their advice. I do need to caution that this government absolutely respects the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Ultimately, it is up to the commissioner what they investigate. It is an independent body free of government, and that is a crucial check and balance to have with the Anti-Corruption Commission. So I await advice from my agency as the next appropriate avenues to pursue this matter.

JOURNALIST: Minister Shorten, what evidence is there about the allegation that Stuart Robert directed Centrelink leases towards companies of John Margerison? Did the Watt Review look into that, or have you asked your agency to look into that?

SHORTEN: That is a very disturbing allegation. It is not proven, but it is correct that we do have some leases of property, Services Australia leases, much of its delivery systems are from leased properties. I'm disturbed by the allegation. I don't know if it's true, but I have immediately today, since the uploading of this, asked for further information concerning leases that it might be referred to in that statement.

JOURNALIST: Was that covered by the Watt Review, because this may not have involved Synergy360?

SHORTEN: I’d have to go back and refresh my memory, but I felt that some of the detail today was news to me. Sometimes you hear rumours swirling around. There is a lease of a critical building which could be what is referred to and I don't know, coming up. So I have asked the agency to give me advice.

JOURNALIST: What building is that?

SHORTEN: Services Australia has a lot of offices around the place. There is a building in Tuggerah Lakes which is leased, and I want to understand all the arrangements.

JOURNALIST: Is it feasible for a minister to tell or urge Centrelink to take this lease or that lease?

SHORTEN: You're asking me to get to the conclusion of the investigation. I would’ve thought not. But it's been said so it would be negligent of me – no I wouldn't do that.

JOURNALIST: - part of your remit to be able to tell Centrelink what lease to go with.

SHORTEN: No, that's done at arm's length through a commercial contract. And I must say again, Mr. Robert has strenuously denied everything, so we don't know if this is correct or not. I do want to check it out.

JOURNALIST: Just on the NDIS, there have been calls for more detail from the Government on how it can curtail spending by the 8% a year. Do you think you'll have to look further than what you have been regarding the cracking down on rorts and efficiencies such as eligibility? And why would you not be open to looking at something like the co-payment suggestion?

SHORTEN: I'm more than happy to come to NDIS question, which is great Sarah, but just if there's any more on Mr. Robert and this issue today.

JOURNALIST: You know anything about Triarchy consulting this new firm that's been named in the submission?

SHORTEN: No. Triarchy Consulting were not on my radar. That again is a development of which we are now going to understand. And again, I stress just because someone says there's a problem doesn't mean there has been a problem. But I do now want to check it out.

JOURNALIST: Is this the first time that you've been made aware of the allegations related to United Marketing and that specific claim that that was used to channel funds to Mr. Robert?

SHORTEN: It's the first time I've seen the signed statement today. As I detailed, there's been several reports I've given to Parliament. There's been a string of leaked emails. I don't know if there's been a reference to United Marketing in an earlier email. There's quite a lot of them. It is clear that we've been checking whether or not these contracts and the relationship with Synergy360 have been done properly. The Watt Review, just to remind you of the timetable, we hear about it in the media. The heads of my agencies propose Ian Watt to do an independent review. Ian Watt says he is limited by what he can determine because he can only look at one side of the transactions. But he says that 1 in 5 of the contracts he reviewed had some problems with them. So that was like 19 contracts worth millions of dollars. Then asked the audit committee, could it have a look at this matter? They've had a look. And so as we've sort of gone along, different allegations and facts have emerged. There's no doubt that further investigation is required and that we're not interested in just a whitewash.

JOURNALIST: Can I ask just specifically on some Salesforce contracts which were a part of that investigation. Those contracts have more than doubled. There's tens of millions of dollars involved. This is with the NDIA, sorry. My understanding was that there were public servants involved in that procurement process. Specifically with that organisation, had been referred to the Public Service Commission. Any update on what's happening with that investigation?

SHORTEN: It is correct that some Salesforce contracts with the NDA have been once examined, the subject of further examination I don't know where the Public Service Commission is up to in looking at that matter, it's a difficult issue. You've got different people saying different things about very important matters. The ability to get to the bottom of it is what's crucial. There's no doubt that at first glance there has been problems with probity and conflicts of interest. Whether or not it goes to the full extent of what Mr. Daley has said in his signed statement today, I don't know. But it is clear that in the interest of everyone, the taxpayer, the department, the voters, the 109,000 Gold Coast voters who were forced to go to a by-election, the taxpayer is paying for the by-election triggered by Mr. Robert’s unexpected resignation, and of course, to the people at Synergy360 and Mr.Robert, it's important we get to the bottom of the matter in the fullest and comprehensive way so we actually know what's gone on.

