John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Materiel, Senator Evans. Can the minister clarify whether the recent changes to specifications and require­ments for up to 250 styles of combat and non-combat clothing products for the ADF will significantly relax the terms of the requirements for materials used to manufacture these garments?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senator for his question and acknowledge it is his first question in this place. I am advised that the Common­wealth typically spends between $80 million and $90 million on ADF clothing per year. It is sourced from approximately 220 suppliers. I am also advised that approximately 99 per cent of the clothing suppliers for the ADF are Australian companies. The work they do is crucial to ensuring every member of the ADF has the equipment they need to do their job. It is also good for Australian jobs and the Australian economy that so much of the work is done in Australia.

About the specifications for defence clothing and equipment: as senators will understand, the specification for clothing and equipment used by the ADF change regularly. I am advised that defence has in excess of 1,000 technical specifications for items of combat and non-combat clothing. They change when the needs of our ADF change and they change when there are improvements in the technology of product designers and manufacturers. This is particularly important as the threats faced by our troops are constantly evolving.

For this reason, defence has recently set up a new team called Diggerworks, which includes a number of soldiers who have recently returned from operations in the Middle East and also defence scientists and engineers. The team is led by Colonel Jason Blain, who is the commanding officer of Mentoring Task Force 1 and who returned from Afghanistan early last year. Their job is to test, evaluate and prototype new clothing and personal protective equipment for our soldiers to make sure they have what they need to do their difficult and dangerous work. I think those arrangements go a long way to addressing some of the concerns that have been expressed in the past by ADF personnel about their clothing and equipment. It does mean that there are a large number of technical specifications but also that those specifications do change over time as the needs of the ADF change. (Time expired)

John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister assure us that the changes in specifications and requirements will not disadvantage any local Australian owner, manufacturer or worker?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The specifications that are released by defence are designed to meet the requirements of the Australian Defence Force. As I said in my earlier answer, approximately 99 per cent of suppliers of defence combat and non-combat clothing for the financial year 2010-11 were Australian. One of the most important clothing products provided to our soldiers is the combat uniform. The senator would be interested to know that in November last year the Minister for Defence Materiel made it clear that the standard combat uniform—the shirt and the pants—will continue to be manufactured in Australia. This means that the fabric is woven in Australia and the garment is stitched together in Australia. The specifications are designed, obviously, to meet the needs of the Defence Force, and 99 per cent of suppliers are Australian companies.

John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister assure us that any pursuit of value for money in relation to these products will not lead to products of a lesser quality or to products of a similar quality being sourced from overseas in preference to an Australian made product?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can assure the Senate that quality and value for money are important considerations in any tender for products supplied to the Australian Defence Force. Value for money does not necessarily suggest that defence will accept the cheapest offer. Rather, the evaluation considers such issues as the overall performance against the specification as well as any risks associated with the procurement, in addition to the overall cost. There are a range of measures that are taken into account. I acknowledge the concern that the senator raised about the impact that just assessing the lowest price might have, but that is not the system used by the ADF. They do balance a range of issues that include price, overall performance against specification and any risks associated with the procurement, in addition to the cost issue.