David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a two-minute statement.

Leave granted.

I wish to make a short statement to the Senate regarding Australian Submarine Corporation and Australian shipbuilding. All Australians have come to know well the frustrations successive governments have faced in fielding a world-class submarine capability. Today we are in the middle of an $8 billion program to build three air warfare destroyers. We have all faced challenges. This cannot be denied. The frustrations of successive governments with the performance of both Collins class sustainment and the Air Warfare Destroyer Program are very well documented. In 2011, Labor defence minister Stephen Smith expressed his own concerns on the sustainment of Collins. He said:

Without having confidence in our capacity to sustain our current fleet of submarines it is very difficult to fully commence, other than through initial planning, the acquisition program for our future submarine.

That was said in July 2011. I am committed to leading the effort to fix those problems. Regrettably, in rhetorical flourish, I did express my frustrations in the past performance of the Australian Submarine Corporation. In these comments, I did not intend to cause offence. May I say on the record here and now that I regret that offence may have been taken. I of course was directing my remarks at a legacy of issues and certainly not at the workers in ASC, who may have, to my regret, taken offence at those remarks. I consider them to be world class.

On the matter at hand, the government has not made any decisions on the future submarine. Decisions will be made, as I have said time and again, on the advice of our service chiefs. Our goal is to deliver to our Navy a new class of submarine that is superior to Collins before the planned withdrawal date. Given the sheer scale of the program, it is only by working together as a team that we will reach this goal. The former government's program was costed at over $40 billion and would have resulted in a capability gap. This is an unacceptable risk to our $1.6 trillion economy. Whatever decision is made on the future submarine, there will be many, many more jobs for South Australia and a more capable Navy for Australians. Thank you, Mr President, and I thank the indulgence of the chamber.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement made by the Minister for Defence.

Senators, that was the Minister for Defence. This is the gentleman who is supposed to be in charge of our Defence personnel, who wants us and all workers in our shipbuilding industry to forgive him because it was a regrettable 'rhetorical flourish'. Let us understand this defence minister's behaviour. This is the man who has broken his election promise to build 12 submarines in Adelaide. This is a man who has trashed the reputation of a major defence industry firm. This is a man who has insulted thousands of hardworking Australians employed at the Australian Submarine Corporation. And this is the defence minister who is happy to come into question time in our Senate and undermine confidence in Australia's naval capability. He is a disgrace. He is an utter disgrace. This is a man who is in charge of a multibillion-dollar project, who has jeopardised the fair and equitable conduct of that procurement process.

Does anyone believe after his performance that this minister will make a fair and unbiased decision when it comes to the Future Submarine Project? No-one in Australia believes that. No-one in this Senate believes that. Not even your South Australian colleagues behind you, or in fact your cabinet colleagues, believe that.

I will flag this. I want to put this marker down very clearly in this chamber, Mr President. This bias that this minister has demonstrated is not just a demonstration of the fact that he wants to break another promise. It raises serious probity issues because Australians can have no confidence that this minister will treat an Australian bid for the submarine project fairly. We all heard him yesterday. All of us heard him. And we heard him today also on the radio in South Australia backing himself in again. No-one believes that this minister can conduct this procurement process fairly. No-one believes that.

I say this to the crossbench: regardless of your partisan position, the procurement of the Future Submarine Project is the largest procurement in Australian history. It is the largest government procurement in Australian history. It ought to be done properly. We have a government that is refusing the competitive tender process. It wants for a whole range of other reasons to do a deal with Japan and then has been prepared to trash the reputation of the Australian Submarine Corporation and its employees because it wants to soften people up for its broken promise. What a disgrace.

Yesterday was not a one-off incident. If you have followed this defence minister, both on the record and in what has been backgrounded to the media by his office, it has been this campaign of denigration of the Australian Submarine Corporation. Over and over again we see background to the media or his own statements where he calls into question the capacity and the professionalism of the workers at the corporation. I would say this: let us understand what we ask those men and women at the ASC to do. We ask them to make sure that our submariners, the people who operate our submarines, are safe. That is what we ask them to do.

It was actually very moving yesterday, at the press conference that Senator Conroy and I held, to have one of the ASC workers stand there and say: 'You know what? We give them the best because we would never send them out to sea with substandard work.' And what have we got the defence minister saying? He would not trust this worker to build a canoe! It is an extraordinary proposition, isn't it—the extent to which this government needs to go to justify its broken promises, the extent to which this government and these ministers are prepared to go to justify their broken promises. We have seen it time after time. We have seen them denying that cuts are cuts. The ABC was 'an efficiency dividend'. We have seen them saying that cuts to health and education that are in their own budget do not exist. They are treating the Australian people like mugs, lying about lying.

On this, how do they go about justifying a broken promise? They go about it, as I said, by denigrating and attacking the men and women who have built and maintained our submarines and who are building the air warfare destroyers. That is what he has done, all for his own political ends, because he wants to try and cover up the fact that he made a promise that was unequivocal before the election. Senator Johnston today, whether on the radio or in here, has really done what Mr Abbott does: 'I know I said that, but you have to look at the asterisk. You have to look at the footnote—what I really meant when I said that.'

I would like to read to the Senate what Senator Johnston said before the election. He said this:

… I want to confirm that the 12 submarines as set out in the 2009 Defence White Paper and then again in last Friday's Defence White Paper are what the Coalition accepts and will deliver.

We will deliver those submarines from right here at ASC in South Australia.

He goes on to say:

Now why ASC? Right across Australia there is only one place that has all of the expertise that's necessary to complete one of the most complex, difficult and costly capital works projects that Australian can undertake. It's ASC here in Adelaide. We believe that all of the expertise that is necessary for that project is here.

That is from his doorstop on 8 May 2013. That is what he said before the election.

What did he say after the election? I quote:

… I wouldn't trust them to build a canoe …

What has changed? All that has changed is that you want to break your promise. That is the only thing that has changed. You want to break your promise.

