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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

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

Off you go!

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

Thank you, Leader of the Government. I will take that invitation. Yesterday, between the 'rhetorical flourish' and the deadpan non-committal answers given by the Minister for Defence, Senator Johnston, there was a great contribution from Senator Faulkner. Without any malice—I got the sense that he did not take any great enjoyment out of it—he analytically, dispassionately and systematically demolished all of the arguments that the Minister for Defence put up in defence of his position.

But I want to take a slightly different tack The Opposition Whip, Senator McEwen, put it very succinctly today when she said there are lots of groups in the community that rely on certainty and confidence in our economy. One of those groups is the very valuable and highly skilled workforce at the Australian Submarine Corporation, and another, sitting alongside it, is the small business community that relies on those people having confidence to make a decision to buy a car, a house, some insurance, a holiday and all the normal things that workers in the economy do. There are a number of very large companies and a number of quite disparate sectors who look at the manufacturing base, which is collected in South Australia around defence; and see the potential from possibly the greatest investment that this nation will make in defence procurement; and make long, careful, deliberate decisions in respect of that. Those companies have had that confidence blown away by a completely callous statement that the ASC 'could not be trusted to build a canoe'.

This is so serious for the state of South Australia. We had the decisions in the automotive industry. The next largest manufacturing sector is the defence sector. The Minister for Defence stood in the people's Senate and said, 'I wouldn't trust them to build a canoe'. He did not suffer any penalty for that despite the fact that there are workers going home to their families and considering whether they can move to a bigger house, buy a new car or take a holiday. The uncertainty that was expressed in this chamber the other day is widely held, deeply felt and repugnant to many South Australians. We are not just talking about Labor or Liberal here; probably 90 per cent of South Australian electors find the statement of the minister completely repugnant. It impugns the reputation of the ASC workers. It impugns the reputation of South Australia as a whole. It is completely unacceptable to simply say, 'I had a rhetorical flourish.' It is completely unacceptable. Senator Faulkner said that if a reasonable person could find a predisposition to bias in the defence procurement process then that comment was totally out of order. No penalty has been paid. The Prime Minister has come out and tried to salvage things a bit. All of the South Australian members of parliament that I have anything to do with have tried to salvage things a bit. There will be an adjudication on this—and it may well come on December 6 at the by-election in South Australia.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald is yawning from across the chamber; it will be very interesting to see whether voters and electors in South Australia go to sleep like Senator Macdonald or actually stand up and make a decision based on the treatment of their state by a very callous minister who in my view has gone beyond the pale in castigating, denigrating and impugning not only South Australian submarine workers but South Australia as a whole. This is a widely-held and deeply-felt issue—and we will get an adjudication. Senator Macdonald will be able to read the paper, the same as I do. After the Victorian election, there will be a South Australian election and people will make a decision based on the character of this government. This government will basically have an adjudication on what it has done and said about South Australia in the manufacturing sector in particular. It is an absolute travesty that this minister has not fallen on his sword and taken responsibility for denigrating hardworking people. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Haven't we seen a contrast today and yesterday in this place between the highly competent, measured, focused and hardworking Minister for Defence, Senator Johnston, and those shrieking disgraceful attacks that have been visited upon him by Senator Wong and Senator Conroy! What a contrast it has been. Why would people make such attacks? We know that the best form of defence is attack. What is the best way of covering your own failure? Attack your successor and deflect attention from yourself. Haven't these two exhibited both of those traits of trying to deflect attention from themselves! In the time available to me today, I am going to refocus attention on them.

It is interesting that Senator Gallacher speaks about the biggest investments in defence in Australia's history when in fact the former Labor government, led from South Australia by the then finance minister, Senator Wong, a South Australian, oversaw the delay of 119 defence contracts, the reduction of 43 and the complete cancellation of eight. This was a finance minister who failed to stand up for South Australia, who failed to stand up for South Australian jobs in the defence sector. She now stands here holier than thou and tries to bring down the very person who is succeeding in filling the disgraceful gap that was left by the Labor government This was the finance minister at the time who inherited a surplus and who inherited a country with no net debt. Then, the lamentable circumstance of $200 billion of deficit, borrowing $1 billion a month, $33 million a day, two new primary schools every day, seven days a week, is what the failed then finance minister, Senator Wong, left us with. Does she apologise? No.