JOURNALIST: Just on to the United Marketing, the statement refers to the arrangement was designed to facilitate the flow of funds ultimately to Mr. Robert. Do you have any sense of how much funds were involved? And does it matter if that was $1 or $10 million?

SHORTEN: I don't know the balance sheet of Synergy360. There was evidence publicly led last Friday that Infosys, who secured what turned out to be a series of contracts worth $274 million, that's just a matter of record, paid, they said last Friday, $16 million to Synergy 360. I don't know where the money's gone and who received it. But it's a serious issue. It's a very, very serious issue.

JOURNALIST: You said the allegations are very serious. What are the consequences if these allegations were proven? And can you give the Australian people any reassurance that those consequences would apply, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Robert has left Parliament?

SHORTEN: I'll give a general in principle answer, I'm not referring specifically to the circumstances around Mr. Robert and Synergy360. The Constitution is very clear. Section 44(v) talks about essentially that you're not eligible to run for parliament or stay in Parliament if you're receiving a pecuniary benefit as a result of transacting with the Commonwealth. That's a very serious matter. Whether or not someone's in Parliament or not in any general matter doesn't change whether or not what was done was right or wrong.

JOURNALIST: You've mentioned the by-election. Is it pure coincidence this is all coming to light just a couple of weeks before the by-election?

SHORTEN: No one asked Mr. Robert to resign. The timing of the by-election is purely and utterly in Mr. Robert's hands. No one asked him to ride out of town, to unexpectedly resign. The Liberal Party can tell you how long they had notice that Mr. Robert was going to resign, but I don't imagine it was more than days or a short period of time. So no. The issue is last November, reports emerge. Slowly, more reports emerge, allegation and counter-claim. That has happened long before Mr. Robert announced his unexpected resignation. So, no, if people are wondering why they're voting on July the 15th in the Gold Coast, 110,000 voters, why the taxpayer is paying millions of dollars. They should ask Mr. Robert and the LNP why they're having a by-election.

JOURNALIST: It's my understanding that there are or there will be mandatory referral obligations on the department heads to the to the NACC. If you're not going to refer it as Minister, is there an obligation on the Secretary of DSS, Ray Griggs or the head of the NDIA?

SHORTEN: I didn't say that I was or wasn't going to refer it, so I won't deal with the hypothetical. But you're right about the second part of your proposition. There are mandatory referral obligations on agency heads. It is so important this Anti-Corruption Commission is allowed to do its business free of political pressure. But you are right that the legislation which the Albanese Government has introduced to set up our first Federal Anti-Corruption Commission, does include mandatory referral propositions to service heads, service agency heads.

JOURNALIST: If the allegations turn out to be substantiated, this is more than just an abuse of power or corruption issues it’d be a criminal matter wouldn’t it?

SHORTEN: Without prejudging this, we all know what corruption is. It's an abuse of power. An abuse of power to gain personal financial advantage or indeed to try to obtain personal financial advantage. That's corruption. But I'm not here to give legal opinions. Others will determine, and I don't refer that to the specific facts of this matter. But the principle question you're asking is, yes. It's not business as usual for Australia's politicians to be seeking personal financial advantage out of governmental decisions. And again, going to the general, not the specifics. I believe most members of Parliament adhere to that rule absolutely.

JOURNALIST: Last night Anthony Albanese said at the Fadden launch that Stuart Robert spent his time in Parliament serving himself. Is that a sentiment that you would agree with?

SHORTEN: I think in light of the serious allegations and the fact that one side is saying they're not true, but other people are putting forward contrary evidence, I think I should restrain my personal view about Mr. Robert. In terms of the Fadden by-election, voters have to ask themselves, why are we paying for this? Why is it now? Is this a by-election just to deal with a controversy as opposed to any other reason? It'll be up to the voters to work out their mind on this question. There was an NDIS question.

