Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment standing in the name of Senator Conroy:

(1) Page 25 (after line 29), after Schedule 3, insert:

Schedule 3A—Finance

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013

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 in the Defence Capability Plan as in force on 1 December 2014.

Note 2: This section does not apply to contracts for research, concept or preliminary design, planning or other preparatory work that does not involve the building of a submarine or a substantial part of a submarine.

(2) The submarine design and building contract must not be entered into other than as the result of a limited tender process conducted in accordance with the Defence Procurement Policy Manual as in force on 1 December 2014, subject to this section.

Tender process

(3) At least 4 bidders must be invited to participate in the limited tender.

(4) The future submarine project is taken not to be an exempt procurement for the purposes of the Defence Procurement Policy Manual.

(5) A request for tender must invite the bidders to give the Commonwealth a project definition study and preliminary design that meets top level requirements specified by the Commonwealth, sufficient to allow mainly fixed pricing and 10 vessel years of post-commissioning integrated logistics support.

(6) The Commonwealth must consider the Australian Industry Capability Program, the Defence and Industry Policy Statement and the impact on the strategically vital Australian submarine and shipbuilding industry when deciding whether to enter into a submarine building design and contract in relation to the future submarine project.

(7) This section ceases to have effect at the end of 30 June 2020.

We are finally here to talk about the substance of this Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill and the substance of this matter. A lot of people in this chamber have tried to turn this into a debate about process, into a debate about procedure. That is not what we are here to discuss and that should not be what we are to discuss. What we are here to discuss is a bill that will include a provision to allow a proper open and fair process for the tendering of Australian shipbuilding.

The Senate Economics References Committee, of which I am fortunate enough to be chair, has gone through a lengthy, detailed process to look at the substance of the issues at hand. Any close evaluation of the substance, of the heart, of the matter demonstrates that there is no capability problem, there is no military argument and there is no economic argument why you cannot have a fair and open tender process within the necessary time to make sure that we can have a proper Australian build. All we are asking for in this process is to give the Australian firms a fair go, a fair chance and an opportunity equal to that provided to others. We are asking for a competitive, market-based approach. I urge crossbench senators—I note there are two of them here—to look at the substance of what we are here to discuss. We are saying we want an open tender process for the allocation of Australian shipbuilding contracts. We are not asking for favouritism for an Australian firm, we are not asking for any benefits, but for those of us who believe that the best outcome will also be determined when there is a more open, more competitive tender process, this is the path to achieve that. I acknowledge Senator Edwards, on the other side, the deputy chair of the Senate Economics References Committee, who not only has made a fantastic contribution in this debate but also has had the guts, the decency and the honesty to call things as they are and say, hang on, we need to have this open process, we need to have this tender process, we need to make sure that ASC and other Australian firms are allowed to compete in this process. I acknowledge the comments of Senator Ruston, Senator Birmingham and Senator Fawcett, who unfortunately is not with us here today to participate in this debate.

The need for a competitive tender is clear. In the process that the Senate Economics References Committee went through, witness after witness gave emphatic and overwhelming support for the government conducting a competitive process before choosing Australia's future submarine. Witnesses agreed that decisive action must be taken to start the tender process but insisted that there was time for a competitive process where all proposals for tenders could be tested and their claims validated. I quote Dr John White, the person responsible for the government's own report on these matters—a report the government refuses to make public. He said:

There are significant technical, commercial and capability gap risks invoked by prematurely and unilaterally committing to a preferred overseas, sole-source supplier.

Why? Because without an open, transparent and internationally competitive tender process Australian taxpayers cannot be sure they are getting the value for money they should be. I quote Professor Goran Roos, who has said:

If the Government were to make it known that it was sole-sourcing a contract … it would place that Government in a negotiating position where it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get a good deal on both price and terms and conditions. This would de facto expose Australia to an unacceptable level of risk in the national security domain …

Why? Because a decision to have a tender process where only one or two companies are allowed to compete by its nature denies the opportunity to negotiate. There are those on the other side of the chamber, and there are those out there in the community, who have argued Australian firms are not up to it, who have argued Australian firms do not have what it takes. That is an argument that has been comprehensively rejected. Frankly, if that is what some people believe, then have an open tender process, have an open opportunity to hear the arguments, have a fair and transparent system where those people can put their case and their case can be tested. The bulk of the government's argument to date as to why it has not yet gone down this path of an open and transparent tender process is that there is some kind of a capability gap, that there somehow is not enough time. That is a case that has been comprehensively rejected. I quote again Dr John White, who is an expert on these matters:

There is still sufficient time available, with adequate contingency, for the competitive PDS to be carried out and to build the Future Submarines in Australia.

