Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution in this debate. I would like to start as I finished off in taking note. This minister ought to talk the plank. He ought to go off the plank—deep six himself—because of these reasons. At the moment, shipbuilding and submarines are approximately 3,000 direct jobs in South Australia. There are no complete figures on indirect jobs, but there are many thousands of them. These are jobs which create things. These are jobs in the economy which create—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is relevance. The bill that is before the Senate is the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014, and Senator Gallacher is not talking to any of the repeal provisions of the bill.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: what the ALP is seeking to do here is to amend the omnibus repeal bill to ensure that there is part of that bill dealing with the submarines. This is exactly on point, and nothing could be more on point in relation to the issue that we are dealing with.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been no amendments to that effect moved. I also point out that this is actually a repeal bill. This is not a bill that is seeking to insert new things into the statute books; this is seeking to take things off the statue books. But, putting that aside, no amendment has been moved.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is foreshadowing the amendment to be moved by Senator Conroy in relation to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014:

1 At the end of Division 2 of Part 4 -1A

Add:

105BA Future submarine project tender process

(1) This section applies if the Commonwealth (including a Minister on behalf of the Commonwealth) proposes to enter into a contract (a submarine design and building contract) for the design and building of a submarine, or a substantial part of a submarine, as part of the future submarine project.

Note 1: The future submarine project is designated SEA 1000—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have just taken some advice from the clerk. The amendment has not yet been moved, so we are still on the second reading debate. At this stage there is no amendment before the Senate, so I would ask that you speak to the substance of the bill which is before the Senate. There will be the opportunity to speak to the amendments once they are moved, and people are free to move those amendments, but at this stage we are talking about the second reading of the omnibus repeal bill.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On this issue: it is quite clear in my view that what is seeking to be done here is to ensure that the omnibus repeal bill is amended. That is what is being proposed. I understand there is no amendment before the Senate, but it is entirely proper for Senator Gallacher to pre-empt this amendment. It is not improper at all. He can speak on that issue.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order I have taken advice from the clerk. There is no question in relation to that amendment before the Senate. As I pointed out and as you have foreshadowed, any senator is free to move such an amendment, at which time that can be addressed, but at this stage no such question is actually before the Senate.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: as much as anything to endeavour to assist Senator Gallacher, he could speak to schedule 1, which relates to agriculture; schedule 2, which relates to communication; schedule 3, which relates to the environment; schedule 4, which relates to immigration and border protection; schedule 5, which relates to industry; schedule 7, which relates to social services; schedule 9, which relates to veterans' affairs—all are related to taking things off the statute books. I hope that might be of assistance to Senator Gallacher.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: it is entirely appropriate and proper for Senator Gallacher to raise any of the issues associated with the submarine contract not coming to Adelaide and the implications it has for those other parts of that omnibus bill. He can put that, and it is entirely proper for him to indicate that position.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have heard the arguments put. I have ruled based on the advice of the clerk. Senator Gallacher, I ask you to be relevant to the second reading debate before the Senate.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014. This bill seeks to amend or repeal legislation, as has been pointed out by the government, in agriculture, communications, environment, immigration and border protection, industry—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just told you that.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm telling you again!—Prime Minister and Cabinet, social services, Treasury and the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. This bill is one of the three that form part of the government's spring repeal day package. The deregulatory savings in this bill are calculated at $1,000,335,000. This bill does not contain some of the government's deregulatory measures that were outlined in the prime ministerial statement or some that have been made in the media—for example, the requirement to put mudflaps on motorbikes. That is really important! That's got to be in front of submarines in Adelaide, hasn't it! It changes the occupational health and safety requirements for government building sites. There was a worker killed in Adelaide the other day, and your answer is to change the occupational health and safety standards. There was a worker killed in Adelaide the other day and your answer is to change the occupational health and safety standards. The changes to the Do Not Call Register are among the deregulatory measures contained in this bill. Examples of the measures in this bill range from and include the repeal of an act in the Immigration and Border Protection portfolio related to a particular tariff decision between 1996 and 1999 which is no longer relevant. We cannot talk about submarines but we can talk about something that happened between 1996 and 1999. Repealing the Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Act 1979, which amended the Patents Act 1952: this amending act was spent once an amendment passed into law. And there is abolishing several bodies including the Fishing Industry Policy Council, the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council and the Product Stewardship Advisory Group.

