Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the amendment circulated in my name. The Minister for Defence's disgraceful slur against the ASC last week has cast a shadow over the entire Future Submarine project. The Senate needs to urgently address this issue and ensure that the ADF get the best possible submarine and that taxpayers' money is efficiently spent. Those are the two criteria, and they should be the only criteria when it comes to this Future Submarine project. The chamber must adopt this amendment because this project is too important to be left to this incompetent minister. The efficient conduct of government and the efficient allocation of resources should be at the forefront of every minister's mind, but that is clearly not the case with this minister.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said he wanted 'a really effective submarine at a fair price'. I have good news for the Prime Minister: we know how to make sure that that happens. Expert after expert told the Senate that the only way to get the best capability for the best price is to hold a competitive tender process with a funded project definition study. If the Prime Minister is serious about the Future Submarine project, he will tell his senators to support this amendment. He will tell his senators to help the minister to keep his promise to build 12 submarines in Adelaide. I do not have high hopes, though, as this government has been breaking and walking away from this promise since the day it got into government. I say to those opposite that you do not have to listen to me, but listen to experts like Dr John White, who told a Senate inquiry:

There are significant technical, commercial and capability gap risks invoked by prematurely and unilaterally committing to a preferred overseas, sole-source supplier.

Retired Rear Admiral Peter Briggs told the same inquiry that the only way to pick the best submarine:

… is to conduct a competitive project definition study where you can get the answers back to your top-level requirements …

In fact, the report of the Senate inquiry recommended:

The government … not enter into a contract for the future submarine project without conducting a competitive tender for the future submarines, including a funded project definition study.

This is what my amendment seeks to ensure.

All that we are looking to do is to ensure that the government uses the best process so that we can make sure that we get the best possible outcome. How can you oppose a competitive tender process? How can the Liberal Party—the party of free enterprise and competition—oppose an amendment like this? The government is standing in the way. We learnt earlier today that, despite all the evidence about the benefits of a competitive tender and despite knowing that there is still time to hold a competitive tender and avoid a capability gap—and that is what the experts said—the Treasurer of Australia, Mr Joe Hockey, has ruled out holding a competitive tender process. The party of free enterprise and competition and the chief spruiker of competition in this country, the Treasurer of Australia, say there is to be no competitive tender, despite the defence minister's frequent announcements that no decision has been made. The defence minister says there has been no decision but the Treasurer says there will be no competitive tender.

Let me make it clear: it would be an absolute scandal to award this contract without a proper, fair dinkum, competitive tender process with a funded project definition study. Do not take the weasel words we are hearing from the minister at the moment and do not take the weasel words we have been hearing from various officials. This amendment to the legislation would ensure that we get a proper process. Frankly, companies from around the world which are trying to be involved in this tender process are absolutely stunned by the behaviour of this government, the champions of free enterprise and competition. They have had to resort to putting in unsolicited bids from the big submarine companies telling the government that they can build 12 submarines for a very competitive price here in Australia.

French companies, German companies and Swedish companies have been so shocked by the conduct of this government that they have, publicly in some cases, put a bid into the public sphere saying, 'We can do this.' But is this government listening? No because it is becoming increasingly clear that they are hell-bent on their sweetheart deal with Japan. They are absolutely determined to deliver this contract to the Japanese submarine companies. We know this because we asked the minister just yesterday. His office, the Prime Minister's office and his department prepared press releases, talking points and information to announce the Japanese had won the bid. No-one in this chamber, when they vote on this, should think that there is a fair dinkum process being undertaken. This government has already made up its mind. It has already made its decision. Only this amendment will hold this government to account.

The government's outrageous bias against Australian manufacturers is getting in the way of good, sensible government. The defence minister's colleagues know this. That is why, when the minister announced to the Senate that he would not trust the ASC to build a canoe, they dropped him like a hot potato. They walked away from him. His colleagues told the media that the defence minister's statements were 'some of the most stupid words ever heard from a senior minister'. They knew he had blown the whistle on the scam, the pretence that they are going to hold a process. The Japanese have this in the bag. The Japanese know it. The Japanese President knows it. The American President knows it. The Prime Minister knows it. Those three people had a meeting just a few weeks ago at an economic summit where they discussed putting American war systems into the Japanese submarines to be built for Australia. This is a done deal. Only this amendment can give the best possible chance of getting the best submarine at the best price and built here in Australia.

This amendment should be supported because it will ensure that a proper and fair tender process is gone through before selecting a design and construction partner for the submarine project. This is not some new process we are talking about; this is the established process, the established best practice to get the best outcome for projects like the future submarines. Unfortunately, given the clear bias shown by the minister and the Treasurer's statements earlier today, it is clear the government will need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing . That is why this amendment should be supported and I commend it to the Senate and that is why any South Australian senator who comes into this chamber and votes with the government is betraying the people of South Australia who elected them. They were elected on the votes of people who believed that Tony Abbott and David Johnston would keep their promise to build 12 submarines in Australia.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that opposition amendment on sheet 7635 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.