JOURNALIST: Yeah. They've just been calls for more detail on how the Government will curtail the spending growth to 8% a year. Do you think you have to look further at the things you’ve been talking about cracking down on rorts and improving efficiencies such as eligibility? And why are you not open to the idea of co-payments?

SHORTEN: Sarah, I saw the story that you wrote this morning. There's a service provider who I think is relatively new, been there perhaps a year or less. So it's good to have a fresh set of eyes, I suppose. But when a service provider says, I just want different people to pay me more money, I'm not immediately swayed by that logic. This scheme needs reform, but it's here to stay. We want to make sure every dollar gets through to the people for whom the scheme was designed. But I think it is the lazy path to simply say, well, this scheme is hard to reform, so let's just make people pay more. I think it is a lazy reform to say, well, maybe changing the way the efficiency, the effectiveness, the equity, the accountability of the scheme, maybe that's all just too hard. So let's just ask people who generally are amongst the poorest Australians to pay a bit more for their own care. So I think there are better paths to improving the scheme than some sort of, you know, off the cuff sort of proposition, ‘oh just get them to pay more’. Because that doesn't actually let the service provider improve their delivery. Perhaps a challenge might be rather than a service provider and I'm sure most don't agree with the view, but rather than letting a service provider say, why should we decrease our prices, why should we restrain our prices, why should we focus on the outcome we're delivering for the participant rather than to be able to charge more hours just to get the person we're charging to pay more? It's not reform.

JOURNALIST: Is it your hope that with the early intervention that is going on with that pilot program you announced and so on for autism and autistic children, that that will make up quite a large number of that 27,000 fewer people on the NDIS by 2026. Again, they're not people being booted out. I understand that. But is it that change to how we perceive autism?

SHORTEN: The Government's announced a series of reforms. I did it at the Press Club. They were backed in heavily by Jim Chalmers’ budget. We think that if we improve the capability of the agency, who make decisions, improve the specialisation, we think we can get better outcomes. We think if we move from annual plans to longer plans as a default setting, we can take the anxiety out of tens of thousands of profoundly disabled people having to remind people they're still blind or still a quadriplegic or still have down syndrome. We think that if we can do something about spiralling prices by getting the ACCC involved, for example. We think that if we can stamp out unethical conduct, which includes criminal activity, fraudulent activity, setting two different prices for the same service, depending if you have a package or if you don't. We think that if we can build the inclusion systems beyond the NDIS, so the NDIS isn't the only life raft in the ocean. If we can tackle some of the issues we're seeing in supported independent living, we think we can make significant improvements. But we've also got a review which at its heart is co-design with some of the best thinkers on human rights, economics, knowledge of disability in the scheme, that those reforms which will be worked out and announced with states, with people with disability in October. We think that we can improve the trajectory of the scheme. In other words, from its sort of 14, 15% to somewhere around 8%, but in terms of the future number of people on the scheme, which was your specific point, the number of people on the scheme is going to go up every year. But wouldn't it be good if we could set up more community mental health clinics with the states and partnerships so that people don't get so ill with a mental illness that they have to be on the NDIS? Wouldn't it be good if the nation as a whole decided to start employing more people with disability to the point that perhaps some people who need some core supports are able to get better employment outcomes and don't need some of those supports. So I think our improvements are modest, but let's not run a scare campaign that tens of thousands of people are about to be chopped because they're simply not. But let's not also surrender to what I would describe loosely as the Greens’ fatalism that to try and do any reform won't work at all. Because people with disability deserve to get the monkey off their back of the constant concern about the sustainability of their scheme so they can get on and have the best lives possible and not live in constant fear of every government press release. Last question on NDIS. Thank you. Give me a good run everyone.

JOURNALIST: Are you considering pausing the use of automated decision-making algorithms for things like determining funding, eligibility and debt while Minister Husic undertakes consultation on how best to regulate safe and responsible use of AI.

SHORTEN: We are not using, to my knowledge, and I've certainly asked this question many times when people on the internet in chat rooms and now in the Blue Room have raised with me is there some sort of massive algorithm program designed to try and fit everyone into a narrow band of packages? It's not happening. I'd know if it was. I believe I'd know if it was. Certainly, though, I think Ed's work on AI is very timely and I think the ethical use of technology and automated systems is a giant issue. And of course, we're going to see the Robodebt Royal Commission be presented to the Governor-General Friday week, or very close to that. Thank you, everybody.