But let us go now to the confidence or the lack thereof in this minister, not that the Australian people have—the Senate might not—but that his own colleagues have. Yesterday, after the minister made his extraordinary statement, a statement was released by the Prime Minister. I am going to read that: 'The Australian Submarine Corporation plays a vital role supporting the Royal Australian Navy and our key naval capabilities. In the last year, ASC has transformed its submarine maintenance program and exceeded the Royal Australian Navy's target for submarine readiness.' It said:

This has improved the availability of our Collins Class fleet to defend our national interests …

… Whilst ASC has had challenges in meeting the Government's cost and schedule expectations of the Air Warfare Destroyer programme, we are working closely with the ASC on a reform strategy to improve shipyard performance and productivity.

… It is early days, but the Government is confident that ASC and its partners will successfully turn the corner on this important build.

The Prime Minister has confidence in the ASC, but what is important about that statement is that it is very clear that the Prime Minister does not have confidence in this minister. It is very clear. The only way one can read the statement by the Prime Minister is as a statement of no confidence in this minister. That is what the Prime Minister of the country put out last night. As Senator Conroy said, more pithily than I, 'He's cut him loose.'

And not only has the Prime Minister cut him loose but it is very clear that the Prime Minister's office has given Senator Johnston's colleagues a leave pass when it comes to having a go at him, when it comes to public criticism. When you have Mr Briggs criticising Senator Johnston on the record and Senator Birmingham criticising Senator Johnston on the record, these are two frontbench colleagues of this minister who are openly contradicting and correcting this minister. They are openly contradicting and correcting what he says. On top of that, we have a range of South Australia backbenchers and the leader of the Liberal party in South Australia, Mr Marshall, who has called on him to apologise. Let me say this: this minister's position is untenable.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on both sides!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has lost the confidence of the Prime Minister, he has lost the confidence of his colleagues and I ask the Senate this question: in those circumstances, how can the Australian people have any confidence in this minister?

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

When Senator Wong starts to lecture the Senate on ministerial integrity and ministerial consistency, you know that something has gone terribly wrong or that we are living in a parallel universe—she who trumpeted with her then leader that climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our time. Remember that? And they dumped it like a used tissue as soon as it became politically opportunistic for them to do so. These are the standards from those who claimed that no carbon tax would guide their government and then introduced a carbon tax. They have the audacity to come into this place and talk to us about consistency and integrity in government.

I will tell you what consistency and integrity in government is all about, and it is simply this. All of us, from time to time, may engage in a degree of hyperbole in the heat of question time and the heat of debate which we may then, on due consideration and reflection, regret. What is the decent and proper thing to do when, on mature reflection, you have re-read that which you said in the heat of the moment? It is to come into this place as soon as practical and say, 'I recant and, if I've caused offence, I apologise.'

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He didn't! He didn't apologise!

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

Senator Conroy comes in right on time—right on cue. Let us look at the behaviour of the shadow defence minister, who personally attacked a man in uniform under parliamentary privilege in a manner for which Senator Conroy has never apologised. Senator Wong, where was your righteous indignation then? Nowhere to be seen. There was stony silence when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this place and shadow defence minister accused Lieutenant General Campbell, and I quote from page 94 of the Senate Hansard of 25 February 2014, just earlier this year:

That's called a political cover-up.

Conroy again:

You are engaged in a political cover-up.

When it was indicated by the chair that this was offensive, Senator Conroy repeated it:

It is time to call a spade a spade.

Lieutenant General Campbell said:

Senator, I would like to put on the public record—

And there he is, pretending tears in relation to Lieutenant General Campbell, a man in uniform. The general is a man who has served his country extremely well, a lot better than Senator Conroy ever will, who has the audacity to pretend that Lieutenant General Campbell was not offended—and what did Senator Conroy do? He simply said—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdrew.

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

You said:

It is time to call a spade a spade.

You did not withdraw—stop misleading the Senate.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Address your remarks to the chair.

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

That is the truth. Then the chair—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

I will take that interjection from Senator Conroy. Later on page 94:

CHAIR: I require you to apologise, Senator Conroy.

Senator CONROY: You can require anything you want. General, can you please provide a copy—

CHAIR: Senator Conroy, I am ruling that if you do not apologise I will not call you anymore.

Senator CONROY: Well, we will see on the floor of the Senate.

And that is an apology! What duplicity, what hypocrisy, what an absolute double standard by this man who would be the defence minister if this motley crew opposite were ever to be elected.

Mr President, this is a motion to take note by the most failed finance minister in Australian history, a minister who went to the last election saying that there was an $18 billion deficit in the budget, and when the budget papers were checked, it was not an $18 billion deficit, it was a $48 billion deficit. Just a mere mistake of $30 billion, and she has the audacity to come in here and say that we need to take note of a circumstance where, as we all do from time to time, overstate the case in relation to a matter in a heated debated and then, on mature reflection, withdraw and make the appropriate amends.

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

We have the good Senator Bilyk interjecting. Can I ask Senator Bilyk: where was she when her deputy leader in this place so ruthlessly attacked a man in uniform at Senate estimates? Nowhere to be heard. It is a classic of when the Labor Party does something—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Pause the clock. Order! Senator Conroy. Senator Cameron. Senator O'Sullivan, it is disorderly to interject and certainly when not in your own seat. Senator Bilyk. A little bit more decorum please. Senator Abetz.

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

Thank you, Mr President. The Australian Labor Party always dislikes it when you point out to them the hypocrisy of their position. They attack men in uniform, and when it is drawn to their attention, indeed, as a headline shows, 'Stephen Conroy refuses to apologise', that is what the media told every Australian yet, somehow, Senator Conroy interjects that he did apologise. No, he did not. That is why the media was so highly critical of him.

In relation to Senator Johnston, he is a man that has been faced with an absolute debacle in defence. That is why he said in his statement that he regrettably allowed the frustration to get the better of him. In circumstances where everybody knows the importance of a submarine capacity and capability for our nation he came into office as the new Minister for Defence and found that all the planning that the Labor Party had done in relation to a new generation of submarine could be found on any blank sheet of paper anywhere in the nation. In other words, there was no work done whatsoever.

