Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of the Chair of the Environment and Communications References Committee I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into recent ABC.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This is a report into ABC programming activities. It is a valid report, and I pay tribute to the many members of the Senate who worked on that inquiry. In particular, I know Senator McKenzie spent a great deal of time in the compilation of that report and I acknowledge her work in that regard, as well as that of those around the chamber, and of course Senator Xenophon's initiation of that inquiry.

However, in looking at ABC programming decisions it is equally important to understand and to note that at present the ABC is under some financial duress, some uncertainty. And that uncertainty is not just the usual uncertainty of the triennial funding agreement that the ABC faces—valid though that is—but equally the uncertainty that continues to dog the ABC over the handling of this Australia Network contract by the Labor government.

That uncertainty has played out for 12 months now. It has been 12 months this month that the Labor government took a decision—of their own volition; they did not have to do this—that they would go through an open tender process for the Australia Network. That was their choice, and they embarked on that tender process. As I outlined in the MPI speeches before question time, on 4 February this year they released a request for tender. There were two bidders: the ABC and Sky News. The ABC was seeking to continue their contract for the delivery of the Australia Network, and Sky News, a new bidder, was seeking to take on the Australia Network contract. It is a $223.1 million contract. It has very direct implications for the ABC in terms of their operation, their structure and their size. If they lose this contract no doubt there will be implications for future funding and programming decisions.

Since that tender was launched we have seen an utter debacle, to say the least. It is a debacle clouded in political mystery and clouded by the dysfunctionality of the government of those opposite. Why is this so? Because the tender was initially put out by the department that has the funding, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The initial approver of the tender, the party who was initially going to make the decision, was none other than the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Richardson. What happened? Along the way it seems that the board undertaking the independent evaluation of the merits of the two competing tenders came up with a recommendation. From various media leaks we are led to believe that Mr Rudd was quite happy with the recommendation. The recommendation was that Sky News win the bid.

When the rest of the government heard about this we understand they went apoplectic. They went so apoplectic that they had to go and totally rewrite the tender arrangements and totally rearrange this deal. In doing so they stripped Mr Rudd of responsibility for decision making around the Australia Network. They stripped Mr Rudd, Mr Richardson and DFAT of responsibility for decision making when it came to Australia Network. Instead they transferred that responsibility to Senator Conroy. Never mind that Senator Conroy, as the communications minister, has direct portfolio responsibility for one of the two bidding parties: the ABC. Never mind that Senator Conroy has no portfolio responsibility for the financial allocation of the Australia Network funds to DFAT. He is conflicted because he is responsible for one of the bidders yet he actually has no responsibility for the funding. Nonetheless, the government chose to take this path.

Before I raised the question of just how conflicted Senator Conroy was, because in May of this year Senator Conroy said during estimates:

I think the ABC has made a fine bid, but other than my opinion I am not involved in the process.

This begs the question: had Senator Conroy been involved in the ABC's bid? Had he seen the bid? What knowledge did he have of the bid?

Senator Williams interjecting—

Absolutely—what knowledge did Mr Rudd have of the bid or the entire process? But what knowledge did Senator Conroy have of the ABC's bid prior to his becoming the minister responsible for determining who the successful bidder would be? It seems as if Senator Conroy had already taken a side in May this year. He stated in public that he preferred the ABC bid. Yet just the next month Prime Minister Gillard and the cabinet took the decision to make Senator Conroy the umpire, the person to make the decision of who would be the successful bidder.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the NBN? He is doing a really good job on it.

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

Is he doing a really good job on the NBN, Senator Farrell? Is he? Why is there no contractor in our home state, Senator Farrell? Why is there no contractor signed on to deliver the NBN?

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Birmingham, would you address your remarks through the chair.

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

I apologise, Madam Acting Deputy President. I was provoked into highlighting another of Senator Conroy's great failures.

In relation to the Australia Network contract, as I highlighted before question time, the rule book for tenders appears to have been totally overthrown during this contract. Any semblance of proper probity in the conduct of this tender appears to have been utterly shredded. We saw it in question time today when Senator Conroy was asked some very specific questions about the tender.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And he ducked them.

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

He well and truly ducked for cover. You know that a minister is in trouble and has things to hide when their response is simply, 'I refer to the statement I made yesterday.' That is the resort of ministers in trouble. When a minister is too scared to utter another word on the topic, we know we have a minister who is worried about something. All they can ever say is, 'I refer to the words I said yesterday.' He made that response because what he made yesterday were very carefully scripted remarks that he read from his laptop. They were very carefully scripted remarks from Senator Conroy, and when you read them closely you can drive a truck through them. It is very clear that he left open every possibility and eventuality.

It is quite possible that the legal advice he received actually left open the possibility of finalising the tender that he cancelled on Monday this week. It is quite possible, from what Senator Conroy said, that he was sitting on the successful tender for more than a month. It is quite possible he knew who had been recommended and avoided making an announcement for more than a month, during which time, because of a leak to a newspaper, he was presented with an opportunity and excuse, a pathway, out of the tender process. It is an excuse that he grabbed hold of with both hands to shut the whole thing down.

A dark shadow will hang over Senator Conroy and all those involved in this tawdry process, until Senator Conroy does the decent thing. Resigning would be a good one, Senator Conroy, but perhaps first we will at least ask him to release all the recommendations and documentation associated with the Australia Network tender, specifically those called for in the motion put in my name and that of Senator Ludlam's that was passed earlier in this chamber. The fact that the Greens recognise there is a problem here as well demonstrates just how deep the concerns about this tender process run. Until Senator Conroy supports that and supports calls from the opposition over a long period of time for the Auditor-General to undertake a thorough investigation into the handling and probity of this tender contract, doubts will hang over his head, clouds will hang over his head.

The ball really is in Senator Conroy's court. Does he want doubts about the probity of this tender to dog him at every turn and in every single decision he makes on media regulation from here on in, or is he game, is he willing, to open himself and the government to some thorough and independent scrutiny? If he continues to refuse reasonable calls to release the documentation, to have an independent inquiry, to open this thing up for a true and thorough probity check, we will all know that he and the government have plenty to hide.

Question agreed to.