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 answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans) and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the Australian Labor Party and to the Australia Network tender process.

In regard to the Australia Network contract, what we are witnessing at present is a textbook cover-up of a corrupted process by a government mired in a dodgy and dirty deal. What we have seen is a three-step move to conceal the facts behind the scandal that is plaguing this $223 million corrupted tender for the Australia Network. Chapter 1 of the textbook cover-up that the government is engaged in is to claim that everything associated with the tender—the now extinguished tender—remains confidential, not simply the purely commercially confidential material of the tenderers. Chapter 2 of the cover-up is to seek legal advice, to selectively quote from that legal advice and to justify their changed position as a result of that legal advice but to refuse to release the full legal advice for proper public and parliamentary scrutiny. Chapter 3 of this cover-up has been to refer certain allegations to the Australian Federal Police but to refuse to detail what those allegations are and to refuse to answer any further questions on the matter because of the police investigation and referral. This is a trifecta of cover-up tactics by this government over this dodgy contract deal. Firstly, they are hiding behind the tender; secondly, they are hiding behind the legal advice; and, thirdly, they are hiding behind the police investigation. Clearly, they have a lot to hide.

Despite the textbook cover-up, the more Senator Conroy talks about this Australia Network contract, the bigger the hole he digs for himself. On Tuesday, he told the Senate that the advice from the Australian Government Solicitor was that 'it was open to the government to decide' the way forward on the basis of the advice and how the tender may or may not proceed from there. Yet today in response to questions he said that as a result of the Australian Government Solicitor's advice it was 'completely untenable' to proceed with the tender. Which is it? Was it completely untenable or was it open to the government to decide a way forward? If what he said on Tuesday is correct and truthful then in fact the government had the opportunity to find a pathway to finalise this tender process rather than, as he is claiming now, it being completely untenable to do so.

Despite this textbook cover-up, the more Senator Conroy talks the more he exposes how it is the dysfunctionality of this government that has corrupted this tender process to the core. Today what he has revealed is that, in referring these allegations—whatever they may be; he has failed to detail them—to the Australian Federal Police, he informed two offices. He informed the office of the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard; and the office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Swan. What is notable is who he did not inform or advise. He did not inform the minister responsible for the first half of the period of this tender process. He did not inform the minister responsible for the department that has managed this tender process throughout its entire existence and has always managed the funding. Who would it be that he did not inform? Of course it would be the former Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Rudd—the foreign minister, who was stripped of responsibility for this tender by Prime Minister Gillard because she did not trust him or did not like the result that he was trying to engineer. The foreign minister, who should rightly have oversight of a tender for a diplomatic service such as this, has instead been kept in the dark and fed you-know-what by the government, by Senator Conroy and by the Prime Minister because they do not trust him.

The result has been that a $230 million tender has gone off the rails. The result is wasted expenses for the taxpayer money and wasted time for the tendering parties—the ABC and Sky News—and, of course, the many staff at the ABC who have now been hanging in limbo for 12 months trying to get finalisation of this. There is only one way for the government to remove the stench hovering over it in regard to this Australia Network contract. Today, Senator Conroy should write to the Auditor-General and invite him to thoroughly scrutinise every aspect of this corrupted process.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's take this opportunity to reiterate some of the facts about this. I know Senator Conroy has answered some extensive questions during the most recent estimates process regarding this. The Australia Network is a core element, as we all know, of our overseas broadcasting network, and it is a major public diplomacy platform. It makes a significant contribution, as we know, to the promotion and protection of Australia's national interests.

Let's go to the tender process. It was terminated, as Senator Conroy has said a number of times, including again today, on legal advice that it was compromised by the leaking of information confidential to the process. We know that at all times, though, this government has acted within the terms and conditions of the tender process—no more or no less than the opposition have done in government and would do again, no doubt, if they ever got a chance to be in government again.

For the benefit of the Senate I think it is worth explaining that the Australia Network has come to this point under the absolute propriety of the government's actions at every stage of the process. The government announced that it would conduct an open tender process, as we all know, for the Australia Network in November last year and, as is the normal practice in these matters, placed an official publication notice of the tender on AusTender on 4 February this year. Tenderers were given until 25 March to respond. They were considered by an independent panel of government officials, a process which, again, is normal practice for such a large tender, and it took several months.

Despite the assertions of the opposition Senator Conroy, as I understand it, has said repeatedly that he had no involvement in the development of the ABC's bid during this time and nor was he briefed on it—

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

He said it was a 'fine bid'!

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, it was a fine bid. The ABC's bid was strong—

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

How do you know? You weren't there.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I already know—and you know as well, Senator Birmingham—at the estimates committee he was quite forthright in providing that advice to the estimates committee when questioned about it.