Indeed, in relation to Senator Conroy, who disgraced himself at estimates with Lieutenant General Campbell, we know what the men and women in uniform think of you, Senator Conroy. If I were you I would remain stony silent. Let us listen to what another Labor defence minister said:

Without having confidence in our capacity to sustain our current fleet of submarines …

I wonder who might have said that? Labor Minister Stephen Smith. So, when Labor Defence Minister Stephen Smith says:

Without having confidence in our capacity to sustain our current fleet of submarines …

it is a matter of great regret.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Pause the clock. Senator Conroy. On my left. Senators Kerr and Conroy, your leader is on her feet. Senator Wong on a point of order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President, my point of order is relevance. It is all very interesting, but we are actually debating the statement of the Defence Minister. That is what the Senate is taking note of. I am not sure that the minister has actually mentioned that.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, the minister is directly relevant to the topic before the chair. Minister.

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

If ever you needed to see writ large the incompetence of the Leader of the Opposition in this place, you just had it then from the point of order, because the quote that I was quoting was directly out of the minister's statement. How more relevant could I be than quoting out of the minister's own statement, of which she wanted us to take note? When I quote from the minister's statement, when it is hurting the Labor Party, she gets up on a point of order to say it is not being relevant. And I am actually quoting word for word from the statement! Oh, incompetence, I wonder what one's name is. I think it might start with W.

But back to this important quote which is found in the minister's statement. It is from one of his predecessors in this area, as Minister for Defence:

Without having confidence in our capacity to sustain our current fleet of submarines—

And it was when I had finished saying that part that Senator Wong jumped to her feet trying to stop the flow of the speech, trying to stop and interrupt that which is so damaging to the Australian Labor Party. They know their own defence minister Mr Smith had real issues about the submarine capacity within Australia. He went on to say:

… it is very difficult to fully commence, other than through initial planning, the acquisition program for our future submarine.

That was in 2011. Two years later, when Senator Johnston took over, do you know what he found as part of this initial planning? A blank piece of paper. Not a single scrap of work had been done. So is the minister right to be frustrated? Absolutely right.

Indeed, the Australian people have every right to be frustrated that, for six years of incompetent government, not only did the Labor Party run up the biggest deficits in our nation's history, not only did they leave us with the biggest debt in our nation's history, not only did they have the pink batts debacle, which saw four people lose their lives, not only did they have the Building the Education Revolution debacle, not only did they have the cash-splash debacle but also, in the most important part of any government's responsibility to a people, the defence of the people, the defence of the nation—that is the first priority of a government, and the submarine capacity is so vital in that area—what do we find? The Labor Party did nothing. Not only did they do nothing in the submarine space; they stripped $16 billion out of the defence budget. And here they are pretending in this place that they are somehow committed to the defence of our nation. Not only did they run up big deficits but they stripped billions of dollars, thousands of millions of dollars, year after year, out of the defence budget.

Can I simply say to colleagues and anybody that might be listening in to this debate: we are all human. We are all fraught. From time to time, we might overstate a case. The proper and decent thing to do is exactly what Senator Johnston did, and that is to come into this place and recognise that fact. But, in circumstances where you have had a Labor government that said, 'No carbon tax,' and then introduced one and never apologised for it, a government that stripped $16 billion out of defence and never apologised for it, a government that saw the deaths of four Australians in roof cavities because of the pink batts debacle and never apologised for it—and so the list goes on—they have the audacity to seek to move a motion that a man who has recognised and made a statement and is willing to acknowledge it is somehow to be condemned. That is in comparison to their list, to their legions, of deliberate errors, deliberate misleads of the Australian people. Then, when their noses are rubbed in it, they still refuse to acknowledge that which everybody knows.

We therefore had within this chamber—very conveniently, if I might say—Senator Johnston, who, in the heat of the moment, overstated a situation—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

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

and has come back in to the chamber as soon as possible, and then you have the disgraceful performance of the shadow minister for Defence, deliberately attacking a public servant—a public servant in uniform; a man who I think had about a 30-year career within our Defence Force, in the Navy—absolutely attacking him, under parliamentary privilege. Then, when the media suggests to him after the event that it might be time to apologise, and when the chair invites him to apologise, and he says, 'Take it to the floor of the Senate'—indicative of the contempt of the shadow minister for Defence for our men and women in uniform—there is no apology, and no commentary from Senator Wong. Indeed, I wish she would have turned her back on Senator Conroy rather than me in relation to this matter, because it shows the difference in standards. Mr President, can I simply say to those opposite: your record and your actions have spoken much louder than your words in this debate.

We, on this side—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy!

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

Mr President, Senator Conroy continually interjects, as he does throughout question time—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy!

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

as does his leader, as does Senator Carr. They have contempt not only for the processes of this place but for the men and women in uniform, as witnessed by Senator Conroy's attack on Lieutenant General Campbell—a disgraceful attack. And where was Senator Wong moving her motion about that? She was nowhere to be seen; nowhere to be heard. She must have got writer's cramp, one suspects; she could not quite get the motion out.

In talking about our submarines, we are talking about the largest acquisition other than the debacle of the NBN—once again, presided over by: Senator Conroy! One of these days I am sure the dictionary will give as a synonym for 'debacle', 'Conroy'. This is another 'Conroy'—an absolute debacle, like Senator Conroy's NBN, with an acquisition—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

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

albeit that was in the communications area. Now, clothed with that great expertise, and clothed with that great record on the NBN, he pretends he is an expert on submarine acquisition, in circumstances where—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on—only three minutes to go!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy!

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

the immaturity of the man is showing yet again, and I hope the Hansard shows it.

Senators Conroy and Carr can continue to interject as they like, but people in the manufacturing sector know that because of their support for the carbon tax they destroyed jobs in the manufacturing sector. They know that, as a result of their lack of planning—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

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

for six years, the totality of that Labor-Green government, nothing was done to plan for the need for a new Australian submarine capacity. That is something that Senator Johnston now has to pick up, six or seven years after the event, and he had a blank sheet of paper to start off with. That is the Labor Party legacy. Is Senator Johnston frustrated because of Labor's criminal neglect of this very important capacity? Of course he is. And, as the man he is, he stood up and recognised his overstatement—unlike Senator Conroy. Wouldn't it be refreshing if he were to get up and, in his first comment in this debate, say, 'I unreservedly apologise to Lieutenant General Campbell'? Wouldn't that be interesting? And that will be the test of character on which the Australian people can decide between the honourable Senator Johnston, the Minister for Defence, who is willing to say it as it is about himself, in juxtaposition to that which the opposition provides us in Senator Conroy.

