THE failure of the federal government’s Department of Social Services (DSS) tendering process in 2014 has been slammed by a Senate Committee, but defended by the proudly ultra-conservative Senator, Zed Seselja.

The ACT Senator defends the government in a dissenting report on the grounds of the “partisan, self-serving nature of the committee’s interim and final reports”.

This was reinforced with an explanation with such pride by the Senator on ABC 666 that the party remained overwhelmingly conservative.

The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs found the tendering process deployed by the DSS in 2014 was “poorly planned, hurriedly implemented, and resulted in a loss of services”. It further identified the extent of the cuts of $270 million over four years meant that many people who were vulnerable and in need were left without critical support and services around the country.

The report is timely with the Department of Health now under way with a similar tender process for funding of peak bodies through the health flexible funds. This follows an announcement of nearly $800million cut to the funds over the next four years. The process is modelled on that used by the DSS in 2014, right down to some inappropriate templates taken directly from the now discredited process.

Seselja may support the cuts and the process but Cassandra Goldie, the CEO of the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) tweeted: “Report confirms the Cth tendering process of community services ‘was the worst of its kind in living memory’”.

The view of ACOSS supports the comments of the committee chair, WA Greens Senator Rachel Siewert: “The committee has concerns that the government’s express goals of innovative service delivery and improved outcomes for service users have actually been hindered as a result of the way that the tendering process was designed and executed.”

However, Seselja still defends the government.

It raises the questions about whether his attitude, and that of the other reactionaries like him, is really going to change under the new leadership of Turnbull.

Similarly, is the change about putting up with Malcolm as they could see an electoral disaster looming? The latter will tarnish the reputation of the new Prime Minister as we have already seen as he buckled on climate change and marriage equality.

If Turnbull’s consultative approach results in the same level of conservatism that Seselja would like to see implemented, the party will inexorably slip back in the polls. What then?

Unfortunately, the conservative nature of the government has meant it has not provided the needed assistance to those who help the needy “community service organisations should not always be reliant on enduring government funding to maintain the stability of the sector”. Although “the government is committed to a continuing grants program that supports community organisations in providing necessary services”, Senators Seselja supports slashing sector by $250 million.

Labor argues that the loss of Tony Abbott will have little impact. The Leader of the Opposition asked the first question on the Wednesday after the new Prime Minister was sworn in.

It frames the picture created by Senator Seselja and his conservative colleagues. The question was: “Given that, just in the last 24 hours, the Prime Minister has sold out on climate change, marriage equality, renewable energy and the Murray-Darling, what other government policy is the Prime Minister willing to sell out to appease his personal ambition?”

It remains to be seen if Turnbull will be able to stand up to the unpopular agenda of the ultra-conservatives within his party.