So there is no capability reason why this cannot happen—there is no capability case. There may be a case where the Australian firms are not the best firms to build the submarines, there may be a case where they lose the tender, but those on this side of the chamber are not arguing for an unfair advantage—we are arguing for a fair and transparent tender process. I quote Commodore Paul Greenfield, retired:

There does not have to be a capability gap if we get on with it now.

I also quote Rear Admiral Peter Briggs, who said:

Our strong recommendation is that we get bids from all four potential contenders and make a sensible, informed choice at that point and that we get on with it, because the clock is running.

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

I rise on a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman, under standing order 118, subsection (1). I am only new to this place but I cannot see how this amendment Senator Dastyari is moving is in any way relevant. The title page of this bill says:

A Bill for an Act to repeal certain Acts and provisions of Acts …

Senator Dastyari has been speaking now for 12 minutes and has not made any comments relevant to that description. Standing order 118(1) says:

An amendment may be made to any part of a bill, provided it is relevant to the subject matter of the bill …

This is not relevant to the subject matter of the bill, so I ask you to rule it out of order.

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

On the point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman: this is similar to a debate we had earlier. This bill is for an act that makes various amendments to the statute law of the Commonwealth and for related purposes. What we are debating is an amendment to section 105BA of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 for the Future Submarine project tender process. That is entirely consistent with the bill before us.

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

I support the point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman, that Senator Canavan has very cleverly raised. I will just read out standing order 118(1) in case you are in any doubt:

An amendment may be made to any part of a bill, provided it is relevant to the subject matter of the bill and otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the Senate.

Under no understanding of the ordinary words of English can anyone suggest that a bill relating to some tenders can possibly relate to an omnibus bill getting rid of various pieces of legislation and regulation. That bill has nothing whatsoever to do with a substantive amendment to an act requiring that something positive be done. The omnibus bill is about repealing things, getting rid of things. That is why it is called the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill—note the word 'repeal'. Under no extension of the English language could you rule that this amendment is in any way relevant to repealing things. I appreciate, Mr Temporary Chairman, that very often chairmen are obliged to say, 'That is the way we do things', but if you are not going to abide by the standing orders of the Senate, why bother having them? It is very clear that an amendment has to be relevant to the subject matter of the bill. Requiring tenders for a submarine is in no way relevant to a bill which deals with the repeal of many other pieces of legislation that have nothing to do with submarines or tenders. I urge you, Mr Temporary Chairman, to rule the amendment out of order. We should proceed with the business of the Senate as set out in the red.

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

There is no point of order. The stated purpose of the bill is:

A Bill for an Act to repeal certain Acts and provisions of Acts and to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, and for related purposes.

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

On the point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman: which statute is this amending?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: It is the statute law of the Commonwealth, I am advised—which is everything.

Which law is this amending?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, which is part of the statute law of the Commonwealth. There is no point of order.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a sham! The government is displaying a complete inability to tackle the issues.

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

On a further point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman: this also comes under standing order 118. I refer to Odgers. We have been debating aspects of the title of the bill as being indicative of its subject matter. On page 249, Odgers says that, while the subject matter of the bill is of some relevance, it is not definitive in deciding whether or not something is relevant under standing order 118. I argue that all of the provisions of this bill that Senator Fifield read out earlier relate to the repeal of regulations. All of them represent attempts to reduce red tape and regulation. That is the purpose of this bill. That is why the government has introduced it. There is no way that the things Senator Dastyari has spoken about are 'related purposes'. There is no relation to this bill whatsoever. If we are going to interpret standing order 118 in this liberal fashion, this place will become just like the US Congress. We will just be able to put riders on everything. What is going to ensure this place has relevance in debate and has properly ordered debate about what is before the chair?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Canavan, I have ruled on this point of order.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will pursue any measure, any opportunity, to avoid having to talk about the substance—the substance of what we want to discuss. Before we leave at the end of this year, we need to have a debate about the Australia's Future Submarine project and the future of Australian shipbuilding. There is an argument constantly being put before us: that there is not time—that there is not time to build the future submarines here in this country. Rear Admiral Peter Briggs, retired, said:

Our strong recommendation is that we get bids from all four potential contenders and make a sensible, informed choice at that point and that we get on with it, because the clock is running.