The submarine capacity in this nation is vitally important. Labor left it in neglect for six years.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr! Order!

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

You hear all the interjections from the other side. Do you know where Labor were taking the submarine program? Nowhere—absolutely nowhere. If people are talking about Japan, Germany, France or Scandinavia, at least we are taking the program somewhere, whereas Labor had a policy of taking it absolutely nowhere, promising, promising, promising, without any money allocated and without any plans, as, indeed, Labor minister Stephen Smith himself had to acknowledge in his statement on 19 July 2011.

Government senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On my right!

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

Senator Johnston has done the right thing by the right standards of the Westminster system. He has done that which every honourable member of parliament should do and has done in the past, unlike the person who I suspect will be speaking next in this debate. That is the great juxtaposition between those of us on this side and those on that side. We can recognise when things need to be fixed. Regrettably, the Australian Labor Party are devoid of that capacity, and that is the big difference. Having said that, Senator Johnston is doing a fantastic job in Defence, and I, for one, am appreciative of his efforts. (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right! And my left! Senator Wright, do you have a point of order?

Senator Wright interjecting—

I will be calling Senator Conroy next, Senator Wright.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, Mr President—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wright, it is my decision and I will be calling Senator Conroy next. Before I call Senator Conroy, the noise in the chamber from all quarters and all sides has been terrible. I expect the interjections to cease and the debate to continue with less interruption. It does not behove the Senate to have a debate the way we are having it, with the constant interjection from both sides.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In an extraordinary circumstance yesterday afternoon, the Prime Minister of Australia issued a statement which cut the Minister for Defence loose. What was the one thing missing in the Prime Minister's statement? He cleaned up the mess. He said he had confidence in the workforce at the ASC to do their duty and keep our men and women submariners safe. He said that. The one thing that was missing was any expression of support for the Minister for Defence. What happened yesterday afternoon? The Prime Minister cleaned up for Senator Johnston. Senator Johnston had five hours to come into the chamber to back up his Prime Minister and was missing for five hours. So the Prime Minister knew what a mess the minister had made, but the Minister for Defence did not turn up. All Senator Abetz had to do was stand up and say, 'I have full confidence in the Minister for Defence and I guarantee he will be sitting behind me, right in that seat, in February next year, when parliament reconvenes.' That is all Senator Abetz had to do—none of the above happened.

I will tell you what else is missing in this chamber right now: any South Australian Liberal senator but Senator Bernardi, who has to chair proceedings. Where has Senator Birmingham gone? Where has Senator Ruston gone? Where has Senator Edwards gone? Not one of them is in the chamber to support Senator Johnston. They have all run from the chamber—because they are in the papers this morning absolutely pillorying him. The Prime Minister yesterday walked away from him. All of the Liberal senators who attacked him in the newspapers have walked out of the chamber right now because they have also cut him loose. They have no confidence in the Minister for Defence following his continual outbursts.

And there is some very interesting information that has come to light in the newspapers this morning, because this minister has been a serial offender when it comes to abusing and denigrating the workers, the workforce and the company of the ASC. What do we discover in this morning's papers? A senior Liberal said that Senator Johnston's comments were 'breathtaking', coming just a fortnight after he apologised to ASC chairman Bruce Carter for being critical of the agency's work. The West Australian understands that Senator Johnston told Mr Carter over dinner in Adelaide that he would refrain from criticising the ASC in the future. So, just two weeks ago he promised to stop doing it. And then last week he went on radio and attacked the acting chief executive, saying that he did not know anything about building subs. Unfortunately, he had spent 25 years building and maintaining subs. So, last week he broke his promise to Mr Carter. Then, yesterday, he got up and broke his promise to Mr Carter again.

Why is all of this happening? Because a lie was told before the last election. Senator Johnston stood up and promised the people of Australia, the people of Adelaide, and the workforce of the ASC, and he did it cynically in front of them. He stood in front of the gates of the ASC and committed—he promised on behalf of Tony Abbott—that he would build 12 submarines in Adelaide, right there at the ASC. So, all we have been seeing for the past 12 months is a denigration—a serial offender denigrating the people who keep our subs in the water, the people who have lifted the productivity at the ASC substantially, since the Cole report, commissioned by our government, because in the 11½ years that they were in government they allowed the maintenance program to completely fall away. When they were in government the maintenance program was a disgrace. We came to government and commissioned a report, and the productivity started to go up. And now, as the senator wants to try to hide behind, they are now at an excellent level.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But that does not stop him denigrating and attacking the workforce in Adelaide. He is a serial offender. This minister knows that he has broken the promise he made before the election. This minister knows that he is going to—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, a point of order: I am trying to listen to Senator Conroy, and even with him shouting, I cannot hear above the Leader of the Opposition, with her constant interjections. Could you bring her to order?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be very happy to stop if Senator Reynolds, who is not in her seat, would also stop interjecting. I was responding to her.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I will not give Senator Conroy the call until the Senate is brought to order. Senator Macdonald, Senator McGrath—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald, desist. You are not being helpful. And Senator Polley. None of you are helping your own cause here, and you are doing a disservice to the Senate.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's reflecting—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, thank you; I do not need your assistance.

Senator Wong interjecting—

And Senator Wong, I do not need your help either. Senator Conroy, you have the call.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, why is Senator Johnston such a serial offender when it comes to attacking the ASC, even though he promised just two weeks ago not to do it? He promised the chair he would not do it. He is a serial offender because the lie is being exposed. Mr Abbott, not content with breaking all the other promises he made, is now breaking the promise to build the submarines, because he knows that he has already made a promise to the Prime Minister of Japan. We know this because the government keep backgrounding journalists about it. The government has backgrounded that President Obama, Prime Minister Abe and Prime Minister Abbott had a meeting just a few weeks ago in Myanmar and agreed that the Americans' weapons system would go into the Japanese submarines being built for Australia. Then, last week, the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, told the President of France that the Japanese would be building the subs. In other words: 'Don't bother putting the French bid in.' That is why Senator Johnston is lashing out all the time at the ASC. That is why he is denigrating the workforce. That is why he is ignoring bids from Germany, from Sweden and from France—because he has got to try and cover the fact that the lie that was told before the election is going to be broken. What we saw yesterday was an absolutely outrageous attack that he had promised not to make. But it is worse than just, 'Oh, I gave a colourful flourish.' The Minister for Defence is undermining our national security. You cannot attack the workers who keep our subs and our submariners safe, who do the work—