The other point of apology that Senator Wong has been very silent on is the second of the persecutors and that is Senator Conroy. When did she, as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, stand up and say to Senator Conroy, 'You will come in here and you will apologise for the disgraceful performance that you visited upon General Campbell during Senate estimates'? Our Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Abetz, gave advice to Senator Johnston that he did overstep the mark. His hyperbole in the excitement of the moment was too much. And didn't we see the contrast of the two, Senator Abetz, through you, Deputy President? Didn't we see Senator Johnston come in here and say, 'Yes, I do apologise for the words I used'?

Before I get on to Senator Conroy—and it is a shame I only have a minute and 54 seconds left—what Senator Johnston was doing was firing a shot, not across the bows of workers at ASC, he was saying to the management of the Australian Submarine Corporation, 'Lift your game'. That is who he was talking about. How often do we hear Senator Cameron going on about poor leadership or poor management in this country and the fact that the workers of this country are held back by the management and the leadership. Yes, Senator Johnston may have overstepped the mark, yes, he may have use those words that he now regrets, but what he was doing was saying to the management of that company, 'Lift your game so that you will once again be credible, so that you will once again be able to ensure your workforce has work'. That is what I heard.

In the minute that I have left let's talk about Senator Conroy. It is not just that he rudely criticised a distinguished general of the Australian Army, it is that what General Campbell was referring to was the fact that he and this government were repairing the shocking demise that had been visited by the last Labor government in terms of the protection of our borders. It was General Campbell who was referring to the success of Operation Sovereign Borders, and Senator Conroy could not stand it. He could not sit there and hear how this man, led and guided by Minister Morrison, was actually redoing what Labor had undone. That is what that was all about, and when he refused to apologise his words were, 'I'll come into the chamber'. Well, we have been waiting nine months for him to come into the chamber. We saw Senator Johnston yesterday, a distinguished minister, stand up and apologise. I wait and I challenge Senator Conroy to come in here now and redress that imbalance. (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday, for the first time since 2005, a cabinet minister was censured by the Senate. Today, Labor senators and members have called on the Prime Minister to request the Minister for Defence resign. We are not the only ones asking the minister to do the right thing and resign. Even The Advertiser, the bastion of the conservative press in South Australia, is calling on the Minister for Defence to resign. We know that his fellow coalition members and senators are hoping he will do the right thing and resign. The minister's grip on his ministry was already tenuous when, on Tuesday this week during question time, in an attempt to provide cover for the fact he was about to renege on his pre-election promise to build the future submarines in South Australia, the minister made his now infamous and outrageous comment about the women and men of the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide. He said that he would not trust them to build a canoe.

The reaction in Adelaide was instantaneous. How dare the Minister for Defence say that when everyone knows that Australian Submarine Corporation workers are some of the most skilled, dedicated and innovative in this country. How dare he use those workers as cover for his government's decision to break the promise about building the future submarines in South Australia. What damage has he done to the future of manufacturing and shipbuilding in this country with a comment like that which was immediately picked up by the international media? What signal did that message send to the rest of the world about Australia's naval capability? He has compromised our standing in the world, and that is a truly irresponsible thing for a cabinet minister to do. All Minister Johnston's weasel words, his half-hearted apology, his ludicrous explanation of a 'rhetorical flourish' and his utterly pathetic attempts to back track, ever since Tuesday's outrageous comment, have not worked. Business, workers, the media, even his own colleagues know that there is no climbing out of the hole that the minister has dug for himself.

Last Tuesday night I received an email from a constituent in South Australia, Mr Brenton Westell, regarding Senator Johnston's comments. He had sent it to the minister but he also sent me a copy. I am going to read this email out, because it captures exactly the outrage that South Australians felt on Tuesday—and are still feeling today. The email, addressed to Senator Johnston, said:

Dear Senator,

I have just viewed your remarks regarding ASC on the floor of the senate, and party politics aside, I am personally insulted by these comments.

My 23 year old son is a graduate engineer at ASC, having graduated with honours last year from Adelaide University. Four years at uni, studying harder than most people will ever know, after achieving straight A's in year 12, to have a Federal Senator tell him you wouldn't trust him to build a canoe.

You may have an agenda to push, but this does not give you carte blanche to denigrate the "lifters" your treasurer keeps wanting us all to be.

I doubt you will even read this, but on the off chance someone does, it is my view that a heartfelt apology in the senate is the only redress to the insult I feel on the part of a fine young man who actually deserves your respect rather than your spite.

