Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

This explanation by the minister is not satisfactory. This report is a report that was commissioned by the former government back in 2012 as to the economic benefits of building submarines locally, taking into account the experiences of the Collins class program. Initially, in my various toing and froing with the minister's office and through the Information Commissioner and the Department of Defence, it was indicated that there was nothing there, that there was not a report, but we now know that there has been a report.

I want to pay tribute to Senator McEwen, who has also assiduously pursued this issue in the estimates process. On 10 February 2016, in answer to a question from Senator McEwen, Rear Admiral Sammut said:

There have been some further payments to refine the model, but not through Macroeconomics, who are no longer involved. Their work has been completed in developing the model to a certain point.

In other words, the work has been completed; the modelling has been provided. I also note that Senator Conroy, as shadow minister, has been assiduously pursuing this issue. We need to see the modelling. Taxpayers have paid close to half a million dollars for this.

I note that the 2012 Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report in respect of procurement procedures contained a recommendation that there be openness and transparency in the process of procurement, and the government effectively said in response, 'We support that.' I am suggesting that the department has made a separate FOI based claim that the document is exempt on the basis that the document in question was brought into existence for the dominant purpose of briefing a minister on a cabinet submission. That claim is currently subject to a challenge with the Information Commissioner. Noting my detailed knowledge of the claim made by Defence, I am not inclined to simply acquiesce to the claim now being made almost certainly on the advice of the same people making the FOI claim inside the department.

In 1975 the Senate laid out by resolution its position with respect to public interest immunity claims. Paragraph 4 of that resolution makes it clear that, while the Senate may permit claims of public interest immunity to be advanced, it reserves the right to determine whether any particular claim will be accepted. As such, and as a courtesy, I advise the minister that I will be putting a motion to the Senate in the coming days in order to request production of any independent legal advice that supports the minister's claim.

This is an issue of great public importance not just in my home state of South Australia but in terms of the Future Submarine program and the importance of this Macroeconomics report's impact on the program. We ought to see it. Taxpayers have paid for it. If the government says now that there is a public interest immunity or that it is cabinet-in-confidence, we ought to see the basis of that claim.