Honourable senators interjecting—

The Prime Minister understood. The Prime Minister cut him loose last night and defended the workers. The Prime Minister understood what Senator Johnston did. He put out a statement defending the workers at the ASC. He cut that minister loose last night. This minister, the Minister for Defence for Australia, undermined our national security. He undermined the confidence. He went out there on the floor of the Senate and he basically said: 'Our subs aren't up to scratch. Don't you worry, anybody overseas. Our subs are hopeless.' He undermined our national security. The Prime Minister cut him loose. He knew what he had done. The Prime Minister put a statement out, and, as I said, the one sentence in it missing was: 'I have confidence in Senator Johnston.' That is the one sentence missing. This is what the Prime Minister said: 'The Australian Submarine Corporation plays a vital role in supporting the Royal Australian Navy and our key naval capabilities.' That is what the Prime Minister said. He knew he had to put out a statement supporting the workforce and the work that they do to keep our submariners safe—but not the irresponsible minister over there, because he undermined the vital role that is played by those workers. He undermined them, and he has been doing it for months and months. And he is doing it to cover up the political pain that he is in, because he knows that the lie that was told before the election is going to be exposed again and again and again. So last night's statement was clearly a statement of no confidence in this minister. Oh, Senator Birmingham has been dragged back by the whip! Welcome back, Senator Birmingham. I am looking forward to you speaking in a second.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Address your comments through the chair, Senator Conroy.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The whips office have been on the phone: 'Will you get those South Australian Libs back into the chamber? It's really embarrassing.'

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are quite mad!

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Coming from you, Senator Macdonald!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ignore the interjections, Senator Conroy.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not just the Prime Minister who has got no confidence in Senator Johnston. What did we see in this morning's papers? His colleagues have condemned him. One senior Liberal called the defence minister's remarks 'some of the most stupid words I have ever heard from a senior minister'. Off the record, was that you, Senator Birmingham? Another called them 'breathtaking'. Assistant infrastructure minister, Jamie Briggs, said his comments were wrong. Liberal senator Simon Birmingham, whom the whips have dragged back into the chamber, said, 'There is no excuse for denigration of the workforce or of the extensive capabilities that South Australia has.'

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sean is back. Give the whip a bonus. They are working overtime out there.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, you should refer to other senators by their title.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Edwards, come on down. Did they tell you he had to come in and give him a kiss. Come on, go back to your seat.

The defence minister's role is to ensure our national security. He should stop and listen to Senator Birmingham and not undermine the integrity of our national security, because, as Senator Birmingham has also acknowledged, that is what happened yesterday.

Let's be clear. In the Senate last night the defence minister should have made a full statement of apology to the parliament and to the ASC. What was he doing for five hours yesterday and for the three hours after the Prime Minister cut him loose last night. The Prime Minister cannot possibly have full confidence in the defence minister following that statement. We know people sitting behind him right now do not have. We know that unnamed others in this place do not have confidence in him. The Prime Minister needs to carefully consider whether keeping the defence minister in his role is in the national interest, because he clearly has no confidence in the job he is doing.

He has been dragged in here this morning kicking and screaming. He should have been in here last night. He is trying to pass it off as just a joke, or, as Senator Abetz said, 'overstating'. Well, Senator Abetz certainly did not overstate his defence of the minister. He did not say, 'I know Senator Johnston is going to be sitting there in February.' He missed the opportunity to say that, but on radio this morning Senator Johnston showed absolutely no remorse. So he has already been out for a test drive and he showed no remorse this morning for his absolutely disgraceful remarks.

It is not a 'rhetorical flourish' for the defence minister to denigrate the workers who keep our submarines maintained and in the water. It is not a 'rhetorical flourish' to attack the workers who keep Royal Australian Navy sailors safe. The Prime Minister knew it. Senator Birmingham knew it. For this irresponsible minister to cover up his political embarrassment and political pain—he is prepared to do it.

I wonder if the defence minister was listening yesterday to the ASC worker who said:

There is no way that we would put at risk our sailors—Australian sailors. There is no way we will be giving them second-class work, shoddy jobs or anything like that. We give them the best.

That was a heartfelt response to Senator Johnston's denigration and his continual denigration.

This is a minister who is so desperate to break his promise that he is prepared to denigrate anyone, whether they are submarine experts, or whether they are former naval officers who actually know something about the submarine sector.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Conroy, please resume your seat. Senators, every senator in this place is entitled to be heard in silence. We do not need to have discussions shouted across the chamber. Interjections are permitted, particularly if they are witty, but you do not need to yell them. Senator Edwards and Senator Back, we do not need to have shouted discussions across the chamber.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Witty is okay!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, you are not helping things.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator O'Sullivan. Senator Conroy, you have the call.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Johnston attacks the workforce. One of the other things that the worker from the ASC said yesterday in his press conference was that he would have to go home last night feeling pretty gutted and say to his family that the minister thinks he is worthless for the job that he is doing. That is what he said last night.

This minister is a serial offender. As we know, this is a minister who does not have the confidence of the Prime Minister's office. He does not have the confidence of the Prime Minister. He does not have the confidence of senators sitting over there, who have repudiated him this morning. And all of this is demonstrated by the fact that, when the minister proposed a team that he wanted to work up the white paper, the Prime Minister's office intervened and said: 'You're not having them. Here's who's going to prepare the white paper.' We know that the Prime Minister's office has sidelined the minister when it comes to the submarine contract and the tender process. It is not Minister Johnston's personal staff who are flying to Japan to meet with the Japanese government, to meet with the Japanese ministers, to talk about Japanese submarines; it is the defence adviser in the Prime Minister's office. Everybody in this chamber knows what is going on.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So what?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So what? You haven't got a clue. You are so green, you—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Address your comments to the chair, Senator Conroy.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Senator O'Sullivan!

