David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

It's mystifying to me why the government is opposing these amendments. The government says it opposes the bill but the amendments put forward by Senator Fawcett greatly reduce the scope of the bill, so you'd think that would be the thing. Also, the only material change it makes other than reducing the scope of the bill is to put in an express provision that ensures competitiveness. Now, why would the government oppose that? I know those were the minister's speaking notes, but what possible rationale does the government have for opposing amendment (6) on Senator Fawcett's sheets, which is purely designed to ensure there's not anticompetitive behaviour in the process? You may not like the overall bill, but why on earth would you oppose amendments that reduce the scope of a bill you don't like and that put in something that is expressly designed to protect competition in the space? I know the speaking notes have come from the minister's office, but the problem is that the minister's office doesn't seem to add any value to the speaking notes that he gets from the department.

That's kind of the problem here. There seems to be no distinction between the government and the department. Minister Marles is just a cipher for whatever Secretary Moriarty and the department tell him; there's no value added. Why wouldn't the minister's office have had a look at this and had some kind of independent view about it? What's the point of having a minister if all they do is transmit what the department says without any critical analysis?

In term in terms of opposing the Greens' amendments—I will speak briefly to foreshadow what our amendments are. Amendment No. 1 requires in the procurement sector that Defence have regard to Australia's international human rights obligations and also to the public interest. Why on earth is the Labor Albanese government opposing an amendment that says that, on defence procurement, there should be regard to Australia's international human rights obligations and the public interest? Why doesn't the Albanese government want the public interest considered on procurement? Why doesn't the Albanese Labor government want Australia's international human rights obligations considered on defence procurement? International human rights obligations come up all the time—for example, cluster munitions and land mines. Why would you oppose that? I know those are the notes that the minister in this place has and it's probably what defence has, because they have a reflexive opposition to stuff, but what possible value did Minister Marles add? On what basis is Minister Marles directing the government here to say, 'No, we don't want to consider international human rights obligations and we don't want to consider the public interest in procurement'? Why oppose that? It's bizarre. It's irrational. Or it's just a dangerous lack—everything is done by remote control. Literally, why are Minister Marles and his office there if they don't critically consider this?

The other amendment that the Greens put forward—and I still can't understand why it's being opposed—is to ensure that, before there's an agreement between the defence capability agency and an entity or a person, all reasonable steps are taken to ensure there's no conflict of interest. Why oppose that? Why is the Albanese Labor government opposing a provision that's aiming to get conflicts of interest out of defence procurement? Again, I don't blame the minister here. They've got speaking notes that have been given to them by Minister Marles. But what is Minister Marles doing opposing that amendment?

Again, I don't think there's any value added in that office. It no doubt just came from the department. 'Oppose it. Here's a random set of speaking notes. We've got it under control. We're doing a review. Don't you worry about it. We'll get the patrol vessel commissioned maybe by the end of 2024 or maybe by 2025. We'll get a Hunter class frigate together by—oh, we'll come back to you on that. We're chopping up the helicopters and burying them in the outback. It's all under control. It's all fine. We've got reviews. It'll all be fine.' Why have a defence minister if that's what they do? Why be there? I ask the minister: can you articulate why you're opposing the coalition's amendments, and can you give a rational, considered reason about why you're opposing the Greens' amendments?