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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Birmingham today relating to the Australia Network tender process.

Another day; another Labor government fiasco—this time concerning the tender process for the release of the new Australia Network, which provides for broadcasting of Australian news, current affairs and entertainment into our region and beyond. This tender is only worth $223 million or so, and I say 'only' because compared with many of the other spectacular Labor government cases of maladministration—things like the National Broadband Network, the Building the Education Revolution program, pink batts and so forth—this is relatively small fry at only a quarter of a billion dollars or so.

However, this program, at this time, has the potential to represent extremely poor value for money for Australian taxpayers unless this process is brought back on track. The Senate is entitled to know what the government is doing to bring this process back on track. The answer given by Senator Conroy today to Senator Birmingham—and I used the word 'answer' advisedly—was one of the briefest answers provided to any question asked in this Senate throughout the entire year.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll take that as a compliment!

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

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the issue here is well understood. I think the background to it has been long deliberated over. There is an increasing need for an effective Australian presence in the international television market, particularly in Asia but also in the Middle East and North Africa, to which Senator Humphries referred so disparagingly.

For decades Radio Australia has carried the flag for Australia internationally, but satellite television is now the dominant medium for hundreds of millions of people in countries where we need to project Australia's voice and a positive image of Australia. This is acutely in our commercial interests and our broader strategic interests, and should be something about which we are all in furious agreement. But, alas.

In November 2010 the government announced an open tender process for the rights to conduct Australia's international TV operation for the next decade, for a maximum of $223 million over 10 years. Now, Senator Humphries referred to the tender 'only' being worth $223 million—and well he might, when he and his colleagues sitting over there work out that their $70 billion black hole has, by virtue of some announcements last week, become a $72 billion black hole. So for them it is a mere $223 million over 10 years. But let us be very clear: this is an important project; it is a project of national significance. It is a project that Senator Conroy and the government are playing very close and attentive care to.

In June this year, the government announced an extension to the existing Australia Network contract while additional information was sought from tenderers. In the light of changed international circumstances since the original tender was issued, the government decided that national interests should be addressed more broadly. Tenderers were asked to submit amended bids to explain how their operation of the Australia Network service would meet Australia's national interests in the light of the increasing influences of key emerging markets on the global economy and the significant political transformation occurring across the Middle East and North Africa together with the need, identified during recent consular crises, for strengthened associated information services through a range of sources.

This is all common sense. Those opposite might try to pretend that sweeping events such as those that have recently taken place in North Africa and the Middle East are of no account but this government does not agree. Now that process proceeded smoothly until recently. But unfortunately, as Senator Conroy explained very clearly yesterday, significant leaks of confidential information to the media have taken place. As a consequence, the tender process has been compromised. It has been compromised to a degree that the government decided, quite reasonably, that a fair and equitable outcome could no longer be achieved.

That is what it means, Senator Humphries, to manage a proper and appropriate tendering process. The sorts of leaks that have occurred in recent times were believed by the government to have compromised the process. As a result the government took the decision that it was in the best interests of both tender parties and the government that the process be terminated. The government has asked that the Australian Federal Police investigate these leaks. That is not a decision that has been taken lightly. The government believes that the advice received about the tender process left it with no other option.

The government is extremely disappointed that those leaks have occurred and that the process has been compromised. It is not something we are celebrating, Senator Humphries. And it is something that you should not be celebrating either. This was a significant commercial contract. As Senator Humphries said, it is worth some $223 million of taxpayers money. And it was important that both cabinet and the general public should have confidence in the outcome and the process that gives rise to the outcome. To provide for the continuing operation of the Australia Network in the interim, the government has granted a six-month extension to the contract with the ABC, until August 2012. Those opposite, I note, have raised absolutely no concern as to how this very important service operates in the interim. But that is something the government has turned its mind to. This will ensure that there is no disruption to services and will allow the ABC the flexibility to book such things as satellite time and to maintain an ongoing service. Those opposite would seek to make cheap political points out of this because, of course, that is their want. However, I do note with great interest that the day after the carbon tax bills have gone through this place we are here debating this point. There is a creeping dread amongst those opposite that their negativity and their unrestrained— (Time expired)

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was an amazing speech we just heard from Senator Feeney on the motion to take note of answers relating to the Australia Network. One of the things that has been missing in this issue and in discussion over the last couple of days is information. All we have been told are vague outlines such as a tender was called and then earlier in the year it was abandoned, allegedly, because of matters to do with the Arab spring. Now, for the first time, Senator Feeney has given us a little bit of information about how and why that might have been relevant. Yes, Senator Feeney, you have done a good job and provided us with some more information.