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So what? I will tell you what. If Senator Brandis found out that the PM was sending his staff around doing his job for him, Senator Brandis would have something to say about it.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, you are not being helpful.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me be clear about this. You are so green behind the ears that you do not even understand what a complete repudiation that is. You will be here for a few more months and you will pick it up as you go. Don't you worry, Senator O'Sullivan; you'll pick it up as you go! Let us be very clear: the Prime Minister's office—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Resume your seat, Senator Conroy.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I addressed him by the correct name.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: could you advise the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—you would think he would know this without being called to order—that he should address his remarks through you and not direct to Senator O'Sullivan.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald—

Senator Wong interjecting—

It is not necessary, Senator Wong.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Yes, I will address that. You are quite right, Senator Macdonald, and I have reminded Senator Conroy and other senators that their remarks should be addressed to the chair. It is not helpful, though, when comments are directed to the speaker which they feel tempted to respond to, and there are some on my right who have very penetrating voices that are not helpful. So I would ask you not to goad the shadow minister.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is certainly a loud voice echoing, mainly inside his own skull, but let us be clear—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, you are not being helpful.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand why Senator Macdonald needs to help out his new colleague from Queensland. I understand that. Every other person—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Is there any need to shout?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Heffernan. You can—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner makes the point that by lowering the tone and making people—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, resume your seat.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're a boofhead!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, I will ask you to withdraw that last remark.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Conroy, you're not a boofhead.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Heffernan, I will ask you to withdraw it. Withdraw.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that you're a boofhead.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, withdraw it unconditionally.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have withdrawn it unconditionally.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Everybody else in this chamber knows that, when the PM starts sending his adviser on trips overseas requiring special permission, the Prime Minister's office and the Prime Minister have no confidence in the minister. To totally bypass the minister clearly demonstrates the Prime Minister and his office's views of the minister.

What we have seen is every expert on submarines in the country, notwithstanding the allegations from the minister that they are on someone's payroll or they have been gone too long and they do not really know what they are talking about—every single expert says the same thing.

There is only one solution to the bias being shown by this minister. There is only one solution to the bias being shown by the Prime Minister in trying to give away this contract to the Japanese government, and that is to hold a proper competitive tender for this procurement. There is no more vital or lethal asset in Australia's defence than this next generation of submarines. For an island nation these submarines are our most lethal asset, and we should not take shortcuts for political expediency because the Prime Minister has had a rush of blood to the head—the same sort of rush of blood to his head as he wanted nuclear subs. You did a good job fending him off on that, Senator Johnston—well done. But on this one, as you know, he is running the submarine tender program from his office. There is no more lethal asset than these submarines, and we must get it right. We must get value for Australian taxpayers. We must hold a proper tender. Senator Edwards agrees, Senator Birmingham agrees, Senator Ruston agrees, the South Australian Liberal senators agree that we have got to have a competitive tender; they understand that, and that is why this minister is so, so shamed today. (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, if the next generation of Australian submarines is so critical to Australia's defence—as it is—then why did the government of which you were a member do nothing about it for six years? If a competitive tender process is so important, then why did you, as the minister responsible for the NBN—which was the biggest public expenditure on a project in Australian history—not allow a public tender process for the NBN? If a public tender process is so important, Senator Conroy, why did you interfere with what you yourself described as the 'corrupted' tender process for the Australia Network and set aside the choice of Sky, which had been adopted by the umpires, not once but twice, and substitute the ABC? So, Senator Conroy, when you speak about the importance of Australia's next generation of submarines, when you talk about the importance of a competitive tender process then, as always with the Labor Party, don't worry about what they say; just look at what they did—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or didn't do.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Senator, O'Sullivan: in this case, what they didn't do. If the Labor Party want to bring on a debate about who is better capable or who is more to be trusted with Australia's defence policy in the years ahead, make my day! If the Australian Labor Party wants to have a debate about who is more to be trusted with Australian defence policy and defence procurement, between Senator Stephen Conroy and my friend Senator David Johnston, bring it on!

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I just want to make a note of the fact that 'gutless' Conroy has left the chamber.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, that is not helpful and it is not contributing to the debate.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Heffernan rightly says, Senator Conroy has slunk out of the chamber. Senator Conroy has, in a shame-faced and weasly way, slunk out of the chamber, because he cannot face the truth of his record in government, both in his own portfolio and on matters of defence policy.

We know, and Senator David Johnston said in his statement to the Senate this morning, that yesterday in question time Senator Johnston made a rhetorical flourish, eight words, for which he has apologised and expressed his regret. And he has not been slow in doing so. We also know what Senator Conroy said more than nine months ago, at estimates on 25 February this year. Senator Stephen Conroy, who is the Labor Party's alternative minister for defence for this country—let us never forget that: this man who cannot even face the chamber when Senator Johnston is under attack in the chamber, who does not have the courage to stay in the chamber—nine months ago did not make a rhetorical flourish, he did not make a slip of the tongue, he did not let verbal exuberance get the better of him for a moment in question time. No. He made a deliberate, calculated and disgusting slight on one of Australia's most distinguished soldiers: Lieutenant General Angus Campbell. In Senate estimates he accused Lieutenant General Angus Campbell of being engaged in a political cover-up. When Lieutenant General Campbell—a better man than Senator Conroy could ever be—said, 'Senator, I would like to put on the public record that I take extreme offence at the statement that you have made', and when the chair of the committee required Senator Conroy to apologise, he was steadfast in his refusal. He mocked the chair, over two pages of Hansard, it is reported, to the eternal disgrace and shame of this individual, Senator Stephen Conroy. The committee retired for a few minutes and afterwards: still no apology from Senator Conroy. In a formulaic way, he said, 'I withdraw'. But, to this day, nine months and more after this disgusting slur was made on the integrity of one of Australia's finest soldiers—a three-star general, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell—there has been no word of apology to that gentleman from Senator Stephen Conroy. That is the quality of the individual who was the alternative defence minister of Australia, and then he chastises. He seeks to make endless rhetorical capital out of the fact that my friend Senator David Johnston made a slip of the tongue for which he, promptly and in a timely way, corrected and expressed his regret in the chamber this morning.

