For and against an ABC-run Australia Network

On Monday night the Federal Government killed off the tender process for the Australia Network contract.

But debate continues over who should host the service;  should it be maintained by the public broadcaster, or should commercial media have the same opportunity?

Despite today's hoopla surrounding the Australia Network, the Government was right to go to tender and should have given the contract to the most competitive bidder -- Sky News.

The late announcement of the cancellation of the calamitous Australia Network tender process may have been justified by Stephen Conroy because of leaks to The Australian.  But few would buy it.

The earlier transfer of the tender process from Kevin Rudd to Stephen Conroy was the first clear sign that the Government was never going to let Sky win.  And that meant twice rejecting the recommendations of an ''independent'' government panel against Aunty.

In response to the debacle Greens Communications spokesperson, Scott Ludlam, argued ''the idea that a commercial identity could replace Australia's interests and culture in this region better than the ABC -- our national broadcaster -- was really misguided''.

His proposition is absurd.

First, the Government was right to tender out the contract to extract the maximum value from the different bidders.  Even if the government was always going to unfairly give the contract to the ABC they're still likely to get better value for our taxpayer buck through a competitive tender process.

Second, Ludlam assumes the ABC is best capable of carrying Australia's message to the region.  That's doubtful.

The Australia Network is not a logical extension of the ABC's local programming.

In the lead up to the tender the ABC pulled a sneaky punch trying to merge their mandated delivery of Radio Australia with the Australia Network.  It would have made it impossible for Sky News to bid since it cannot deliver Radio Australia.

But according to reports the competitive edge Sky News has over the ABC came from its successful negotiations with the Chinese CCTV state broadcaster to carry the Australia Network into the People's Republic.  And as part of that deal Foxtel will allow Chinese Communist propaganda to be made available for broadcast through our airwaves.

There are legitimate questions about the merits of that deal.  But it points to a highly significant and relevant structural problem with the ABC bidding for the Australia Network contract in the first place.

The Australia Network contract is part of Australia's suite of soft power public diplomacy.

The Howard government's 2007 foreign affairs and trade In the National Interest white paper described public diplomacy as a ''diplomacy which operates in that area of intersection between the soft realm of image and the hard edge of a country's economic and political interests''.

The title of the white paper perfectly encapsulates the objective of the Australia Network -- to promote our national interest.

And that isn't necessarily achieved by broadcasting Monday night's Q&A bunfight to Jakarta.

In his 2009 Bruce Allen memorial lecture ABC Managing Director Mark Scott highlighted the contradiction between the ABC's public broadcaster role and the Australia Network's pseudo-state broadcaster role.  In his lecture Scott extolled that the ABC ''insisted that the service [Radio Australia] could not exist as a mouthpiece of government ... [and] that tradition endures''.

Leaving aside views about the cultural left-wing bias that extends within the organisation, the ABC isn't charged with being a state broadcaster.  It's a public broadcaster.  The former pushes the government line.  The latter informs the public.

Yet the ABC shares a large component of its domestic-targeted news and current affairs programming on the Network including programs like ABC News Breakfast and even the Gruen Transfer.

Despite the quality of the programming, it's highly debatable that pushing some of those programs advances our soft power national interests.

For a 2007 senate inquiry into Australia's public diplomacy program my submission The Values Deficit included a content analysis of the programs the network broadcasts, rating them against the Australian values of a liberal democracy, human rights and free markets.

Based on the analysis the programs only sent out positive messages on one category -- liberal democracy.  By comparison most programs were values-neutral on human rights and there was not a single supportive message of free markets.

But for the ABC to share content on the Australia Network to meet our values-driven public diplomacy objectives it would be required to compromise its neutral role.  That wouldn't be good for the ABC.

Irrespective, the ABC should be allowed to bid if they can find a way to achieve these twin objectives required of them to deliver the contract.  It would be a considerable challenge.

But nostalgia for ABC delivery should not factor into who wins the contact.  That should be made based on the value of the bids.  Based on all ''leaked'' reports, that's Sky News.