During the period between the government's initial decision to put the Australia Network to an open tender and the finalisation of the independent panel's deliberations, we saw a significant number of international changes take place. There was significant political transformation across the Middle East and North Africa. A number of consular crises also underlined the importance of ensuring strengthened information services would be available from a range of sources. Consistent with this view, the Australia Network was a matter of national importance—as it has been and continues to be—and the government wanted to ensure that the tenderer took account of these rapidly changing international events. And the government then announced that it would amend the Australia Network tender to add a selection criterion to cover these issues—not an unusual process at all, I would have said.

So, in taking this position, I am advised that the complete propriety of adding to the tender criteria was normal practice. As the opposition may or may not know, a media release to this effect was issued on 24 June this year and the amendment was placed publicly on the AusTender site on 8 July, with the two tenderers given until 27 July to provide additional information. The government also publicly announced at this time that, consistent with our view of the importance of the Australia Network and the expanded criteria for the tender, cabinet would in fact take the final decision on the tender. I understand that cabinet made a decision at that time and I am advised that Senator Conroy would be the approver for this purpose. The independent panel reconvened in August to consider the amended tender bids and provided an update report at the end of that month. So a two-month time frame in DFAT handling was entirely justifiable, as tenderers were given the opportunity to address the new criterion. And the tender evaluation board considered those responses.

So, as we move on with this time frame, as the opposition try to unpick what they think might be a story here, we lay more facts on the table for their consideration. Apparently, some elements of the independent panel's report, as we know, have now been leaked. The leaking of this information has, of course, compromised the process—as it would if any information were leaked under a tender process that might have been held during the Howard government years, or under any government's jurisdiction. Every government—previous governments and this government—would consider such a leak to be— (Time expired)

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This matter is extremely serious. There is only one way that a duly elected government in this country can do business and acquire non-government services, products, assets and work—and that is through a tender process. Without a tender process that is full and laden with integrity, government cannot function. The basic responsibility of every minister in our country, in our system, is to oversight and conduct a proper, fair, equitable, transparent, honest and decent tender process. This minister has failed not once, not twice but three times—he has completely botched tender processes. There are very few people in public life who can stand up and say that they have been directly responsible, through their fumbling of the ball, for costing the Australian taxpayer $30 million. Not many people can say that, but Minister Conroy has the ignominy of being able to proudly proclaim that he, through his own fumbling and incompetence, has lost $30 million in the failure of NBN mark I—as identified not by us in politics: the Australian National Audit Office have pinged him! He then dropped the ball on the $36 billion construction tender; it collapsed in April.

This tender is another classic example of his raging, glaring, naked incompetence. This man not only has mucked up a $223 million tender; he has done so whilst under the massive cloud of a conflict of interest. In discussing this contract in estimates he said, 'I have seen the ABC tender proposal; it is a fine tender.' If he knows it is 'a fine tender', when the Prime Minister gave him the guernsey to oversight this thing he should have said, 'Whoa, hold on; I am the responsible minister for the ABC.' But, no, his understanding of public policy responsibility is zero. He is the prince of dunderheads. He is functioning under the most glaring identifiable—

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

Senator Johnston, you probably need to withdraw that last remark. Thank you.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. He is functioning under the most fundamental and basic conflict of interest.

What do we see here? The government embarks upon advice contrary to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on this important tender. The government has refused to disclose the names of the members of the evaluation board who are adjudicating the tender. So they are not acting in accord with the government department's advice and they are not telling anybody who is making the decision. But the leaks tell us that on two occasions that independent board said, 'Give the contract to Sky.'

Why aren't they doing that? The answer is: because Sky is owned by the 'evil empire'—News Corporation. So, the Prime Minister has rolled her sleeves up and dived in and said, 'We are not going to give this tender contract to the evil empire. They are the bad guys. They are saying that we're doing terrible things like the carbon tax and the mining tax.' This is what this government has brought to the table—no integrity. Indeed, the Solicitor-General's advice that we have heard from the minister says it all: this contract has the potential to be tainted and corrupted.

But it does not stop there. Look along the front bench in both chambers. 'Tainted' and 'corrupted' are the two glaring words that come to mind when you look at these people. Not many ministers can stand in this place and say, 'I personally, of my own ability, have burnt $30 million of taxpayers' money,' but he can. He will go down in history as one of the great spendthrift incompetents. (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first question I ask myself about the opposition and their issue in regard to the tender process being stopped while the Australian Federal Police look into the leaks is: why would those opposite want to continue when they know that the process has been compromised? I cannot find an answer to that within my own mind. We know the process has been compromised. Senator Conroy has been very up front about it and very clear about it. So the process has been stopped and the AFP has been called in to investigate.

To me that is pretty easy to understand. But in question time we heard the opposition saying, 'Why isn't it continuing?' One would think, bearing in mind that every question they asked today was about the Australia Network tender process, that they had some vested interest in making sure the ABC did not win the tender. We know that many on the other side—I do not know if I could honestly say everyone, but certainly many on the other side—absolutely loathe the ABC. They come in and speak for 10 or 15 minutes at a time in a complete diatribe about how bad the ABC is. So I think there is a bit more to what the opposition are up to than they are letting on.