We could spend this morning debating the relative merits of Senator Stephen Conroy as the alternative minister for defence and Senator David Johnston, a very fine Minister for Defence, but it would be perhaps more fruitful to debate the record, because the other thing we did not hear from Senator Conroy in a 20-minute-long contribution was anything about Labor's defence policy. Not a word of defence of the Labor Party's record in this portfolio in the six years of the Rudd and Gillard governments. We heard a lot of sleazy ad hominem attacks on Senator David Johnston. We heard a lot about industry policy but nary a word about defence policy. That is the problem with the Labor Party: they do not see the difference. They do not have a defence policy. They did not release a defence policy before the 2013 election. That is how much they care about defence. They did not even bother to release a defence policy before the 2013 election.

But why would that surprise you? When they were in office Prime Minister Gillard did not even bother to go to meetings of the national security committee of cabinet. She did not even bother to attend the most important subcommittee of cabinet. In fact, as we know from the memoirs of some of her ministers, she sent her bodyguard. So, when the Labor Party cry streams of crocodile tears about defence policy, remember this: no defence policy before the 2013 election and no attention to the national security committee of cabinet by the Prime Minister of the day.

I might say that I had the honour to sit in the national security committee of cabinet with Senator David Johnston. Without breaching the confidentiality of that committee I can tell you that Senator David Johnston, one of the great quiet achievers of this government, is not very quiet in that committee. He constantly astonishes us with the depth, granularity and sophistication of his knowledge of defence systems and defence procurement. Senator David Johnston has a depth of knowledge and understanding of this portfolio, in particular the complex issues of defence procurement, the like of which I have never seen in a defence minister.

Of course, one can understand that the Labor Party when they were in government never came up with a minister with a grasp of the issues, because in six years they had three defence ministers. They lost their first—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They had three prime ministers.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is true, but one of them was a retread. But do not say that in front of Senator Wong, because it is a little embarrassing for her—the circumstances of the fall of Julia Gillard—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Address your remarks through the chair.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But we will not go there. Three defence ministers in six years. The first of them, Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, was required to resign under circumstances which reflected very poorly upon his personal character. They reflected very poorly upon him, and he was required to resign. The second defence minister they had was Senator John Faulkner, who has marketed himself for many years as a great scholar of strategic matters. Senator John Faulkner lasted in the portfolio until just before the 2010 election, and then he basically gave up. It was all too hard for him; so, having been in the portfolio for less than 18 months, this very senior member of the Labor cabinet said, 'I'm sorry, I am not going to continue on the front bench; I am going to resign.' Then, for the second term of the Labor government—that unlamented, unhappy government—we had in the defence portfolio a minister, Mr Stephen Smith, who did not even want to be there. He wanted to be a foreign minister, but he was forced into a portfolio in which he had no interest and for which he had no evidence aptitude in order to create a political fix to look after Mr Kevin Rudd so that Mr Rudd could take his former portfolio. And he did not make the distance either, because on 27 June last year Mr Stephen Smith said: 'I'm not continuing. It's all too hard for me too. I'm not contesting the 2013 election.' And the last 2½ months of the Labor government, as it limped to its sorry end, we had a lame duck defence minister.

That is the quality of the people that the Labor Party put into the defence portfolio, and now we have this buffoon, this clown, Senator Stephen Conroy, as the shadow defence minister whose only contribution to Australian public life thus far has been as communications minister presiding over the greatest destruction of public wealth in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia—that is, the NBN.

Of course, when you have indifferent ministers, disengaged ministers, incompetent ministers in a portfolio, that has a cost, and the cost it had was to Australia's defence policy. As I said at the start of my remarks, if you want to know what the Labor Party did for the next-generation submarine program, the program described as so critical by the shadow defence minister, for six years they did nothing. Not a word. Not a word, not a decision, not an appropriation, not an action, nothing for six years; and, as a result, when the Abbott government was elected and Senator David Johnston was given one of the toughest jobs in the government—to clean up this aspect of the Labor Party's mess—he found a blank sheet of paper and a capability gap.

Senator Edwards interjecting—

There it is, Senator Sean Edwards.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Edwards, that is not helpful.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what the Labor Party did for Australia's submarines over the six years in which they lurched from one disengaged defence minister to another: nothing. Not one thing.

But it was not just in submarines that defence suffered under Labor. Senator O'Sullivan, do you know how many defence projects were delayed during the six years of Labor government?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Address your remarks through the chair, Senator Brandis.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One hundred and nineteen defence projects were delayed during the period of the Labor government, 43 projects were reduced and eight were cancelled altogether. That is the Labor Party's record on defence as it limped from one indifferent, disengaged, incompetent defence minister to another. There were 119 projects delayed, 43 reduced and eight cancelled altogether. 'But that is all right,' said the Labor Party, 'because we are going to produce something called the Defence Capability Plan.' Do you know what happened to the Defence Capability Plan? It went the same way as the Labor Party submarines—it was never heard of again. So the key strategic document of the Labor Party's defence policy never saw the light of day and meanwhile not a step was taken to address the issue that Senator Conroy hypocritically this morning said is the most important issue in Australian defence policy—that is, the next generation of submarines.

The Labor Party during its six years in government achieved in this portfolio a deficit of $12 billion—there was a $12 billion overspend. You might wonder how you do that when you are doing even less—when you are delaying, reducing or abolishing hundreds of projects. They were actually doing less than had ever been done for defence, nevertheless the Defence portfolio came in with a $12 billion deficit. Meanwhile defence spending was reduced as a proportion of GDP from not quite two per cent, where it was when John Howard left office in 2007, to 1.56 per cent—a reduction of a quarter in the amount of money committed to defence and the lowest defence spend as a proportion of GDP since 1938. That is your legacy. Even then, such was your commitment to this portfolio and such was your interest in this portfolio as you staggered from one uninterested and disengaged minister to the next, even though you reduced the outlays by a quarter you still ran it at a $12 billion deficit on the budget papers. That might have something to do with who the finance minister was too, just by the way, but let us not go there either.

When Senator David Johnston came into this portfolio—and if you speak to any service man or woman they will tell you the same thing—the Australian Defence Force was recovering from the greatest period of neglect, the greatest period of policy confusion and the most serious period of underspending in its proud, more than a century long history. For six years of the Labor government—from Joel Fitzgibbon, who was forced out, to John Faulkner, who gave up, and to Stephen Smith, who did not want it in the first place and ended up as a lame duck minister—the record of the Labor government in this portfolio is one of shame. Then we have had this buffoon come into the chamber and say to Senator David Johnston, who has been given the task of cleaning up the mess, 'You put national security at risk,' when Senator David Johnston has worked night and day with commitment, intelligence, zeal, interest and genuine knowledge and understanding to redress the capability gap that the Labor Party left in Australian defence policy.

