Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Minister, will you acknowledge that the decision to put the Australia Network out to tender in the first place was a mistake? Will the minister ensure that the service which belongs properly with a well-resourced national broadcaster is not opened for tender again?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ludlam for his ongoing interest. The Gillard government is extremely disappointed that the tender process was compromised by leaks. This was a significant commercial contract involving up to $223.1 million of taxpayers' money and it was important that both cabinet and the general public could have confidence in the process. This is why the Gillard government has called in the Australian Federal Police.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! When there is silence on both sides we will proceed. Senators on my right and my left, I am waiting for order so that Senator Ludlam can hear the answer.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was saying that this is why the Gillard government have called in the Australian Federal Police to investigate the leaks which have necessitated the termination of the tender process. I would like to emphasise that at all times the government has acted within the terms and conditions of the tender process. The Australia Network is a core element of Australia's overseas broadcasting network and a major public diplomacy platform. It makes a significant contribution to the promotion and protection of Australia's national interests.

On 23 November 2010 the government announced it would put out the Australia Network to open tender for a 10-year contract. The contract was for a maximum of $223.1 million, excluding GST, which represented the current contract cost of $94.2 million over five years, with an adjustment for inflation. The request for tender was released on 4 February and closed on 25 March 2011. On 24 June 2011 the government announced an extension to the tender to ensure the national interest would be addressed more broadly. Among these changes were the importance of key emerging markets on the global economy, significant political transformation occurring across the Middle East and North Africa, and the need— (Time expired)

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for a series of detailed answers to questions that I did not ask. I will try another tack. Does the minister intend to provide—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is with the shrieking? Does the minister intend to provide a report on the shambolic tender process to the parliament so that the public can be confident that due process has been followed?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(Victoria—) (): The need identified during a recent consular crisis is for strengthened information services. Both tenderers were given an equal and reasonable opportunity to respond to the additional criterion. At that time, cabinet also decided to appoint me as the approver and that the decision should be referred for cabinet consideration. The amended request for tender closed on 27 July 2011 and on 17 October an article appeared in the press which contained significant leaks of information from the tender process. On 27 October the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet wrote to the Australian Federal Police requesting an investigation into the leaks. As a result of the leaks, the government sought advice from the Australian Government Solicitor who indicated there is a possibility that the current process may in some way be tainted or corrupted such that it is not possible that a fair and equitable outcome can be achieved. The advice went on to say that it was open to the government to decide— (Time expired)

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask the minister to take the questions on notice. Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Does the government intend to provide a statement to parliament as to the process that was followed? Will the minister commit to letting the ABC run the service in perpetuity and fund it adequately to deliver an ABC world service of which all of us can be proud?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the advice went on to say it was open to the government to decide to terminate the tender process on public interest grounds on the basis that a fair and defensible tender process outcome may now not be able—

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order in terms of relevance. The minister is simply reading from a prepared statement that was written well before I asked my questions. I would ask him to address the specific questions.

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on both sides! I am trying to listen to Senator Ludlam and it is very hard when you are interjecting. Start again, Senator Ludlam.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I just seek you to direct the minister to answer the questions that I have actually asked. That is all I am seeking.

Honourable senators interjecting —

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are chewing up question time.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: the minister could not be more directly relevant to the question. The minister is making a statement to parliament. He is taking the Senate through the steps and explaining the process quite thoroughly. If those opposite, including the Greens, did listen to Senator Conroy, they would find he is taking us through this circumstance in great detail.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe the minister is answering the question. The minister has 48 seconds remaining.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the advice said it was open to the government to decide to terminate the tender process on public interest grounds on the basis that a fair and defensible tender process outcome now may not be able to be achieved. The government will now consider the full range of options for the awarding of this contract and will make a decision no later than March next year. As I have said, the government is extremely disappointed that these leaks have occurred and that the tender process has been compromised. However, the government has taken the decision that it is in the public interest that the process be terminated. Put simply: it is no longer possible to be certain what each bidder knew about their rival's bid. This decision has not been taken lightly, but the government acted on the legal advice it had received from the Australian Government Solicitor. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. I ask the minister specifically: what information, either in the 17 October media article or in other published articles regarding the Australia Network tender process, contained in these leaks actually necessitated the axing of the tender process? Did this information actually advantage one of the tenderers and, if so, how? Minister, will the advice you referenced from the Solicitor-General on this matter be publicly released and tabled?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Birmingham for his interest in the issue. As I was saying, the decision has not been taken lightly, but the government acted on the legal advice it had received from the Australian Government Solicitor. The government has asked the ABC to continue delivering the service until August 2012 while the government resolves the long-term contractual arrangements. The government will now undertake a fresh consideration of the Australia Network service and how best to deliver it to regions in our field of interest. We will consider the full range of options at our disposal. As I said, the government will make a decision by no later than the end of March next year.

The government received the advice that the tender had been potentially compromised and decided to act accordingly to terminate the tender process. We believe it is the right decision in the national interest and in the interests of both bidders. The tender process has been cancelled and is now the subject of an AFP investigation. I am not in a position to comment any further on that ongoing AFP investigation. I am not in a position to say more than that while the investigation is under way.

To the point that has been raised—and I think Senator Birmingham also added this in the series of questions he asked—the first reports concerning the details of the tender process contained significant inaccuracies, which did not justify a referral to the AFP for investigation. You only need to look at the story written by Mark Day, as he gleefully pointed out the inaccuracies of the earlier report, to understand that the earlier report did not— (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Was any of the leaked information that you determined warranted cancellation of the Australia Network tender officially provided to the tenderers? If not, does the minister acknowledge that the only possible source of the leaks was from within the government?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have said, I am not in a position to discuss the AFP's ongoing investigation. You can cast all the aspersions you want but I am not going to be second-guessing an AFP investigation.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have further supplementary questions. Like Senator Ludlam, I will ask some other questions and hope to get an answer on this occasion. Firstly, I again very directly ask the minister: will you release the advice from the Solicitor-General that you have referenced in the Senate today with regard to the cancellation of this tender? Secondly, will you now support the longstanding calls from the coalition for this farcical tender process to be investigated by the Auditor-General?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The hypocrisy of those opposite—the absolute hypocrisy of those standing over there with a straight face demanding that legal advice—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order.

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brandis is entitled to be heard in silence.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, my point of order is on the question of direct relevance. The minister has used the first quarter of the time available for his answer merely to ridicule the person who asked the question and to ridicule the opposition. He was asked a specific question about the tender process. He was asked a specific question about how the government proposes to proceed from here. He was asked whether or not the Solicitor-General's advice would be made public. He has not approached any of those matters and you, Mr President, should direct him to the question.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The minister has 45 seconds remaining. I believe the minister is addressing the question.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the hypocrites opposite who consistently—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will need to withdraw that.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not have to withdraw it a moment ago, but okay.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will withdraw it.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you say so. If they were hypocrites before but not now, it's okay! But I withdraw unreservedly.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. There is no point of order. Senator Conroy, you have 41 seconds remaining.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite are crying crocodile tears. For 11½ long years they never released any legal advice. I know because occasionally I might have asked, and they repeatedly said governments do not do this. So now in opposition they have decided that as usual they can just throw out the rule book—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. If the minister is not going to come remotely close to answering any of my questions, perhaps in the remaining 20 seconds he has left he could instead explain to the Senate where he was hiding during the carbon tax vote.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. You know that.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Government goes on and cabinet subcommittees meet. I was paired, so the conspiracy theorists opposite can settle down. To fully answer your question: no.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is with the full support of the Senate that I move that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.