Top public servant Phil Gaetjens grilled over sports rorts

Key pieces of evidence in the sports rorts saga were not considered during an investigation called for by the Prime Minister.

The top public servant who reviewed the sports rorts scandal did not consider its infamous colour-coded spreadsheets, emails from the Prime Minister’s office, or the minister’s legal authority to issue the grants.

But Phil Gaetjens has defended his handling of the saga, which resulted in sports minister Bridget McKenzie’s resignation, at a Senate committee probe into the controversial $100 million Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary said he did not have access to all of the information the Auditor-General used in his scathing report into the program that uncovered pork-barrelling of tens of millions of dollars in marginal Coalition seats.

Mr Gaetjens also revealed he did not scrutinise Senator McKenzie’s legal authority to issue the grants, which was brought under a cloud of doubt in the report.

He did not consider the 136 emails between the Prime Minister’s office and Senator McKenzie’s office, or all of the 28 colour-coded spreadsheets during his investigation into Senator McKenzie’s alleged breach of ministerial standards.

Mr Gaetjens said their existence, along with controversial changes made after the government entered caretaker mode, became known after his report was submitted.

When asked if he thought an investigation was needed after it was revealed $40 million of taxpayers’ money was signed off during the caretaker government, Mr Gaetjens said: “By that time the minister had resigned. Why does one need to have a look at something when the minister has resigned?”

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Phil Gaetjens gives evidence at a hearing into the sports grants scandal. Picture: Gary Ramage / NCA NewsWire

Despite Senator McKenzie saying she had no knowledge changes were made after she signed the brief, Mr Gaetjens – pointing to several other inquiries into the matter — said: “What else can I do? As the head of PM and C and a public servant I am an adviser, not a decision-maker.”

Mr Gaetjens reasoned that “lots of things happen” during caretaker provisions.

But when asked if there were other instances where funding approvals were made without ministers’ knowledge, he said: “I am not aware of any.

“I wasn’t necessarily interested in the process, it was the outcome of the funding round.

“All I was interested in was information that would relate to her making the decisions, so the evidence was in the Auditor-General’s report.”

Mr Gaetjens found Senator McKenzie was in breach of the standards by failing to declare she was affiliated with two organisations and had a conflict of interest when awarding funding to one of them.

He did not interview the Prime Minister, any of his staff, or Senator McKenzie’s staff.

“The minister is responsible for the actions of her staff, so the interview with her I thought was sufficient,” he said.

Mr Gaetjens stood by his finding that Senator McKenzie acted within the remit of the program guidelines.