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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. In an article entitled 'PM intervenes in submarine debacle', The Australian Financial Review has reported:

Two senior naval officers have been tasked by Prime Minister Scott Morrison to examine options for Australia's submarine fleet, amid ongoing tensions with the French over the $90 billion future submarine program.

Can the minister confirm that the Prime Minister is so concerned over the bungling of the Future Subs program by the Minister for Defence that he was left with no choice but to intervene?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I cannot confirm that, because I certainly do not accept some of the statements made in the senator's question. This government has taken strong action to ensure that our defence forces will have the capability they require for the future—in particular, the naval capability they will require for the future. In seeking to deliver that naval capability, including future submarines, this government has also committed very significantly to ensure we build sovereign defence industry capability in this country as well.

The actions that we have taken stand in stark contrast to the inaction of those asking the questions in this regard. As a government, we have taken serious action to make sure that we commission the building of new defence infrastructure, new defence assets, new naval assets in this country, including future frigates and future submarines. We've done so in contrast to those opposite, who commissioned not one new Australian-built naval vessel. Our commitment is to make sure that these projects are delivered—delivered according to the time lines that have been announced, delivered according to the commitments around Australian industry capability. And our focus will be on ensuring, in that delivery, that we secure the value for money—

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

Which you still haven't delivered on.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear Senator Wong say, 'That you still haven't delivered on,' as though somehow they were going to be built yesterday. Well, they would have been built a lot sooner if those opposite had actually commissioned any of them, if they'd actually made any types of decisions in that regard. We have made the decisions to do them. We have made the decisions to build these things, Senator Wong. We have made the decisions that you failed to make. We have made sure that we have made those decisions. We have signed those contracts. There is indeed, on the future frigates, steel being cut, work happening, work underway. Under your lot, you couldn't even make the decision to do it in the first place. We have the work commencing.

Senator Wong interjecting—

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

Order, Senator Wong. Senator Gallacher is on his feet and he has the call.

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

When did the Prime Minister make the decision to intervene and call in two senior Navy officers to examine the whole program?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister stays very close in terms of monitoring the progress on delivering against these critical national defence infrastructure capabilities. He works to make sure—

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

Direct relevance: the minister may have spent most of his first answer talking about what happened almost a decade ago, but this is a very, very specific question about when the Prime Minister made a decision to intervene. I'd ask you to draw this minister to the question.

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

I've been listening to the minister for 11 seconds. I thought he was talking about the Prime Minister, so I'm going to actually—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, 11 seconds in, I haven't heard enough to determine that where he is going is not going to be directly relevant. I have allowed you to remind the minister of the question, and I shall listen to the answer.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the Prime Minister and Minister Reynolds and every member of the cabinet are very focused on ensuring these projects are delivered to meet the naval requirements for the future. I don't accept all of the imputations in Senator Gallacher's primary question or indeed the fact that I'm going—

Senator Keneally interjecting—

'There's a report in the Financial Review,' I hear from Senator Keneally. Of course! We'll just run off media reports, shall we? No, what our government is focused on doing—

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

Order, Senator Birmingham. 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

A point of order on direct relevance: when did the Prime Minister make the decision to intervene and call in the two senior Navy officers to examine the whole program? That is the only question we have asked. I ask this minister to demonstrate some accountability to the parliament and some observation of the standing orders and to be directly relevant.

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

The minister was referring to the quotation in the substantive question, which was related to this, I believe.

Senator Wong interjecting—

I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. At that point he directly said he did not agree with some of the imputations that this question was drawn from, I believe, which were in the quotation in the substantive question. So, as long as the minister is narrowly construed to that, I can't instruct him on the content of the answer.

Senator Wong interjecting—

I am happy to take some advice, Senator Wong, after this and, if I am incorrect, I will happily report so to the chamber.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry to break it to Senator Wong, Senator Gallacher or those opposite, but the Prime Minister and Minister Reynolds rely on a lot more than two senior Defence officers in relation to the delivery of these critical pieces of defence infrastructure. We are working hand in glove with Defence and with companies to get the assets our Navy needs. (Time expired)

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

Senator Gallacher, a final supplementary question?

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

When did the Minister for Defence first become aware that the Prime Minister was forced to intervene to fix this debacle? When?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I completely reject that question and the underlying premise behind it, because the Prime Minister and Minister Reynolds are consistently engaged in working together in relation to the delivery of these projects, along with the members of the National Security Committee of the cabinet and along with the relevant defence department officials and agencies. That's what's happening. This is a government that works as a cabinet government—a Prime Minister and his ministers working together to make sure that we achieve the outcomes our government has set. The outcome our government is set to achieve is to deliver the naval infrastructure and capabilities that we need for the future, to deliver the frigates, the submarines, the offshore patrol vessels, the investment in other technology and capability that our defence department requires—$90 billion worth of commitments that we have made compared to the big fat zero that we inherited when we came to office.