Whilst the majority of the measures in this bill are not contentious and have no deregulatory savings attached, there are some concerns with some of the measures in the Environment portfolio, including reducing details to be specified in an import or export permit for hazardous waste. Amendments may be moved in the Senate after an inquiry and after stakeholder consultation has been undertaken to determine whether there are negative consequences in any of the repeals where, if our amendments fails in the Senate, details of the amendments and repeals of each portfolio are attached at attachment A.

We have been invited to make a couple of contributions. Let us just talk about the abolition of the Fishing Industry Policy Council. The council has not been convened since the enabling legislation—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Resume your seat.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Through you, Chair, I just want to give Senator Gallacher time to gather his thoughts. It was not clear what he meant about mudflaps. If you could just clarify mudflaps—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator Heffernan.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, regarding the mudflaps: for example, ending the requirement to put mudflaps on motorbikes. This is what the omnibus repeal legislation is doing. It is going to put mudflaps on motorbikes! But seriously, it will abolish the Fishing Industry Policy Council. The council has not been convened since the enabling legislation of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 commenced. Functions and consultations that the council was to provide are being fulfilled by other working groups and bodies.

Amendments relating to the Rural Adjustment Scheme and the Farm Business Improvement program: amendments to the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 and the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 to reflect the fact that the Rural Adjustment Scheme and the Farm Business Improvement program have ceased and have been superseded by other farm support mechanisms such as the Farm Household Allowance, underpinned by the principles in the intergovernmental agreement on National Drought Program Reform. Amendments relating to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997: amendments to the act to reflect the fact that certain payments to the industry marketing and research bodies are no longer made. The last payments to these bodies were finalised in 2008 and there are no outstanding payments to be made.

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

Why are you opposing it?

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You want me to talk to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014, and that is what I am doing. I will get down to where we want to talk about submarines.

Communications schedule No. 2—no deregulatory savings calculated—repeal redundant provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992: repeal the provisions that are redundant as the Special Broadcasting Service has assumed television and supplied activities previously undertaken by National Indigenous Television Limited. Repeal of provisions relating to consultation before a certain legislative instrument: repeal of provisions that are considered unnecessary given that there are separate consultation requirements in the legislation—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Gallacher, resume your seat for a moment.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I would like to give Senator Gallacher some time to get his new notes from Senator Cameron so that we can actually listen to something that is relevant.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this a second reading amendment I see before me, Senator Gallacher?

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It could well be, Senator Fifield. I would also like to move that:

At the end of the motion, add:

"but the Senate recognises the importance of a competitive tender for Australia's future submarines, consistent with the objectives of the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act 2005."

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek your guidance, Mr Acting Deputy President. The second reading amendment would seem to bear no relationship in any way, shape or form to the substance of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. I am advised it does reference the act and so it is an amendment at the seconding reading stage. I will allow the amendment. I understand it is being circulated. Senator Gallacher, are you speaking now to the amendment.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you. Mr Acting Deputy President, I would like to talk about skills.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One moment, Senator Gallacher. I believe you have moved a second reading amendment.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I am having difficult, Senator Gallacher, as to whether this is going to be, in bitcoin language, a commodity or a currency.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

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

Is the argument denominated as a currency or a commodity?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to address the amendment that has been foreshadowed in the omnibus repeal legislation, which is about submarines. At the moment shipbuilding and submarines make up approximately 3,000 direct jobs—manufacturing jobs in South Australia.

Opposition senators interjecting—

And I will address all of your points but it is safe to say there are many thousands of ancillary jobs—in fact, employment in the wider industry is approximately 27,000 direct and indirect jobs within defence in South Australia. This includes ADF and government employees such as DSTO; the industry employs about 14,500. These are old figures. They are from 2011-12. We are currently producing more economic data on these ancillary jobs, which are a direct benefit to the economy of South Australia. So that is: 3,000 direct and 27,000 across the board—any diminution of confidence in our state defence manufacturing sector can have a really deleterious effect on the economy of South Australia.

