Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Hansard source

I at least acknowledge the way in which they presented, as did the other senators—including Senator Xenophon and Senator Madigan.

Can I say in response to Senator Madigan, who was the last speaker, that I happen to agree that Australia does become a laughing stock when this, the senior chamber of the Australian parliament, seeks to dictate defence procurement policy by tacking on an amendment to a bill dealing with the repeal of dated legislation and red tape. People around the world would say, 'Excuse me? Is this really the way the alternative government does business, that the Labor Party would move an amendment to such a bill to try to ventilate and force a particular type of procurement?'

And the sad answer is that that is exactly the way the alternative government does business. Witness the NBN debacle, the pink batts debacle and the school halls debacle. Exactly the problems they got themselves into whilst in government would be repeated in the event that they were re-elected. In his very sensible contribution the honourable senator, Senator Madigan, also said to look at quotes and to do a bit of a comparison. Well, we have a competitive evaluation process. We are calling in bids.

Isn't it interesting? Last time around, Senator Conroy said with his amendment that there had to be four bidders. And just in case colleagues are wondering about this, the last lot of Senator Conroy's amendments when this was around said, in clause 3:

At least 4 bidders must be invited to participate in the limited tender.

Guess what? That has now been dropped. This is defence procurement on the run—slipshod, like he did the NBN, like Labor did pink batts and like they did school halls. It was a good idea at the time; now all of a sudden it is a bad idea. Just quietly remove it from the amendment and now we have a different amendment.

Just imagine if the government would have acted in December last year on Senator Conroy's amendment. We would now be here today with the Labor Party saying, 'Oh, the four bidders idea was no good. Why on earth did you go down that track?' This is why the Australian Labor Party cannot be taken seriously and that is why we as a government will not take them seriously.

Indeed, the amendment that is now before the chamber tells us in item 2:

The submarine design and building contract must not be entered into other than as the result of a limited tender …

Right? It has to be a limited tender. The next item tells us:

The future submarine project is taken not to be an exempt procurement …

If it is not to be an exempt procurement, it means it has to be an open procurement. So this is internally contradictory! Can you imagine defence companies around the world, scratching their heads and saying, 'If Senator Conroy were to become Minister for Defence we would be told it has to be an open tender and a limited tender all at the same time.' It is internally contradictory. They would be scratching their heads and asking, 'Oh, I wonder how this works?' And, of course, Senator Conroy would point them to the NBN, pink batts and school halls and say, 'That's exactly how it would work.' Debacle, after debacle, after debacle.

Can I say to honourable senators if the amendment were to become law it would compromise the existing competitive evaluation process to acquire submarines, a process that is consistent with the Commonwealth procurement rules under the relevant act. In addition, it would increase costs and delay completion of procurement risking a significant gap in Australia's submarine capability and increase regulatory burden by imposing specific tender requirements for a single piece of equipment conducted by a single department.

I have already pointed out the ad hoc nature of these amendments: they are internally inconsistent; they differ from Labor's procurement strategy in December last year. We have a different strategy now, in August. And—wait for it—there will be another strategy, I am sure, that will be announced in due course. But what Labor are demonstrating—and what Mr Shorten through his spokesman Senator Conroy is demonstrating—to Australian defence industries and to the French, German and Japanese competitors for the future submarine project is that they do not take these matters seriously.

Mr Shorten's legacy in Defence and his former Labor government was a cut of $16,000 million from Defence. As a result, defence industries shed 10 per cent of their workforce—and heading south—courtesy of Labor. So let's not have any crocodile tears about defence workers here. The valley of death that the shipbuilding industry faces in Australia is courtesy of Labor not doing anything during their six years. Who has now developed a long-term strategic plan to overcome that for the future, looking 20 years in advance? None other than the coalition government. Were people trying to bully, harass and harangue us into coming to an earlier decision? Yes, they were; but we took the time to plan and be methodical to ensure that in the future the valley of death left to us by the Labor Party could be overcome, and now it will be overcome because of our policies.

In Labor's six years they made no progress—and I repeat that: no progress—on the future submarines that are to replace the existing Collins class. They did not order a single naval vessel from an Australian shipyard. They abandoned Australian shipbuilders. Yet here they come into this place pretending to be their champions. Their legacy of six years is: 'Do nothing'.

If we were to go down the track that Labor are suggesting, it would take another five years of planning—in other words, six years of doing nothing plus another five years—it would be an 11-year or in round figures a 10-year capability gap for our submarine capacity. That is why we have established a competitive evaluation process, to ensure that we get the best international design partner and the best submarine capability at the best price while avoiding that critical capability gap left to us by Mr Shorten and Senator Conroy.

The opposition's amendments would force the government to go to tender for the future submarines, yet on page 53 of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade budget estimates Hansard from 1 July this year, Defence advised the committee—and Senator Conroy sits on this committee: 'Going to tender will take up to an additional five years'. And that is on top of the six years that have already been wasted during the Labor era. Put simply: the opposition is willing to risk the safety of our submariners and put maritime and national security at risk just so they can score a cheap political point.

Our competitive evaluation process requires the three potential partners to seek offshore onshore and hybrid build options as part of our competitive evaluation process. Australian industry involvement will be assessed as part of this process, and certain work will be conducted in Australia, regardless of the outcome. As TKMS chairman and respected submarine expert Dr John White said at the Senate economics committee recently, 'The prudent approach to such a major acquisition is to canvass the market and see what is available, including from overseas'. That is exactly what we are doing.

If the Senate were to adopt these amendments, it would delay the submarine acquisition process that is currently underway. It would generate significant corporate and sovereign risk for the current design partners. It could threaten their ongoing willingness to participate in our Future Submarine program, in which they have already made significant investments.

I indicate as well that my South Australian colleagues have of course been very strong supporters for building submarines in South Australia, but they will not be supporting a move that seeks to dictate the procurement process through a Senate stunt such as this. Their well-considered position on this has been put to the people of South Australia through their speeches through their statements and through the articles they have written. So any diminution or suggested lack of advocacy on their part—as claimed by Senator Conroy—is completely dismissed. Yet again Senator Conroy makes the false assertion in the face of the obvious facts. I say to Senator Conroy that mere repetition of false assertions does not obviate the need for evidence. And the evidence is there, courtesy of my South Australian colleagues, as to their advocacy.

Coming back to the matter at hand, this is a repeal bill to remove red tape and dated legislation from the statute books. In the past this has been a bipartisan process. But today we have yet again seen that Labor under Mr Shorten will use any stunt to try to stymie the government's desire to: have good governance, remove red tape, help stimulate the economy, help create jobs and help grow the wealth of our nation so that we can look to a better future. All of that is jettisoned for the sake of a political stunt, suggesting that you can just tack on Defence submarine procurement, a multi, multi, multi-billion-dollar activity, as an amendment to a repeal bill dealing with dated legislation.

This is the way the Labor Party would do business. That is clear. Just witness the NBN, the pink batts and the school halls. And now they would repeat their mistake with Defence procurement. We as a government will not be part of that. We will be taking the responsible decisions. We will take the methodical, purposeful approach to ensure that we get the very best capability at the very best price with the most Australian content possible. I oppose the amendments put by the opposition.