John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 20 of 2006-07—Performance audit: Purchase, chartering and modification of the new fleet oiler: Department of Defence; Defence Materiel Organisation.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Having been a long-term spectator on the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, it is very pleasing indeed to speak on this Audit Office report, because the Audit Office gives a very positive report, in fact a glowing report, of Defence’s first charter and then purchase and modification of an existing vessel, which was known as the Delos and has become the HMAS Sirius, our new fleet oiler.

That is good, indeed, because the DMO have struggled for sometime, as have Defence—DMO being part of Defence—with a large number of acquisition projects, many of which have not gone the right way. They have either been delayed or have had major cost overruns. But this project not only came in on time but also came in on budget. That was very pleasing indeed. It is good to see the report speak so highly of the processes undertaken by the Defence Materiel Organisation and Defence in the transition of this regular merchant ship into an Australian naval vessel.

I want to quote from part of the Defence response to the ANAO report because it really encapsulates the changes that are taking place within DMO. The executive summary states:

Project SEA1654 Phase 2A (HMAS WESTRALIA Replacement) has provided Defence with an unprecedented opportunity to demonstrate the successful application of Kinnaird Review principles. The DMO has applied innovative techniques to the solution of a complex problem and met, or exceeded, all capability, safety, budget and schedule requirements.

Innovation in this Project has included the use of commercial standards (classification society rules) where appropriate ...

It states further:

The Project has also been an excellent example of achieving results in partnership with industry.

I think that that really attests to the change that is taking place within the DMO. I think it is a very welcome change, as a spectator of matters that happen in Defence.

Having read that report, I now have to express some concern at an answer to a question during question time this afternoon about the Remora, which sank off Rottnest Island off the Western Australian coast three months ago and has remained on the sea floor for that period of time. This was reported, as far as I know, in the Courier Mail on 13 December 2006, and would have been in other syndicated publications as well. It referred to the loss of the only rescue vessel for our submarine fleet at that time. In the three months that have elapsed, that rescue vessel has not been replaced. I believe that vessel must have been integral to the full operational capacity of our submarine fleet. The minister’s response was concerning; though, to give him credit, he did come back at the end of question time and added to his response. In question time, he stated:

I understand that Navy is working on this and it is a work in progress.

To me, that statement is of major concern. Contrast the glowing report, and rightfully so, that Defence and the DMO received on the new fleet oiler with the minister’s response on the Remora question that ‘it is a work in progress’, and one has to express grave concerns. It is clear from the press article of 13 December in the Courier Mail that the six Collins class submarines are still operational or have an operational capacity that has not been withdrawn as a result of the loss of this emergency vessel. In their statement to the press on that occasion, Defence said that there were other options for rescues to be undertaken in different circumstances other than the use of the emergency vessel upon which they had solely relied. Whilst that might be the case, it is not convincing. One can only come to the conclusion that our submarines, whilst operational, must have a limited operational capacity. Of course, three months have elapsed since this event happened. It must be of concern to those involved in the limited operations, both the submarine crews and their families onshore, that if an incident were to happen then, even with the best time frame, one would expect a prolonged period of time from when the incident occurred until a rescue might be effected. Of course, time is of the utmost importance when dealing with vessels such as submarines that may have experienced an incident below the sea.

What contingency plans do Defence have in place? How long will it be before the Remora is retrieved? Whilst we are told it is a work in progress, that is unsatisfactory. If there is an incident, how long will it take for a rescue vessel to be on-site to cope with any difficulties that may be faced by the crew in such a circumstance? I think that this really contrasts with the fine report that Defence received on the new fleet oiler. Defence are to be commended for that, but there needs to be instant action on this matter. I commend the report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.