Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—This report is very significant to Townsville. There is $385 million of infrastructure and other flow-on effects. There are a very large number of housing units that will be constructed in the city and also Single LEAP accommodation at Lavarack Barracks. It comes at a time when the economy is somewhat depressed and it will underpin a very vibrant construction industry in the city.

However, I have risen this morning specifically to alert the House, the committee and Defence on something that is perhaps most unsatisfactory. In the committee’s report that has been presented to the parliament today, Defence evidence to the committee is quoted in section 2.34:

All of these [ELF] locations are sophisticated regional centres—

of course, that is the case for Townsville—

and we anticipate that local companies will be very competitive just due to geography.

I think we all accept that. The comment goes on:

… and I can assure the committee that many local companies have registered interest in many of the construction packages.

I know that for a fact. The committee then responded by saying in section 2.35:

… the Committee also acknowledges the concerns of submitters regarding the importance of stimulating local economies and welcomes the levels of local employment expected by this proposal.

As a member of the committee, I certainly support that. However, concurrently with this approval process, Defence invited local contractors to register an interest in being invited to tender in relation to two of the packages. One was a $61 million to $76 million package in Townsville for base infrastructure and civil works. There were four companies invited to tender, three from Brisbane and only one from Townsville. In relation to the $19 million to $24 million Joint Logistics Unit North Queensland facilities, again, three out-of-town contractors were invited to submit a tender and only one local. More disappointing than that were these letters that I have received from a tenderer who did not get an invitation. This tenderer is the largest local builder in the city. He could easily do the job, he is fully qualified in everything required by the Commonwealth and Defence, but he did not even get an opportunity to tender.

Defence’s letter states:

Defence regrets to advise you that, following the evaluation of Registrations of Interest, your submission was not successful and you will not be invited to Tender for the role of Head Contractor.

I just ask Defence: how could you not invite the most capable tenderer in the city of Townsville to tender on some of these construction packages? Why did you invite somebody from Adelaide? Why did you invite somebody from Brisbane? It is our local people who deal with the local Defence Force. We are a garrison city. We live, work and play together. How could you not give the opportunity to tender to a clearly very capable business? Why did you just wipe them out? I put Defence on notice that I am extraordinarily angry that their actions were different to the evidence that they gave to the committee, and I put them on notice that the next time that Defence come before the committee—and that will happen with Enhanced Land Force Stage 2 later in the year—I will be expressing my concern about what they say to the committee and what they do in practice. I am very disappointed on behalf of our construction companies in Townsville and I think that all of us, particularly the government, will have the view that local contractors should have the opportunity to do Defence projects to protect local jobs.

See this speech in context