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

I move the following amendment in place of amendment (7):

(1) Page 25 (after line 29), after Schedule 3, insert:

Schedule 3A—Finance

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013

1 At the end of Division 2 of Part 4 -1A

  Add:

105BA Future submarine project tender process

(1) This section applies if the Commonwealth (including a Minister on behalf of the Commonwealth) proposes to enter into a contract (a submarine design and building contract) for the design and building of a submarine, or a substantial part of a submarine, as part of the future submarine project.

Note 1: The future submarine project is designated SEA 1000 in the Defence Capability Plan as in force on 1 December 2014.

Note 2: This section does not apply to contracts for research, concept or preliminary design, planning or other preparatory work that does not involve the building of a submarine or a substantial part of a submarine.

(2) The submarine design and building contract must not be entered into other than as the result of a limited tender process conducted in accordance with the Defence Procurement Policy Manual as in force on 1 December 2014, subject to this section.

Tender process

(3) The future submarine project is taken not to be an exempt procurement for the purposes of the Defence Procurement Policy Manual.

(4) A person or body is not eligible to bid for the tender unless the person or body gives the Commonwealth an undertaking that the submarine building, maintenance and sustainment will take place in Australia.

(5) The Commonwealth must not enter into a submarine design and building contract in relation to the future submarine project unless the Commonwealth is satisfied that the contract includes guarantees that:

  (a) the majority of work on the submarine build will be undertaken by Australian labour; and

  (b) the majority of the materials used in the submarine build will be sourced from Australian suppliers.

(6) This section ceases to have effect at the end of 30 June 2020.

This amendment is necessary, because much has changed in respect of the future submarine project since the Senate first passed amendment (7).

This revised amendment removes several of the procedural stipulations contained in the original, and replaces them with two simple requirements: (1) that our future submarines are built, maintained and sustained here in Australia; and (2) that both the majority of work and materials for the submarines are Australian-sourced.

It is unfortunate that it is necessary to move such an amendment to ensure that the Australian government does the right thing by Australia, that it does the right thing by Australian taxpayers, that it does the right thing by the Australian Defence Force, and that it does the right thing by Australian companies and Australian workers. It is unfortunate, but it is necessary.

It is necessary because much has changed since the Senate passed the original amendment. But one thing remains the same: Mr Abbott's unwavering desire to send our future submarines offshore; Mr Abbott's desire to keep his promise to the Japanese Prime Minister and to break his solemn election promise to the people of South Australia.

We have witnessed a litany of outrageous decisions and statements by the government and the Prime Minister that have put at risk our vital naval shipbuilding capacity, decisions that have resulted in over 1,000—let me repeat that: over 1,000—Australian jobs lost at shipwrights around the country, all on Mr Abbott's watch.

Who could forget Mr Abbott's decision to walk away from his government's pre-election promise to build 12 submarines in South Australia? Or Mr Abbott's decision to make a secret deal with Japanese Prime Minister Abe to send our submarine construction offshore to Japan, where the Japanese will have to build an entire new shipyard. But even then, that was not enough! Mr Abbott decided to exclude—to actually, specifically and legally exclude—Australia's shipyards and Australian workers from tendering for Navy's new supply ships.

As if that were not enough, Mr Abbott had a another surprise up his sleeve for Australian shipbuilders—another insult to add to the injuries that he and his government had already inflicted on this industry and its highly-skilled workers. In February of this year, during the height of the Liberal leadership tensions, Mr Abbott invented a sham competitive evaluation process for the future submarines. He did this for one, simple reason. It was not because it was a result in better, more capable submarines for our defence forces. It was not because it would result in a cheaper, more cost-effective submarine force for Australian taxpayers. And it was certainly not because he gave a damn about the future of this strategically-vital industry and its workers. No, he did it for one simple, selfish and shameful reason: to save his own job. He needed Senator Edwards' vote to save his prime ministership, so he concocted a sham process. It was a sham process to appease Senator Edwards and to win his support in a leadership ballot. It was a sham process that his own defence minister could not explain at a public press conference.

It was a sham process devised without any formal written advice from the defence department. Let me repeat that: it was a process for a procurement of a $50 billion overall contract without a single note, word of advice or submission from the Department of Defence—not a word. And it was a sham process that will not—and I want to stress this; it will not—deliver three comparable bids with fixed prices and fixed schedules. It was a sham process where, as Senator Xenophon discovered, even if you win the process your bid can still be declined due to so-called 'broader strategic considerations'.

It was a sham process that meant that Mr Abbott can still fulfil his promise to Japanese Prime Minister Abe and ensure his captain's pick of sending our submarines overseas. These 'captain's picks' are now becoming a familiar albatross around the Prime Minister's neck. We have seen what happens when the Prime Minister makes one of his dud captain's picks. He promised a gold-plated, Rolls-Royce, paid parental leave scheme that made no sense and which almost his entire party opposed—but he said it was a captain's pick. He brought back knights and dames in a bizarre throwback to a previous era that most Australians cannot remember and do not relate to. He chose Ms Bronwyn Bishop as Speaker.