Earlier this week we heard that a second tender had been withdrawn, applications had been cancelled and because of 'leaks' this matter was going to be referred to the Australian Federal Police. It is very interesting and very strange. I was on a program yesterday with Doug Cameron and he did not know anything about what might be happening. It is very intriguing to think that a tender for a broadcast service should be referred to the Federal Police. Now Senator Feeney has come forward and done what Senator Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, was apparently totally incapable of doing. He has referred to the fact that the government wants to extend the Australia Network television service to the Middle East and North Africa. Why is that such a secret? No-one else has said that and it is obviously not a secret. Yet the minister for communications was incapable of telling us that that was what was planned and that that was the issue. He is the minister and it is up to him to tell members of the parliament and the public in general what the issues were.

Senator Feeney said that the government now wants to do a much wider service, which is very interesting, but of course there are other issues. The Australia Network television service was run from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and I think the Minister for Foreign Affairs is a man called Kevin Rudd. Isn't it strange, as there is a little bit of tension going on about leadership and all that sort of thing? The Australia Network television service is obviously part of Australia's diplomatic amatorium. It conveys the message about our way of life and what is going on in Australia to the people of the Pacific and Asia. So it would seem quite reasonable and logical that responsibility for this service should rest with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, yet strangely enough it has been taken away from that department and put into the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy headed by Stephen Conroy.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Eggleston, you should refer to ministers by their correct titles.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do apologise, Mr Deputy President. Senator Conroy, we all know, is a great Australian. I am sure he loves Australian Rules and I think he supports Geelong. It may be that his grand plan is to broadcast AFL not only to the Pacific and Asia but also to North Africa and the Middle East.

I suspect that is not really what it is all about at all. It would be interesting and very Australian if it were. I suspect it is really all about internal divisions within the government. This whole thing is symbolic of certain dissensions within the government and certain tensions. Julie Bishop, the opposition foreign affairs spokesman, said on a radio program that those sorts of issues might be more important in providing answers to what this is really all about. Ms Bishop called for an Auditor-General's report on this whole process, and I think that would be very interesting to see.

As I said at the beginning, it is very curious that somebody like Senator Feeney should be the person to convey to the Australian parliament the fact that the Australian government has decided to broaden the requirements for the tender for the Australia Network television service. I can only say that, if a junior is the person who conveys such an important message, I just wonder what is really going on in the ranks of the government.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was an interesting if not strange contribution by Senator Eggleston to the motion to take note of answers on the Australia Network. He has challenged me to look up when I get back to my office what diplomatic amatorium actually means. I have never heard that terminology used before, but I am sure it has a meaning relevant to what he was talking about. I should put on the record very clearly, because it may offend the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, that he is actually a Collingwood supporter and not a Geelong supporter. That was only one of the very many inaccuracies of your contribution, Senator Eggleston.

I was a little bit bemused with your suggestion that, no matter how talented Senator Conroy is, his talent should extend to being able to guess what you are thinking and then, in answering a question from another senator, also answer the question that you have been thinking ought to be answered. I do accept that Senator Conroy is very talented, but to simply be able to guess what you are thinking at any particular point in time and then respond to that in question time I think is really drawing a very, very long bow.

Senator Conroy has provided a substantial amount of information to the Senate over the last couple of days, and he has answered the very questions that have been asked of him. But one of the key elements, of course, is that the AFP have been requested to investigate the nature of the leaks, which has then led to the termination of the tendering process. Again, I find it a little bit strange that the opposition is so determined to sabotage any potential investigation by the Federal Police into this matter by seeking all sorts of information about what led the government to terminate the contracts, which are the very things that the Australian Federal Police have been asked to investigate. It is standard practice in this chamber that, when there are those sorts of investigations, senators should not seek the details that will be the subject of the investigation. We are not a body that is suited to doing those sorts of investigations; the Australian Federal Police are. They ought to be allowed to get on with the job of conducting those investigations and ought not to be impeded by the Senate when doing so. I think it is a little bit passing strange that the opposition seeks to do that.

