Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Hansard source

Well, it is not a compliment. It is not a compliment when you want to know what is going on, you see that there are problems with this process and the government cannot answer basic questions about what is happening with its tender process. There are credible reports at the moment that both of the tender processes which have been aborted by the government in the course of this year had reached the stage where preferred tenderers were being recommended by the independent tender board to the government. In both those cases it was for a certain outcome which allegedly has not met with the approval of the government. On both occasions the government has failed properly to see through the end of that tender process. Instead, it has extended or aborted the process for its own short-term narrow political objectives.

The questions that have been asked today in the Senate, and were asked yesterday as well, have not been answered with respect to this process. Did the tender boards make a recommendation before the process was short-circuited by the government on two occasions? We do not know, because the minister could not answer that question. Will either of the tenderers—apparently there are two—who are now proceeding into the next iteration of this tender process be given an equal consideration in how they are to be dealt with? We do not know.

Was the tender recommendation received before the leak which supposedly aborted the second phase of this tender only a few weeks ago? Again the minister was asked that question. It was asked yesterday; the minister could not answer it. Will the matter be referred to the Auditor-General? That was a question asked by Senator Ludlam yesterday. We do not know, because the minister would not answer the question. Will there be a report to the Senate on what Senator Ludlam called yesterday 'a shambolic tender process'? Again, we do not know, because the minister was asked this question and did not answer it.

Today, again, Senator Birmingham asked the minister questions about exactly what it is that the government proposes to do between now and next March when, we are told, on the third attempt the government will announce an outcome for this tender process. Senator Birmingham received no answer. This is not good enough. This is a process for the expenditure of $223 million of taxpayers money when we do not know what is going on inside the government's mechanisms. We are told that reports were produced and handed up to the government recommending a certain outcome—apparently unanimously in at least one, and possibly both, of those tender processes—and the government decided to take a different approach in order to get an outcome more to its preference.

That is the allegation. We would know whether that was the case if the minister chose to answer some questions in this place about what is going on. But he has not done that. And the Australian taxpayer deserves better than that. What is going on? Why was it necessary to abort the first stage of the tender process? The minister tells us it was because of changes in the 'key emerging markets on the global economy and significant political transformation occurring across the Middle East and North Africa'. Excuse me? What has that got to do with the letting of a tender for the Australia Network?

Then we were told there had been a leak. But isn't it true that the leak occurred after the government had received the recommendation of the tender board? If it is not true why didn't the minister tell us that? It is unsatisfactory that the Senate cannot get the answers to these questions, because they go to the heart of this government's perpetual maladministration. (Time expired)