Several independent witnesses who came to our committee gave evidence that sufficient time remains to conduct a competitive tender for the future submarines while avoiding this capability gap. This is due to the work on the future submarines undertaken by previous governments. In his evidence, Dr John White set out a timetable that included a competitive tender process—contracting, construction, testing and introduction to service—without there being a capability gap. I urge all senators to have a look at the evidence that was provided by him, evidence that Senator Edwards has spoken very highly of.

Finally, there is an argument that says the Australian shipbuilding industry is incapable of building the ships here. That is something that I comprehensively reject, but it is an idea that I believe deserves to be tested in a tender process. Retired Commodore Paul Greenfield said:

The future submarine should be designed specifically for Australia and built here in Australia. A sail-away cost of $20 billion for twelve submarines built in Australia is entirely feasible, and Australian industry has much to offer in solving the truly unique engineering challenges.

Mr Glenn Thompson, from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, said:

It is better to build to ensure that you have the skills to maintain.

And Professor Goran Roos said:

Australia as a country is at least $21bn better off to build in Australia than to purchase overseas in addition to creating 120,000 man years of additional jobs in the economy over the life of the project as compared to building overseas.

I am not an expert. I am not in a position to make a determination about the validity of the statements being made by those eminent professionals. What I am in a position to say is that the best way to ensure that we are getting value for money and that we are protecting Australian jobs is to allow the open tender process to continue, because, if they are wrong, if Australia does not have the capability to do it, if the ability is not here—and I have no reason to believe that they are wrong—then an open, transparent, fair tender process is the best way of exposing that. At the end of the day, this is where the debate should come to.

The debate that we need to have is fundamentally about a very simple question: what is the best way of deciding where and how Australia's submarines should be built? Is the best way of doing that saying, 'Let everyone put their bids forward; let everyone make their case; let everyone put forward their plans'? There will be German companies, there will be Australian companies, there will be Japanese companies, there will be Spanish companies and there will be variations and ventures, with part-Australian builds, part-international builds, part-design et cetera. Let them all come forward, and let us have a process where we, as a nation, can have a look at the different proposals and allow the market approach to produce the best outcome.

I find it unfathomable that I am the person in this chamber at the moment—not those opposite me—making the emphatic case to allow a market based response to this system, saying that the best way of determining how these ships should be built is to allow the private sector to compete with one another. I worry and fear that the path that the government is going down—if it has not already reached that conclusion—is about rejecting that. I refuse to believe that allowing one group, one company, in one nation the opportunity to build Australia's future submarines will ensure that we have the best value for money. I believe a competitive tender process will always give you a better outcome. The big argument against all of this that is constantly being raised by the government and that has been attempted to be made—because they cannot make the case about cost any longer or the case that Australian firms are not able to build it—is that somehow we do not have time, and that is why we have to go internationally and not allow the Australians to compete. But expert after expert, eminent researcher after researcher, economist after economist has come forward and universally they have stated that that is not the case and that you can, in a period of one year, have a proper process that allows a competitive tender. It is not as if this is going to be coming as a surprise to the market. The market expects there to be, at some point soon, the opportunity to bid for these Australian submarines. It is not as if work has not already begun or happened in this space in recent times. The best approach is to allow that.

I think it is a good process that the government so far has ruled out some kind of a MOTS option, a modified off-the-shelf option. I quote Commander Frank Owen, retired, from the Submarine Institute of Australia, who said:

There are no MOTS options. Even the most capable of available overseas submarines will require modification.

So there is going to have to be this process anyway. While we are going through that process of modification, of getting a plan together for an internationally built submarine, why not, as part of that process, allow the Australian companies to compete? Why not allow Australian firms to say, 'This is our bid; we are good enough; we are strong enough; we are professional enough to compete with the best in the world, and we are going to do it in an open, transparent, fair way'? We are not asking for industry policy that gives Australian firms an unfair advantage over competing firms. We are simply asking that Australian firms be given the same opportunity to compete as international firms. We are here today, and we are urging for the best, most sensible market-based approach to the future of Australia's submarine projects.

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

I rise to speak on this amendment. For 7½ years, this was not a priority for the Labor Party. Since it became a union issue, it is now a priority.