Just in case you are unaware of how important this is, the government is very concerned about what has happened, because the Australia Network is a core element of Australia's overseas broadcasting network and a major public diplomacy platform. It is important for Australia and it is important that this is done right. I am sure, Senator Eggleston, you would agree with me that whenever public moneys are being awarded, whenever government contracts are being awarded, probity has to be front and centre. Probity is absolutely crucial when the government is going through these processes. These processes have to have the confidence of the community. Clearly, this process has lost, firstly, the confidence of the government, which has terminated it, and, naturally, the confidence of the community. The government acted absolutely appropriately in terminating the tendering process once the probity could not be secured.

We know—and I am sure Senator Eggleston, who has been involved in many Senate committees where we have looked at the probity of awarding different contracts, knows—that the government has in place what some people would consider quite extraordinary levels of checking, balancing and challenging the probity of contracts and the awarding of contracts every step of the way. This is obviously no different. But of course, if information has been leaked from the tendering process that had the potential to influence the outcome of that tendering process, it is absolutely appropriate for the government to terminate that tendering process and, to reflect the serious nature of this, refer these matters to the Australian Federal Police. And that is exactly what the minister has done.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address the answer that was given to Senator Birmingham's question about the Australia Network tender. I would like to start with purpose. That is one area where I do agree with members of the government and members on my own side about the importance of the Australia Network as an important tool in Australia's diplomacy and representing aspects of Australian culture and values in regions around the world—although, having had a look at the program guide for the Australia Network, I am not actually sure how much Home and Away adds to the world's true understanding of Australia.

One of the other aspects I wish to address, though, is the commentary that has come from some members, particularly in the Greens, that the ABC are the only people who should be able to provide this service. If you go back in the history of the Australia Network, you will see that it was run by the Channel 7 network from the late 1990s until 2002 as a function of tendering processes. It was run quite successfully during that period, as it has been by the ABC, which goes to show that there are many options for the provision of services.

The present issue is not so much about the service or the value that it adds to our diplomatic effort or to communicating about Australia's value; it goes to the heart of competence, or lack thereof, in this government. The responsibility for assessing this rested with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They set up an expert panel, and that expert panel twice delivered a decision to government that the government clearly did not like. Now, if the government decides that it wants to have the final say on who is going to provide this service, whether for ideological reasons or for practical reasons, it is completely within its remit to set up an appropriate process to get that outcome. It is, at the end of the day, the executive government.

But one of the areas where this government shows a complete lack of competence is the understanding of the impact of government decisions and government policy on people and companies in the real world. There were two tender processes. The focus here has been very much on the fact that the department has run a tender process twice. In the real world, that means that there are people, there are companies, who are expending money to develop a bid under a tender process to bring staff onto a team or to hold staff in expectation of a decision being made so that they can deliver a service. That is not free. That costs money. And it goes to the lack of competence of this government that ministers do not understand the implications of their decisions and their delays, their procrastinations, their petty internal wranglings, on real-world companies and people who have to be concerned with profit and loss and cash flow, which are the things that directly impact on their ability to employ people. And it is the employment of people that provides certainty, growth in our economy, homes, education and opportunities for young families.

The incompetence of this government is not just on display here. We have spent this morning debating the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011. Back in August, I asked Senator Carr why anyone should have confidence in the decision that he had made about support for the steel industry when steel industry leaders were saying that the government shows a complete ignorance on manufacturing, does not want to listen, is engaged with economic vandalism and does not care whether there are manufacturing jobs in Australia. I was asking him about the steel industry advocate and why the government had not filled that position in eight months. Lo and behold, they then filled it. But we are talking today about further support of the steel industry. Why? Because of the carbon tax—another decision the government has taken which undermines the viability of business and manufacturing in this country, which are the very things that deliver jobs.

It is not only in these industries. If you look at the defence industry, particularly in South Australia, people are very concerned around the fact that this government's procrastination around tenders—its inability to make decisions and approve projects—is so blocking the flow of work to companies that they are bleeding skills at a rapid rate and people are concerned that we will see a significant downgrade in Australia's defence capability through its lack of defence industry due solely to the incompetence of this government, which cannot run tender processes and approve projects. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.