So thank you to the representatives of PMNC for being here. Can I ask you how was the decision made as to who should appear as witnesses representing the PMNC?
That was a decision within the department, Senator.
So, who made the decision?
I think probably our deputy secretaries.
Well, who asked you to appear?
I assumed I would probably appear. If so, I I wasn’t asked. I just figured I would be required to be here. So,
but they must. have been some sort of decision made as to and direction, given that mr. Exell and yourself, Miss Sullivan, would be here representing the PM and seat. So, how was that decision come to, as opposed to other members of the department? It
would have been because within my division, Kai Everest, who’s here with me today, is the Assistant Secretary of the Delivery Branch, which has responsibility for, I guess, ongoing monitoring and tracking of implementation and so forth of commitments and other major government priorities. So that is the lens in which we viewed things through.
But Ms. Sullivan, you’ve been unable to answer questions with respect to administration of the code of conduct, and you’ve had to take a number of questions on notice with respect to administration of the Prime Minister’s code of conduct, haven’t you?
I have indeed, Senator.
And that’s notwithstanding the fact that paragraph F of the terms of reference of this inquiry is any actual potential or perceived conflicts of interest involving ministers, members of parliament, applicants or grant recipients, or breaches of the code of conduct for ministers. That’s correct, isn’t it?
It is, Senator.
So who made a decision that the PMNC wouldn’t provide a witness who actually has active knowledge with respect to the administration of those matters within the PMNC, so that this committee has been denied the opportunity to ask questions during this allotted slot to obtain answers with respect to those questions regarding the code of conduct,
Senator. I’m not sure that there was necessarily an active decision to say no one should turn up. I think, as I said, I’m happily taking those questions on notice. Senator McKenzie has asked for the relevant areas to appear, and they will.
Did you raise the issue with anyone within the PMNC that you didn’t have any particular knowledge with respect to the details regarding administration of the Prime Minister’s code of conduct, and that someone else should perhaps attend this inquiry because they would have the relevant knowledge and be able to assist the inquiry?
No, Senator.
Why not?
I honestly don’t know, Senator.
mr. Exell, you’ve been unable to assist this inquiry with respect to
Scarr. mr. Exell’s been replaced by mr. Everest.
Oh, sorry, mr. Everest. Who were you involved in relation to any discussions regarding who should represent the BMMC at this inquiry?
Well, when mr. Excel became unavailable, he asked me to attend.
That was your only involvement. I
think I spoke with Ms. Sullivan and mr. Excel.
Okay, and what was the feedback you gave to Ms. Sullivan and mr. Excel when you were asked to appear?
I agreed to appear.
Okay, can you take on notice, please, Ms. Sullivan? The the the pro any documentation, any emails with any notes of meetings with respect to the decision making process with within the PM and C regarding who should appear before this inquiry, and just to give you context, I’m particularly interested how it’s the case that this inquiry has been denied the opportunity to ask questions during this forum to people with the requisite knowledge. I know you’ve taken questions on notice, but we’ve been denied the opportunity to ask questions of people with the relevant knowledge with respect to the administration of the Prime Minister’s Code of conduct. Could you take that on notice, please?
Certainly, Senator.
Thank you, mr. Everest. Have you read the Department of Infrastructure’s submission?
Yes.
When did you read it?
In recent days, I don’t recall exactly which day. So you
read it with the view to preparing for this inquiry, so that you could assist this inquiry to the maximum extent of your ability.
I read it with a view to. Hopefully, you read
it for that for that purpose. There may be others, but hopefully that’s one of them.
No, that’s right, Senator. I read it ahead of my appearance today,
with the purpose of trying to assist the committee,
with the purpose of being across relevant information to assist the committee. Yes,
excellent. I want to take you to page three of of that submission, if you’ve got it there. And there are a few. If I could show you my copy, there are about three or four things which I circled in this submission. So I’d be incredibly surprised if you didn’t circle this during your reference or first reading of this submission when you were initially asked to appear. It says it says on the fourth paragraph of that submission, the program launched on one September 2025. There were two additional projects added to the program in November 2025, following late identification due to administrative oversight. End quote. What were those two projects, and what was the administrative oversight,
Senator? I don’t have that information with me.
Can you understand, Ms. Everett? How I’m somewhat surprised that you read this submission. This submission was made. You were prudent enough and diligent enough to read this submission before appearing today, we’ve been asking you questions, and it’s fundamental to the inquiry that’s being pursued by this committee as to how projects made their way onto the list of projects to fall within the ambit of this program. Can you understand how I’m surprised that something as fundamental as how two additional projects somehow made their way on the list after the publication of the guidelines. How surprised I am that you’re not able to answer what those two projects were or the circumstances of that so-called administrative oversight,
Senator. I can appreciate that’s information you’re looking to learn today. I think the infrastructure department will be able to support you with that.
Well, sorry, this is I’ll be asking the questions of President of them, and I’m sure they’re going to be looking for their relevant information. But this is a two-way process, isn’t it? This was this. The Department of Infrastructure is saying that they were advised of two additional projects, aren’t they?
There was obviously a decision of government that projects would be included in this program that were not originally included.
So, how did that come to be? How could there be projects that weren’t initially included in this program, but then the government made a decision that additional projects would be included? Who made that decision?
It would be a decision of government, and I don’t have that detail with me. I would just note, though, that oftentimes with election commitments, decisions about how to implement them are taken after the election. And so, in this case, a program was established to implement the government’s commitments. It might have been the case that some commitments were originally.