The key to defence policy is procurement—procurement of the right equipment, the right assets, at the right price in a timely way so that those assets come on stream when they are needed. So what do you think is going to happen in relation to what Senator Conroy tells us is the most important single defence procurement, the most important single defence asset that Australia will acquire in the next generation—that is, the next generation of submarines? Nothing was done for six years so of course we are going to face a capability gap. The responsibility for that capability gap lies entirely in the hands of those indifferent, uninterested, disengaged defence ministers who let that capability gap occur. That is the Labor legacy when it comes to submarines. That is the mess that Senator David Johnston inherited. As defence minister he has been doing a magnificent job in redressing the capability gap.

In the time available I have not had time to touch on the other Labor debacles like the air warfare destroyer program, which is more than two years behind schedule and was the subject of massive cost overruns as a result of the Labor government. You could go to almost any area of defence procurement and the story of the inheritance David Johnston acquired is a story of one catastrophe piled upon another, so do not come in here and lecture us about a slip of the tongue for which Senator David Johnston, unlike Senator Stephen Conroy, was prepared in a timely fashion to correct and express his regret for. Let us look at the substance—six years of neglect and at long last a minister who is determined to fix the problem.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call Senator Wright I remind senators that some terms may be parliamentary when used in a normal manner but when they are applied as a pejorative slur on another senator they are most unparliamentary. I would prefer it if that did not happen.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the defence minister's statement about the deplorable comments that he made last night. They are deplorable because these comments not only show contempt for the Australian Submarine Corporation—it is not just some faceless entity—and not just for the management of the ASC but these comments denigrate every member of the skilled workforce employed there.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

It also shows contempt for South Australia's proud history of skilled manufacturing. What have we heard from the defence minister in his statement about these comments? Have we heard the word 'sorry'? Have we heard that simple five-letter word that indicates real remorse?

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

No, we have heard a justification, an explanation, an excuse for why this was, to quote the Attorney-General, 'a slip of the tongue'. We have heard that it was a rhetorical flourish. We have heard that the minister regrets any offence that may have been caused. But we have not heard the unreserved apology that Senator Abetz, his own colleague, would require as the standard in his own speech today. So let me ask: has offence been caused by these comments? There is no doubt that, yes, there has been offence, because they actually undermine the sense of worth of skilled workers in this corporation in South Australia.

A news report quoted one of those workers today—pipe fitter, Andrew Daniels. I would like to quote this because this actually goes to the heart of what the sorts of intemperate, foolish and derogatory comments do when they are heard by the people who are affected by them. Mr Daniels said:

We are being trashed. When I go home to my family and this guy is telling me I am useless, I don't feel useless. That is pretty gutting to 3,000 workers in South Australia and Western Australia. It is not a great feeling to have your defence minister—you are out there doing the best job for the country and he is trashing you.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wright, resume your seat. Senator Moore.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a point of order—the interjections across the chamber by Senator O'Sullivan. I am unable to follow the argument being put forward by Senator Wright.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Moore. The interjector has been particularly vociferous today, so it would be helpful he desisted.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz has tried to minimise these comments. He has tried to explain that they came about because of frustration at the Labor government legacy. But that is not what the defence minister said in his comments. What he said in his comments clearly denigrated the Australian Submarine Corporation and their workforce, pure and simple. Unfortunately today he has not been big enough to say sorry. The sad truth is that this statement comes after a series of statements from the minister not just undermining the Australian Submarine Corporation but, cumulatively, undermining and casting doubt on Australia's naval capability generally. That is not what we should be expecting from a defence minister for Australia.

The submarine project is the largest procurement in Australian history. For that reason alone it must be done with transparency and integrity. It must be done with a competitive, transparent, open process that examines both value and cost but of course also fitness for purpose, because these are vessels that we will be relying upon for our ultimate defence.

Before the election we had this same defence minister stand in Adelaide and commit to the build of the 12 submarines in South Australia. Before that we had the previous government's white paper stating, 'The future submarines will be assembled in South Australia.' Mr Johnson on 8 May last year, then opposition spokesperson on defence, accepted this commitment and stated that the coalition 'will deliver' on the white paper's commitment. What he said I will quote so it is very clearly on the record:

The coalition today is committed to building 12 new submarines here in Adelaide. We will get the task done and it is a really important task, not just for the Navy for the nation.

They were fine words but it seems they have amounted to nothing. Then again, just to make sure that South Australians were in no doubt about what the government's commitment was, the coalition defence policy a week before the election reiterated the commitment:

We will ensure that work on the replacement of the current submarine fleet occurs in South Australia.

There is clearly now an agenda because we have the defence minister telling us that there has been no decision about the submarines. Of course there is a lot of speculation. Of course there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests that there has been a decision that the submarines will be built in Japan. But we have the defence minister telling us that there is no decision yet about the submarines. There is clearly no decision that they will be built in South Australia—in breach of that election commitment. But there is clearly not an agenda to ensure that we can have these submarines made in Australia. So we have the betrayal of a promise made to South Australians before the federal election.

What confidence, indeed, can we have that this Abbott government cares at all for South Australian jobs, coming as this does on the back of other decisions which have undermined the South Australian employment market. We have had this government presiding over the demise of vehicle manufacturing in South Australia. We have had now cuts to ABC jobs, which will severely affect the ABC and employment in South Australia, even though we still have Senator Abetz maintaining some kind of ludicrous fiction that there have been no jobs lost as a result of the cuts to the ABC. And now we have a defence minister who has not been big enough to use the word 'sorry' and has not fully resiled from the remarks he has made.

The ultimate question, then, is how can Australians trust the defence minister to run the procurement process in a truly transparent and open way? The evidence is that he is not competent to run this process transparently, and the ultimate question must then be: how can Australians trust this minister to oversee the defence of this country?

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Wong's motion to take note of the minister's statement be agreed to.

Question agreed to.