We really do need to put a few facts on the table here. Since the minister's infamous comment that he 'would not trust ASC to build a canoe', let's just have an examination of what has been said about that. Not all of the criticism has been from this side of the chamber. Stephen Marshall, the Liberal leader in South Australia said: 'He needs to do everything he can to meet with the industry urgently and win back support, or his position is untenable.' He said, 'At the moment we have a minister making a mockery of ASC and it is not good enough.' He said: 'Just because the minister says it was a rhetorical flourish is not good enough.' Mr Marshall said he would be speaking with Prime Minister Tony Abbott today. He also said: 'These were disgraceful comments about the hardworking people at the ASC, and he needs to do something immediately to rebuild the confidence of those people in the defence sector here in South Australia,' Marshall told journalists. 'And if he can't, his position is untenable.' Marshall said he would be talking to Prime Minister Abbott today about the comments. 'The comments made in the parliament yesterday by the minister were nothing short of deplorable. We completely reject the comments that were made.' That was from InDaily, 26 November 2014.

The West Australian reported:

A senior Liberal said 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 Senator Johnston told Mr Carter over dinner in Adelaide that he would refrain from criticising the ASC in future.

'This whole process has been undermined by Johnston and his office from the very beginning,' a senior Liberal said. Another senior Liberal said the comments were 'some of the most stupid words I have ever heard from a senior minister'.

Assistant Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs said Senator Johnston's comments were 'wrong', as Tony Abbott issued a statement in support of the shipbuilder. The Australian reported:

Angry South Australian Liberal MPs said last night that Senator Johnston’s comments prompted a rush of complaints to the Prime Minister’s office, which later issued a rebuke of the minister.

Mr Briggs said he did not support Senator Johnston’s comments, while South Australian Senator Simon Birmingham also hit back.

Mr Briggs said he did not support Senator Johnston's comments—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Seselja, I rise on a point of order. I seek your guidance. Just as I am looking at the title of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring) 2014 Bill 2014, it describes it as 'a bill for an act to repeal certain acts and provisions of acts'. It would seem that there is an inherent inconsistency with the purpose and objectives of the act and that which has been foreshadowed by those opposite in relation to substantive amendments.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fifield, there is no point of order. It is a broad-ranging act and I have ruled on the amendment. Senator Gallacher, I will ask you to continue.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Prime Minister Tony Abbott said: 'But that's no excuse for denigration of the workforce or extensive capabilities South Australia has, which I am confident will enjoy more jobs from increased investment in the future,' he said.

It goes on and on and on. We have a contribution from Senator Fawcett, who has called for a competitive tender on the project. He said the overseas experience showed it was not abnormal to have cost overruns and that such blowouts were worse at other sites around the world.

Senator Edwards, who also came out recently to call for a competitive tender, said he was 'in full support of ASC and the people in it' and that through the shipbuilding inquiry he had heard enough evidence to shore up that position. That was from 25 November.

The Age reported:

A spokeswoman for ASC declined to comment and referred questions to the office of Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who serves as the firm's shareholder on behalf of the federal government.

Senator Cormann's office did not respond to inquiries by deadline.

Some members, particularly South Australian members, will be aware of the good Matthew Abraham who had this to say when speaking with Mr Pyne:

HOST: I am. I’m asking you, if you’ve got a Defence Minister who really can’t handle his language, and sends a signal to Adelaide that we can’t 'build a canoe' – that’s how incompetent we are, our workforce here – and then has to be effectively kicked up the bum by the Prime Minister in a statement this morning, and then goes on Adelaide radio – he came on our program – and is backtracking from it; I’m asking you whether he’s competent enough to fill one of the most important roles in Cabinet?

PYNE: What is important is that the Prime Minister and the Government have confidence that the ASC can turn around some of the difficulties they have experienced in the Collins Class submarine and in the Air Warfare Destroyer build. [And] that we are working with them to ensure that that happens. Even the three wise monkeys who could see no evil and hear no evil and speak no evil know that the Air Warfare Destroyers and the Collins Class submarines have both had their challenges.

