❓ Opposition questions the Premier about awarding a $136 million contract to Huawei without cabinet approval, citing national security concerns. The Premier defends the decision, stating the process was followed correctly and federal security agencies raised no concerns.
AnsweredQoN 505Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS — HUAWEI
505. Dr M.D. NAHAN to the Premier:
Firstly, I would like to give my condolences to the Minister
for Transport and her extended family for the passing of her father. Secondly,
I would like to acknowledge the new member for Darling Range, Alyssa Hayden.
Can the Premier explain to the house why a $136 million
contract was awarded to the Chinese company Huawei without it going to cabinet
and why cabinet was not made aware of or given an opportunity to consider the
significant national security concerns raised by Australian security agencies
in respect of the contract?
505. Dr M.D. NAHAN to the Premier:
Firstly, I would like to give my condolences to the Minister
for Transport and her extended family for the passing of her father. Secondly,
I would like to acknowledge the new member for Darling Range, Alyssa Hayden.
Can the Premier explain to the house why a $136 million
contract was awarded to the Chinese company Huawei without it going to cabinet
and why cabinet was not made aware of or given an opportunity to consider the
significant national security concerns raised by Australian security agencies
in respect of the contract?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I understand
that the Liberal Party has been seeking to make some political mileage out of
this in recent weeks, so I will explain to the house exactly what has occurred.
A contract and a tender were issued in relation to the communications between
the Public Transport Authority and train drivers. The reason that has been done
is that the old analogue communication network between the authority—the
headquarters of the trains—and the train drivers will close in 2020 and
therefore we are required to go to a digital network. The government issued a tender.
It made the decision to provide the budget for the tender and also to upgrade
the communications system, which is obviously needed because the analogue
system will close. There were five tenderers, none of which was Australian.
However, a number of them, if not all of them—I am not sure—had
Australian partners as part of the tendering process. The successful tenderer—it
was not part of a political deliberation, but was a deliberation by the PTA
using its normal processes—was Huawei. Recognising that Huawei is an
overseas company and there had been some controversy around Huawei, we then
sought some advice from the Department of Home Affairs, which is the national
body that provides advice on these sorts of telecommunications matters. The
advice that came to the Western Australian government was that there were no
security concerns. We accepted that advice; in fact, we queried it and we
queried it verbally. On three separate occasions, the advice that came to us was
that there were no security concerns.
Why did the contract not go to
cabinet? I do not think—it did not happen under the previous government—that
ministers should pick and choose which company wins a contract. Which company
wins a contract is a matter of extraordinary probity. We do not think—it
did not happen under the former government or any government as far as I am
aware—that politicians should sit and pick and choose which company
wins a contract. There is a formal process and ministers are excluded from
that. Prior to that, we issued the authority for the contract to be issued and
we issued the budget for it to be put in place. I realise that the Liberal
Party thinks it is trying to cause some political advantage to itself out of
this. Frankly, it would have been inappropriate and wrong for the government
not to award the contract to the best tenderer when no security concerns were
advised by the federal government.
that the Liberal Party has been seeking to make some political mileage out of
this in recent weeks, so I will explain to the house exactly what has occurred.
A contract and a tender were issued in relation to the communications between
the Public Transport Authority and train drivers. The reason that has been done
is that the old analogue communication network between the authority—the
headquarters of the trains—and the train drivers will close in 2020 and
therefore we are required to go to a digital network. The government issued a tender.
It made the decision to provide the budget for the tender and also to upgrade
the communications system, which is obviously needed because the analogue
system will close. There were five tenderers, none of which was Australian.
However, a number of them, if not all of them—I am not sure—had
Australian partners as part of the tendering process. The successful tenderer—it
was not part of a political deliberation, but was a deliberation by the PTA
using its normal processes—was Huawei. Recognising that Huawei is an
overseas company and there had been some controversy around Huawei, we then
sought some advice from the Department of Home Affairs, which is the national
body that provides advice on these sorts of telecommunications matters. The
advice that came to the Western Australian government was that there were no
security concerns. We accepted that advice; in fact, we queried it and we
queried it verbally. On three separate occasions, the advice that came to us was
that there were no security concerns.
Why did the contract not go to
cabinet? I do not think—it did not happen under the previous government—that
ministers should pick and choose which company wins a contract. Which company
wins a contract is a matter of extraordinary probity. We do not think—it
did not happen under the former government or any government as far as I am
aware—that politicians should sit and pick and choose which company
wins a contract. There is a formal process and ministers are excluded from
that. Prior to that, we issued the authority for the contract to be issued and
we issued the budget for it to be put in place. I realise that the Liberal
Party thinks it is trying to cause some political advantage to itself out of
this. Frankly, it would have been inappropriate and wrong for the government
not to award the contract to the best tenderer when no security concerns were
advised by the federal government.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.