Senate debates
Tuesday, 18 November 2014
Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers
Defence Procurement
3:12 pm
Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source
I will start by following on from Senator Ketter's comments. I do not think he quite understands the point we were making in the dissenting report. It is not that the coalition senators were against competitive tendering per se; it is just that those on other side are very naive about how contracting works in these situations.
All they are arguing for is competitive tendering now, before a contractor signs; they are seemingly not concerned with what happens after a contract is signed. That is sometimes more important in situations such as this when you are looking at multibillion dollar deals—very complex and technical information. You must be sure about creating that competitive tension, or some kind of cooperative arrangement after a contract is signed. The majority report is silent on those issues.
Clearly the other side do not get these issues. I note that Senator Conroy was saying that it would be a national disgrace if we followed our approach. But the only disgrace would be if we continued on with their approach. The Labor Party's approach was to cut the budget of Defence by $16 billion. The Labor Party's approach was to do nothing on these decisions for years, to make no decisions. In the evidence we got in the committee, the Labor Party made a big deal that they would spend millions of dollars on the submarine project, and all that did was create reports; more and more reports but no decisions on submarines needed for our future defence needs.
Senator Ketter said there was some contradiction in the government senators' report. Actually I think there is a glaring contradiction in the majority senators' report. We just heard from Senators Conroy and Ketter how we need to have this 'open and competitive tender process'. And Senator Conroy is nodding—we need an open process. On page XIV, of their report it says:
Given the evidence provided to the committee, particularly in relation to the inadequacy of the current Japanese Soryu submarine to meet Australia's needs, there does not appear to be any benefit in reopening this option for further consideration.
So they have decided. We have decided—
No comments