PYNE: What is important is that the Prime Minister and the Government have confidence that the ASC can turn around some of the difficulties they have experienced in the Collins Class submarine and in the Air Warfare Destroyer build. [And] that we are working with them to ensure that that happens. Even the three wise monkeys who could see no evil and hear no evil and speak no evil know that the Air Warfare Destroyers and the Collins Class submarines have both had their challenges. Now the Minister for Defence shouldn’t have made that statement. He regrets making it. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he doesn’t support that statement. The Defence Minister has been on Adelaide radio this morning indicating he regrets it. It was made in the heat of the moment and obviously we don’t share that emotion.

HOST: Do you have confidence in David Johnston?

PYNE: He’s a very competent Minister. He’s an important member of the Coalition team and I’m working with him and I’m working with the Prime Minister to ensure the Osborne workers keep their jobs and that we add to the workforce—

HOST: So, you’d like to see him continue being Defence Minister?

PYNE: It’s not for me to indicate my preferences for who should be in the Cabinet. That is a decision of the Prime Minister. It’s certainly also not my role to criticise my fellow Cabinet members and I won’t be doing that. But I can tell your listeners that, as the South Australian Cabinet Minister, I’m working with both the Defence and Prime Minister’s offices to ensure that Osborne workers’ jobs are secured and that the workforce at Osborne increases, the investment in South Australia increases, which is already incredibly—

So all along the way people are walking away from what is obviously a very conflicted and incompetent minister, one who does not control his own agenda in Defence, one who does not have the backbone and the fortitude to stand up for his portfolio, one who has suffered interference from the PMO's office and one who is going against all of the relevant experts that we have had come to Senate inquiries.

Let us quote Warren King, who said:

We had done study work. We have built up an improved body of knowledge about submarine design in our IPT team in South Australia.

… … …

We have built up this body of knowledge and we have done a lot of other work with different consulting groups in understanding the submarine design drivers that we need to take into account to get a submarine that meets Australia's strategic needs.

The other side is fond of claiming that the Labor government did nothing. The Labor government provided over $200 million for detailed studies and analysis to inform the government's decision on the design of Australia's next submarine. About $80 million has been spent. This led to the decision in May 2013 to stop investigation of military off-the-shelf designs and focused on progressing two options: an evolved Collins and a new design. This research also informed our decision to use the US combat system for submarines. This can now be used as a reference point for future submarine design work.

What we have really got here is a critical case of neglect in South Australia. We need a manufacturing base and this decision will affect South Australia for generations if we do not make the right decision here. What is wrong with a full competitive tender? What is wrong with a full, open, transparent competitive tender? What is wrong with releasing the Winter report? Why is the government withholding critical information? Why are they not going ahead with what is a truly common-sense approach to this?

If you want to have submarines as the spear in Australia's national defence, we need the best submarines.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why didn't you build them?

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Edwards, we have fixed the Collins.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What nonsense from you.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Edwards.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are talking about a project that is an extremely long-term project. We are talking about a project which will go into the next decade. We are talking about a project where Australia will rely on a critical Defence component—that is, submarines. There is no dispute that we need submarines. The only dispute is that lot opposite want to buy them off the shelf and we on this side want to design them and build them using a fully competent trained workforce in South Australia, which will then benefit the wider economy. All of the hundreds of thousands of workers who are in small business, all of the defence companies who make long-term critical decisions based on confidence and certainty need a fully open and transparent tender, which will put this genie back in the bottle and restore some confidence in South Australia, restore some confidence in that great workforce, restore some confidence in the Defence state capabilities and we look forward to that happening.

Unfortunately this minister does need to take a really big cold shower on this, release the Winter report, go to a fully competitive tender—a truly transparent tender—let South Australia do what it does best, let the Defence industry in South Australia contribute and let the state government in South Australia contribute to the process instead of white anting, releasing misinformation and accusing the workforce of being unable and incapable of building a canoe.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Edwards is constantly ignoring your directions. Senator Edwards, I can understand why he is being so rambunctious. You should enforce your rulings.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, it is not an opportunity to debate. I have called Senator Edwards to order. I would remind all senators to keep order.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question now be put.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question now be put.

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

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Gallacher be agreed to.

The question now is that the bill as amended be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.