Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers to questions asked by Senator Wong to Senator Johnston. Senator Johnston made a couple of remarks in his replies, and one was about the 'capability gap'. You would have to be quite far away from a newspaper, a radio station, a talkback journalist or a politician not to realise that there are serious questions about Senator Johnston's capability and whether he has a capability gap, whether he is actually in charge of his portfolio and in charge of his processes.

He was asked to reply to the statement made by the Treasurer this morning ruling out an open competitive tender in the purchase of Australia's defence capability in submarines. His answer was, 'It will all be aboveboard and according to Hoyle.' Well 'aboveboard', if you have a bit of a google, means open and transparent. I would have thought that would apply to a competitive tender with intense competitive pressure from various nations with the capability, including the ability for, most importantly, South Australian operations to compete. Given that the Liberal Party, allegedly, are the party of free enterprise and competition, I would have thought that they would have welcomed an open and transparent process, including a competitive tender. He went on to say 'and according to Hoyle'. Hoyle, I think, was the expert on the rules of cards. So really they have not delivered 'aboveboard and according to Hoyle'. They have actually ruled out a competitive tender.

May we ask the question: why? There are some who suggest that it has something to do with the early completion of the Japan-Australia free trade agreement. Was there a second deal in that treaty—one that the Australian population is not aware of? Was consideration given to an earlier resolution in that treaty with the inclusion of, 'We'll buy your submarines'? Was that the case? If the minister is absolutely correct that it is aboveboard, according to Hoyle, a second pass process and no decision has been made, why did the Treasurer say, 'I categorically rule out a competitive tender process'?

There are a number of South Australian senators who would probably support me, and they are not on this side of the chamber. There are probably a number of South Australian members of parliament who would be asking much the same questions of this government as we have. Senator Fawcett, Senator Ruston, Senator Birmingham, Senator Edwards, the member for Hindmarsh, the member for Sturt and the member for Boothby—all Liberal members of parliament—are on the record questioning the capability of this minister.

As I said at the outset, is the capability gap that he is referring to in his own operation of his department? Is his office where there is a lack of capability? Are they incapable and unable to stand up to the Prime Minister's office? Is there a deal here that the Australian public know nothing about? In an early and prompt conclusion of the Japan-Australia free trade agreement was a side deal done? Was there some other arrangement made—a nod and a wink: 'Don't you worry about that. We'll buy your submarines. Just get this paperwork signed'? South Australians need to know.

There are a few in that group of Liberals who have a shiver running up their spine, because the attitude of all South Australians is that we are a defence state, we have capable people, we have many businesses investing many millions of dollars and there are many small businesses who rely on those workers and the ancillary flow-on effects in the economy. As I have said repeatedly, it is widely held and deeply felt that we need to build the submarines in South Australia. The disgraceful situation, as we heard early this morning, is that we are not even going to be allowed to tender. The Treasurer of this country said that we are not even going to be allowed to tender. The minister stumbles and mumbles about a capability gap and it being aboveboard and according to Hoyle, but it looks like a deal has been done.