Senator McEwen interjecting—

How shrill can it be? On the back of a truck, standing down at Ottoway while the Leader of the Opposition does all the dog whistling on all of this. Dr John White is a very credible witness, and I agree with a lot of what he said. What Senator Dastyari failed to tell you was the full truth. What happened was that when I questioned Dr John White, he said that there is now a defence capability gap because the former government failed to take action in the time—in fact, the former government pulled $19.6 billion out of the Defence budget. That is how much they care about the arrowhead of our defence strategy in Australia! Do not let their indignation fool you. This is just theatre—or, I might say, a pantomime—because there is now a defence gap.

The issue for us in Australia is what is the best for the Defence Force? First priority, No. 1: what is the best for the Defence Force? I believe that is that submarines should be built in South Australia. But why are we getting this union rhetoric up the back here? It is as if Senator Dastyari is up for preselection. He is not. And it is as if Senator Dastyari was being broadcast, but he is not. There are no TV cameras here; they are not on. So what is it all about? It is about shielding what they did not get done.

And may I commend you on your earlier contribution, Mr Temporary Chairman Gallacher, on behalf of South Australia. It was a valiant effort. The shadow defence minister threw you to the wolves for I think six minutes and 14 seconds before you were actually handed your script; you equipped yourself admirably. I agree that when it comes to submarines, we have always had an international partnership. And we will again, even if we build them in Adelaide, in Melbourne, in Williamstown or wherever. There will be an international partner, just like there was with Kockums, the Swedes, and the Collins class, and now we have the Germans coming in.

By the way, with all of this hysteria—heaven forbid—oh, that is right; we are playing the politics here. How empty. The defence minister has not made a decision. The government has not made a decision. That is the simple fact. It was not a priority of yours over there on the other side for seven years, and now the unions are on the back of their trucks getting out their old rhetoric again, hammering the conservatives. Well, well, well.

Senator Dastyari advertised a number of times that he is the chair of the economics references committee. Actually, I am the chair of the economics legislation committee. I did not understand the relevance either, except that I have been and listened to a number of people who said that we can build submarines in this country. Yes, they said that, and that is quite right, as Senator Dastyari said. But that is not an opinion that is lost on the defence minister, this government or anybody else. Everybody on the other side seems to think that they know. They are all clairvoyants on the other side. They know, they are already predicting the outcome of what the government is going to do. What emptiness; what jelly backs.

I am not going to go on too much more, but I will say that, yes, every Australian would like to build defence submarines here. We would all like the motor industry to continue on. We would all like all of these things to happen. I want the South Australia submarine builders to be able to tender, because I believe they have the right to tender. But nobody has made a decision yet. This stunt here tonight is simply that—a stunt. It is politics, just hollow politics. That is all it is. I am glad that it is not being broadcast. I ask the minister assisting if he would like to respond.

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

I too would like to speak briefly in the committee stage of this bill tonight, and I will actually mention the name of the bill that we are debating—unlike Senator Edwards, who seemed to take the opportunity to indulge in a bit of union bashing yet again. You would think he would have learnt from the Victorian election result that union bashing does not work.

My question is to the minister. I ask him: will his government be supporting the amendment to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill that is being debated here tonight—that is, the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Conroy. I ask: will the government be supporting this amendment and, if not, why not? In particular, I would like to hear whether the Liberal coalition senators on the other side, and, indeed, Senator Bob Day, who is in the chamber tonight, will be supporting this very worthwhile amendment to what is a very inconsequential bill without it.

The omnibus repeal bill was introduced as part of the government's much heralded but completely worthless—it was a big fizzer actually—red tape repeal day. The bill itself was much ado about nothing before this amendment moved by Senator Conroy. The amendment will put into the bill a requirement that the Future Submarine project in South Australia is subject to a competitive tender process, which it should be. Without this amendment the bill would simply do things that governments always do in repeal bills—that is, get rid of legislation that is obsolete or redundant or unnecessary for some reason or another. So the bill, without this amendment from Senator Conroy, did things like repeal an act in the immigration and border protection portfolio that related to particular tariff decisions made between 1996 and 1999 that are no longer relevant. It will repeal the Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Act 1979, which was spent once the amendment was passed into law and so that is of no consequence either.

The government made a big song and dance about this bill, but it did not do anything substantial. But now, if this amendment gets up, it will do something substantial. What it will do is require the government to enter into a legitimate competitive tender process for the 12 new Future Submarines that we want to see built in South Australia. It will ensure, as I said, that the tender process be subject to a proper competitive tender process because we here on this side believe that is what should happen. As my colleague Senator Dastyari went on at some length about, that is what the experts in this field believe should happen as well.