Brenton Westell

I know that Mr Westell has followed up his email with a call to the Prime Minister's office calling on the Minister for Defence to resign. I look forward to hearing what response Mr Westell gets from the Minister for Defence and from the Prime Minister. There are, of course, other South Australians calling on the Minister for Defence to resign. South Australian state Liberal leader, Steven Marshall, was unforgiving of the minister's comments. He said of Senator Johnston:

Unless he can rebuild some connection, some rapport, some confidence within the industry, then I don't think he has any alternative (but to resign).

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has also publicly slammed the minister for his remarks, saying that he has 'demonstrated that he will not be objective or impartial' and that his 'position is no longer tenable and he must resign.' The calls for the minister to resign are coming from all sides of politics. (Time expired)

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I sit here and listen to the arguments of the other side in this debate and during question time, I am reminded of that great American children's TV show Sesame Street. The children up in the gallery are perhaps more recent viewers of that show than I am, but I remember that there is a great song in Sesame Street called One of These Things is not Like the Other. The reason I think of that song when I hear their debate is that we have now spent two days in the Senate—quite a long time yesterday afternoon—arguing about censoring a senator. That is a very serious motion and a very serious act of this parliament—about a sentence that he spoke, about an analogy that he made that was slightly mangled and that he came in and apologised for later. And we have wasted hours upon hours of our time to make this censure motion. This song came to me, because yesterday when I was hearing this debate, I thought: I am only new to this place. What other acts and behaviours have we censured in this place in the past? We have over 100 years of history so presumably there is some kind of precedent here for censure motions. What acts actually constitute the need for a parliament to censure someone ? If you go to Odgers, it says on page 461:

Ministers have been censured for matters as varied as: misleading the Senate, failing to answer questions on notice within the stipulated time limit, maladministration of a department, attempting to interfere in the justice system of another country, failing to declare an interest in a matter, for “contemptuous abuse” of the Senate, and for refusing to produce documents in compliance with an order of the Senate.

These are all very serious matters. When we come to do the next edition of Odgers, unfortunately—and the Clerk is here—the Clerk is going to have to add a little phrase to say 'and someone was also censured for mangling an analogy and subsequently apologising for it'. One of those things is not like the other. I do not know which one. There are about 10 serious acts there and another one which is not like the others. Yesterday, though, we had this faux outrage from the other side about this. I think it is appropriate that we do think of Sesame Streetwhen we talk about the Labor Party's approach to defence policy in this nation, because it is as if their defence policy is written by muppets. Kermit the frog would do a better job than these guys are doing right now writing defence policy.

I walk around this place, and people put stickers in their windows all the time about what is going on. I saw a humorous one in Senator Cameron's office earlier—it was quite good. But I keep seeing bumper stickers in Labor Senators' offices saying, 'Build, design and maintain here'. And there is a picture of a submarine. I looked at the Senate report that Labor senators just signed off on, in the Senate Economics References Committee, and nowhere in that report do they make a recommendation to build, designed or maintain ships here. So they are putting these bumper stickers presumably on their cars as they are driving around the electorates and they put them in their offices, but they did not make that recommendation in the report. Why didn't they make that recommendation in the report? Because no-one made that recommendation to the Senate Economics References Committee. No-one! Not one expert said that we should build, design or maintain submarines here. Everybody knows that we are not going to build, design or maintain ships here. We may do a component of the work here, and the government is still considering how much that might be. But we are not going to design submarines here. We are not going to be able to do all of that work here. All of the ships we are currently building, which were approved and contracted for under the Labor Party, were all done with substantial amounts of work from overseas. The previous submarines that we had built were the Collins Class, which the Labor Party held up as a template for the future. Much of the work on those submarines, and much of the equipment, comes from European submarine companies. The weapons systems come from American submarine companies. So these guys over there are not producing a proper defence policy. They are producing something that cannot be attained that even they do not want to put their name to.

The other interesting thing, when you read through the Labor senators' report that they released a couple of weeks ago, is that they say that what they want is an open and transparent tendering process. They want it to be open and transparent and they want it to be competitive and open to everybody, except on the one page of the report they say, 'The Japanese can't apply'. So it is open and competitive, but we cannot have Japanese ships.

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

What!

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right, Senator Abetz. I wish I had the words. I have the words of another debate here but I do not have the report on the me. There is a sentence in that report that says we should not go ahead with a Japanese submarine right now. Why? If we are going to have an open and competitive tender process, what have you got against Japanese submarines? What is against it? The reason they doing this is because they are running a political campaign and not a defence policy. It is not a policy to defend the future of our nation. This government is focused on making sure that our policy is put in place for the best interests to defend our nation. Over there, they are wanting to get grabs for late night TV.