Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question without notice is for the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, Senator Payne. I refer to the Prime Minister, who, prior to the 2016 election, emphatically denied that the heavy sustainment work on submarines would shift away from Osborne, saying, 'The heavier work, if you like, was obviously always going to be done at Osborne, as it is now'. Now FOI documents released on Monday contradict the Prime Minister, revealing work on the relocation began immediately after the 2016 election. Why did the Prime Minister mislead the South Australian people about the minister's plans?

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

I thank Senator Carr for his question. There is no question of any misleading being done whatsoever. What the material which is being referred to says, and says sensibly, is that in the planning process a build of future submarines that will be undertaken in South Australia has to be examined in terms of the size of the build that is required to be done, the size of the infrastructure that is required to be established at Osborne and so on. I referred to a number of those matters in my answer to a question from Senator Patrick today. What is most interesting is the only reason we can have a discussion about this issue is that this government is getting on with the job of delivering a future submarine capability for Australia, unlike those opposite who in the entire time of their period in office did not place one single order for one vessel built in Australia for the Royal Australian Navy, not one.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, a supplementary question.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, on what date did Minister Pyne direct Defence to suspend work on the relocation plan? And why was that work suspended?

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

As I think has been discussed at estimates—Senator Carr, I'm not sure whether you were in the room at the time—obviously the work that proceeds in relation to the planning under the Naval Shipbuilding Plan is based on a range of priorities. It includes the infrastructure at Osborne, it includes the work for the future frigates, the work that is being done for the offshore patrol vessels and the work that is being done for the future submarines.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

It is a point of order on direct relevance, Mr President. This is the third or fourth question after yesterday's question from Senator Patrick. The FOI documents make clear the work was suspended. We simply are asking for the date.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payne is being relevant to the question asked and is directly dealing with the material. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question.

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

Thank you very much, Mr President. I don't have a specific date with me. I'm very happy to take that matter on notice and to provide advice to the Senate. However, what I would say is that the only reason we are in a position of needing to manage the presence at Osborne, the size of the development at Osborne, the infrastructure creation at Osborn is that this government has not only commissioned 12 new future submarines for Australia but also nine new frigates and offshore vessels, 54 vessels in total—in sharp contrast to those opposite, who did nothing to address the jobs issue attached to it. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, a final supplementary question.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, given the work on the relocation study was clearly staged to avoid political pitfalls such as Senate estimates and the state elections, how can the government deny having politicised Department of Defence processes? Isn't it now obvious that under Minister Pyne the Naval Shipbuilding Plan has become nothing more than a Liberal Party marginal seats plan?

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

The proposition that Senator Carr has put to the chamber is not only fallacious, it's factious. This government is getting on with the business of delivering capability for the Royal Australian Navy with offshore patrol vessels, future frigates and future submarines, not to mention Pacific patrol boats for a number of our key regional neighbours—54 vessels in total. That process is extremely complex. It is overseen by a Naval Shipbuilding Plan with which the senator should be well familiar. And it is underpinned by a vast amount of work being done within the organisation, within the department, which the senator has asked about in estimates but chooses to conveniently forget some of those discussions on a day like today. But most importantly: ships commissioned by those opposite, the Labor Party, when in government—zero.