We all know that there is an increasing need for an effective Australian presence, particularly in Asia and also in the Middle East and North Africa. We all know that the Australia Network is a core element of our overseas broadcasting network. The other thing we all know is that satellite television is now the way hundreds of millions of people get their viewing and it is in these areas that they access the television. It is commercially sensible for Australia to be in there.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you know all of this, why do you have to read it?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not reading it. I am referring to a couple of dot points, because your side was so atrocious through question time. When I was sitting in my office earlier I watched a number of people on your side who allegedly were passionate about something and knew something about it but were reading their speeches. So don't come in here and try to score stupid points.

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

Order! Senator Bernardi, please cease interjecting. Senator Bilyk, please direct your remarks through the chair.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies to you, Mr Deputy President. I know that you are a very civil man, unlike quite a few others on the other side.

We know that satellite television is the way that many millions of people get to view their television these days, so it is very important that we get this process right. My colleague Senator Crossin was talking about the process before, and I will just reiterate it because those on the other side do not seem to be able to get it to sink in. In November 2010 the government announced the open tender process for the rights to conduct Australia's international TV operation for the next decade for a maximum of $223 million over the 10 years. I think I heard Senator Humphries say yesterday—if it is incorrect to attribute this to Senator Humphries, I apologise in advance—that he did not think that was that much money, or words to that effect. But $223 million of taxpayers' money is money that we are accountable for. So, in that accountability and responsibility process and in making sure that the taxpayers' money is spent appropriately, we have called in the AFP to investigate the leaks.

I do not know how much simpler it could be. I am happy to stand here for the next 50 seconds and keep saying it, but that is the simple issue around it. Tenders were submitted, as people know, and the process proceeded until quite recently, but there were significant leaks of confidential information to the media. So the tender process has been compromised, and compromised to such a degree that we obviously could not go forward. If we had gone forward once the process had been compromised, we would have had those on the other side all through question time today getting up asking questions about why we proceeded. We all know that all they want to do on that side of the chamber— (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given today by Ministers Conroy and Evans. Today we hear a sorry tale of conflicting advice, conflicting interests and conflicting ambitions. The decision to overturn years of practice when the previous government had just renewed the ABC's contract for the Australia Network saw the current government move to a process of open tender and to reject previous government practice. This government actively sought to go to an open tender process, so you would think they would know what it was about and have it all set out. They actively sought to change practice despite recommendations from DFAT, one of the key stakeholders in a well-functioning Australia Network, and which was so well prosecuted today by Senator Crossin. So against this background, against the advice of DFAT, the ALP government chose a process of open tender, a process which has seen deadline after deadline pass, to get to the point where the whole process has been ditched. It is so typical. If you do not like an answer, scrap it and start again. What a surprise from this government!

It goes to two core aspects of this government and how they conduct themselves in terms of their legislative agenda and practice. The first is incompetence. We see it time and time again in how they manage transparent processes, in how they manage public money and in how they choose to manage the Greens' heart's desire. The Greens' heart's desire in this particular sorry tale may have something to do with the fact that Senator Johnston mentioned which two companies were involved in the tender process rather than the actual details of the tender applications themselves. Secondly, I think the tender process failed probably because of the indecision that is endemic in this government. They are indecisive about their policy and they are indecisive about how and when they should act. There are plenty of examples.

They put the decision off because of international events is one of the arguments that the government have prosecuted. The first time they put it off because the international climate had changed. To my way of thinking, that would mean that the advice of DFAT was more important, not less, to feeding into the decision—but not on this matter. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, especially after some of the comments made by Senator Evans today, but maybe being a sceptic comes a little with the territory. Maybe it is less about the relevancy of DFAT as a key stakeholder in the Australia Network having input into the decision and more to do with who the minister in charge of that department is. I will leave that for other people to prosecute.

The second reason we rearranged the deckchairs on the Titanic and put off the decision again was leaks. So this government gets compromised by its own cabinet. The indecision and uncertainty continue with a Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy who shifts deadlines like deckchairs on the Titanic. It feeds into a general climate of uncertainty around this government—uncertainty with respect to financial management; uncertainty around how its climate change policy will actually affect climate change; uncertainty around jobs, particularly in regional areas; uncertainty of deadlines, of process and of advice. What this country needs is a cabinet that governs, a minister that has oversight and a government that makes decisions and takes action—a government that leads.

As my colleagues have prosecuted today, the answers given today during question time go to trust. It is crystal clear that trust is lacking in the political process in our nation. This entire debacle illustrates that cabinet does not trust itself, that those within the tender process have no reason to trust government deadlines and that the Australian people have every reason not to trust this government as they do not even trust themselves.

Question agreed to.