SENATE

Monday, 27 February 2017 Senate Page 25
sign-off on this. Do you have any concerns with what may be seen to be, on the face of it, an inherent conflict of
interest in DPS negotiating, in effect, with a direct competitor?
The President: No, I do not. In particular, the information that DPS may or may not garner from that
particular licensee would be kept in confidence. It cannot be used in a way that would give a competitive
advantage. In essence, all the Speaker and I ask of DPS is, if they possibly can, to break even in relation to the
costs to the Commonwealth in running the events and the catering inside Parliament House. Aussies is an
institution that will continue, I am sure, in its fine tradition of serving occupants of this building, and there is no
suggestion that we want to compete in any way, shape or form.
Senator XENOPHON: But they are competitors, Mr President.
The President: Just a moment. It is a unique business. Also, the Speaker and I have to take into account
recommendation No. 5 of the 24th report of 2014-15 of the Australian National Audit Office, which clearly
states—and I will read it into the record because I think it is very important in light of some of the questions:
To strengthen the management of retail licences, the ANAO recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
develops a retail strategy and operational plan that clarifies priorities for revenue generating opportunities and establishes a
clear basis for monitoring retailer performance
The Speaker and I, and the previous Speaker, have inherited a legacy issue of contracts not being properly
developed for many, many years. We have embarked on a program of tidying this whole process up so every
single occupant in the building who leases space from us is treated exactly the same, in a fair and equitable
manner. I will also stress that the document that you have been quoting from (a) is a draft document and (b) has
not been responded to by the licensee, or the proposed licensee. Also, the proposed licensee has had a very
generous offer of continuing in the current arrangements without competition, without competitive tender, until
2019. That is exceptionally fair over a long period of time, so I dismiss the arguments that the operator is
currently being treated poorly. The Speaker and I, in fact, have gone out of our way to ensure that this fairness has
stayed within the process until a competitive basis starts in 2019, rather than now.
Senator XENOPHON: In today's Australian Financial Review, Joe Aston reports that Kate Carnell, the small
business ombudsman, states that this 'appeared to be an "extremely unfair" licence agreement that she argued
would never be tolerated in the private sector'. She said:
While they're not bound to do so, I call on all government departments to lead by example and ensure their contractual
agreements with small businesses aren't at odds with legislation outlawing unfair 'take it or leave it' contract terms.
The President: I have read that report in the media and my understanding is that it was a one-sided view
presented to the Ombudsman and that the other point of view has been put since that report. That is my
understanding and the secretary may wish to clarify.
Senator XENOPHON: Just two more questions, if I may. In relation to laws in terms of substantial misuse of
market power is there and exemption that applies? I should know this but I do not. Are competition laws
applicable in this building to the decisions made by the department or not, or is there an exemption?
The President: I assume they would be, but, even if they are not, the spirit in any way to conduct business
would be to the fair, and that is exactly what the Speaker and I would insist upon—total fairness. In fact I think
we have demonstrated above and beyond fairness.
Senator XENOPHON: Can we go, finally, to clause 15 of the draft agreement under 'Business name' which
states: 'The licensee must not', under point (1), 'use a business name', or (2), 'include a word or phrase in their
business name if notified by the licence or presiding officers that they must not use that business name or include
that word or phrase in their business name.' Does that mean that if there is a sign, the department would be in a
position to say, 'You can no longer call it Aussies,' because, on the plain reading of it, that seems to me to be what
it says?
Mr Stefanic: Senator, I advised what the intent of that provision was. If Mr Calabria wants that clarified I
would be more than happy to do so.
Senator XENOPHON: Can you clarify it for this committee? Can he continue using the name Aussies?
Mr Stefanic: Yes, he can. We would not seek to remove or in any way interfere with his right to use the name
Aussies.
Senator XENOPHON: Because it is a registered business name.
Mr Stefanic: Well, I am not sure if it is actually.
Senator XENOPHON: I believe it is. Finally where are we up to with negotiations? Are you still negotiating
with them?
FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE