Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 72nd annual report of the committee and also the committee’s first report for 2009, relating to the Enhanced Land Force Stage 1 Facilities Project.

Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.

by leave—The annual report, as the House would be aware, is required by the Public Works Committee Act and outlines the committee’s work over the calendar year 2008. In total, over the course of that year, the committee investigated 19 proposals totalling $1.8 billion and recommended those proposals to the House. The committee was also notified of 63 works under the threshold limit of $15 million—known as medium works—for investigation that totalled $330 million of expenditure.

The annual report is a slim, attractive volume, which only outlines some of the issues that arose for the committee during the course of the year. That is because the public information presented to the committee, at its many public hearings and through the written submissions provided to it, is widely available, particularly through the committee’s website, which is well advertised on the APH website. For that reason we have not reported in great detail the various inquiries conducted by the committee and instead have redirected people who want more detail on those inquiries to our website.

I also table the committee’s first report for calendar year 2009 on the Enhanced Land Force Stage 1 Facilities Project. This project is particularly dear to the heart of the member for Herbert, I am sure, given that the vast bulk of it occurs in Townsville. The project is proposed by the Department of Defence and is valued at $793 million, with construction taking place at 11 locations around Australia, with nearly half of that expenditure occurring in Townsville. The project flows from the Enhanced Land Force strategy for the defence forces commenced by the previous government and adopted by the new Rudd Labor government. It will see the ADF increase by about 3,000 personnel by the time of its completion, through a range of initiatives, one of which—the Hardened and Networked Army initiative, the HNA initiative, at Edinburgh—was considered by the Public Works Committee last week. That would see the 7RAR Battalion relocated from Darwin to Adelaide after being converted to the 2nd Mechanised Battalion. This particular project deals with another aspect of the ELF initiative, particularly the relocation of 3RAR from Sydney to Townsville and its conversion from a parachute battalion to a light infantry battalion, as well as the expansion of a number of training and airlift facilities around Australia to take account of the significant increase in ADF numbers.

The committee has recommended that the House agree to the project proceeding as a significant project for the Australian Defence Force and as a project that will provide employment in many regional areas during construction. The statutory criteria under the Public Works Act are clearly satisfied, and we recommend that the project proceed as quickly as possible.

I would like to thank all members and senators on the committee for their work in relation to the ELF Stage 1 inquiry, and particularly my Deputy Chair, Senator Troeth. At the occasion of presenting the annual report for 2008 it is also important that I place on record the gratitude of the committee for the secretariat support that this committee receives week in and week out. It is a very hardworking committee that is required to travel widely around Australia to consider various capital works projects proposed by the executive government. On behalf of the committee, I place on record our gratitude to James Catchpole, the secretary of the committee; Siobhan Leyne, the inquiry secretary, who makes these things tick; and also other staff of the committee: Narelle McGlusky, Gaye Milner and Tarran Snape.

I commend both reports to the House.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to 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.