Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 164(3)(a), I rise to seek an explanation from the Minister for Defence as to why she has not complied with an order for production of documents made on 17 November 2014 in these terms:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Defence, no later than 4 pm on the next day of sitting, any documents produced by Macroeconomics.com.au Pty Ltd as a result of tender reference DMOCIP/RFT 0315/2012, including economic modelling and other examination of the potential economic impact of the SEA1000 submarine project on the Australian economy, among other subjects.

I seek an explanation from the minister as to why a document entitled 'A preliminary analysis of the economic impact of future submarines based on the experience of the Collins program' has not been tabled.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for some brief notice of the fact that he was going to raise this issue this afternoon. This matter was also discussed at estimates the week before last, as Senator Xenophon will recall. I note the order of the Senate of 17 November 2014. Senator Johnston provided advice to the Clerk of the Senate in November 2014, and I also provided further advice on this matter to Senator Xenophon I think earlier this month, if I recall correctly, and it was then followed up at estimates.

The analysis and the modelling report to which Senator Xenophon refers will form part of a final report to government that is being developed by the Department of Defence. The final report will follow the competitive evaluation process for the Future Submarine program that is now underway. These documents have been brought into existence by the Department of Defence for the purpose of the cabinet's consideration of the Future Submarine, and as such the government stands by its decision not to release those documents.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

This explanation by the minister is not satisfactory. This report is a report that was commissioned by the former government back in 2012 as to the economic benefits of building submarines locally, taking into account the experiences of the Collins class program. Initially, in my various toing and froing with the minister's office and through the Information Commissioner and the Department of Defence, it was indicated that there was nothing there, that there was not a report, but we now know that there has been a report.

I want to pay tribute to Senator McEwen, who has also assiduously pursued this issue in the estimates process. On 10 February 2016, in answer to a question from Senator McEwen, Rear Admiral Sammut said:

There have been some further payments to refine the model, but not through Macroeconomics, who are no longer involved. Their work has been completed in developing the model to a certain point.

In other words, the work has been completed; the modelling has been provided. I also note that Senator Conroy, as shadow minister, has been assiduously pursuing this issue. We need to see the modelling. Taxpayers have paid close to half a million dollars for this.

I note that the 2012 Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report in respect of procurement procedures contained a recommendation that there be openness and transparency in the process of procurement, and the government effectively said in response, 'We support that.' I am suggesting that the department has made a separate FOI based claim that the document is exempt on the basis that the document in question was brought into existence for the dominant purpose of briefing a minister on a cabinet submission. That claim is currently subject to a challenge with the Information Commissioner. Noting my detailed knowledge of the claim made by Defence, I am not inclined to simply acquiesce to the claim now being made almost certainly on the advice of the same people making the FOI claim inside the department.

In 1975 the Senate laid out by resolution its position with respect to public interest immunity claims. Paragraph 4 of that resolution makes it clear that, while the Senate may permit claims of public interest immunity to be advanced, it reserves the right to determine whether any particular claim will be accepted. As such, and as a courtesy, I advise the minister that I will be putting a motion to the Senate in the coming days in order to request production of any independent legal advice that supports the minister's claim.

This is an issue of great public importance not just in my home state of South Australia but in terms of the Future Submarine program and the importance of this Macroeconomics report's impact on the program. We ought to see it. Taxpayers have paid for it. If the government says now that there is a public interest immunity or that it is cabinet-in-confidence, we ought to see the basis of that claim.

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

I thank Senator Xenophon for raising this important issue, but I just wonder why it is being raised now. We had a Labor government for six years who did absolutely nothing about any sort of shipbuilding in Australia. While Senator Xenophon makes a good point now, it just seems to me a pity that these points were not made five or six years ago, because, if they had been, and if you could have got the previous Labor government to move to actually do something, then there would not have been the valley of death. There may have been some shipbuilding happening now. We had six years—

Senator Gallacher interjecting—

Senator Gallacher, you tell us why in six years the party of which you are a member—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I would like you to ignore the interjections and address your remarks through the chair.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President, for protecting me from the interjections of Senator Conroy and other members of the Labor Party. These are important issues, but why was nothing done in the six years of the Labor government? I think Senator Conroy is still the Defence spokesman for Labor—I am not sure whether he has been sacked from that job—but if he is still the Defence spokesman perhaps he could tell me whether he did anything about shipbuilding in Australia in the time that he was a minister in that government—I think for all of those six years. There was not one mention of it by the Labor Party or even by Senator Xenophon, as far as I recall—I may be wrong, and I stand to be corrected. It is a very important issue, and I would like an answer from the Labor Party on why they did nothing in six years of government. If they had have done something, then perhaps we would not have the crisis that Senator Xenophon rightly raises now. I see that Senator Gallacher is getting some advice from Senator Xenophon. Perhaps you have got the answer but I, for one, would be very pleased to hear the explanation as to why the Labor Party, after six years in government, did not one thing about any sort of shipbuilding in Australia.

Question agreed to.