The problem we on this side have is that we can see the way forward for the Future Submarine project but we have come up against a Minister for Defence who is determined not to build those submarines in South Australia and not go through a legitimate competitive tender process. He has demonstrated that on a number of occasions over the last few months. Since he made the promise to the people of South Australia to build those 12 submarines in South Australia he has backtracked at a million miles an hour. You have to ask why.

Is it because he does not want the submarines built in South Australia? We have seen many examples of how the Liberals have walked away from the South Australian manufacturing industry. We saw it in the automotive industry, as they forced Holden out, and we may be seeing it here again with the submarines. Is it that the Minister for Defence would prefer to give this contract to an overseas company to build the future submarines or is this a directive coming from the Prime Minister's office? That is something the Labor Party has been attempting to ascertain.

We know now that the Minister for Defence is fundamentally biased against the Australian Submarine Corporation. We heard him say the infamous words last week that he would not trust the workers of the Australian Submarine Corporation to build a canoe. That appalling comment still resonates in South Australia. There was an immediate outrage in South Australia when he said that comment and there is still outrage in South Australia because the minister has been unable to backtrack from it. He half-heartedly recognised the fact that some people might have been offended by his comment, but he has not apologised to the people of South Australia, particularly to the workers at the Australian Submarine Corporation, and he should. As a result of him not apologising and for making that stupid comment in the first place, Labor have, quite rightly, called on the Prime Minister to ask the Minister for Defence, Senator Johnston, to resign from his position.

Not only was that comment insulting to the people of South Australia and workers at the Australian Submarine Corporation; of course it was incredibly reckless that the Minister for Defence should say such a thing about the organisation that builds our submarines and our naval ships. What message did that send to the rest of the world about our capability as a manufacturer of these high-technology vessels? What signal did it send to our defence personnel about what our commitment is to their safety? The Minister for Defence is supposed to protect and care for defence personnel, but he is out there saying, 'You cannot trust the submarines that are being built by the Submarine Corporation.' It was a dreadful thing to say. This minister has not been able to come back from that.

I am looking forward to an answer to my question from the minister. I note that the Minister for Defence is not here, but I am sure the minister representing him will have an answer for me on what coalition senators are going to do about this very sensible amendment moved by Senator Conroy to make this omnibus repeal bill something very worthwhile for the parliament to consider. I note, as other senators have done, the requirement to put in a competitive tender process for the submarines, which should be built in South Australia. I was pleased to hear Senator Edwards say that he believes that the ships should be built in South Australia too. That is very good, but I wonder what he is doing about reinforcing that message because it has taken coalition senators quite a long time to come on board with the Labor Party and say: 'Okay. Maybe we should build these submarines in South Australia.' It has taken them quite a long time to echo what Labor senators have been saying since day one, which is that the submarines should be built in South Australia and there should be a competitive tender process to enable that to happen in the most transparent and accountable way possible. I am interested in what the minister is going to say in response to my question, although I am a little doubtful that we will see South Australian coalition senators and Independent senators agree to this amendment to the bill, which they should.

If we needed any more evidence that there should be a competitive tender process in the way envisaged in this amendment that has been moved to the bill and is being debated here today, we could refer to a number of experts who have contributed to the public debate about the Future Submarine project. Mark Thomson from ASPI is extremely well regarded on all sides of politics. He said in September this year:

The bidders can all make claims about the sorts of prices they can build the submarines for, but until you have a competition where a binding bid is placed how can you know.

That is common sense. He is not saying that the minister should decide, which is apparently what the minister, or the Prime Minister, wants to do. They want to offer this enormous project—the biggest procurement project ever in Australia—to some nation that may not be Australia. What an outrageous thing to do. There must be a proper process for this. This is the biggest procurement project ever. It will provide jobs for Australians, particularly for South Australians in my home state. When Dr John White gave evidence to the Senate Economics References Committee about this very important matter he said:

Unless there is a prize at the end and some competitive tension, the experience is that you really do not get the best offer.

That is an expert in this field saying that you have to have some kind of competitive tender process to get the best price. The government have been banging on about ensuring that they do get the best price possible for this significant project, so why wouldn't you accept this amendment that has been moved tonight to ensure that that happens in this project? Rear Admiral Peter Briggs (Retired) said:

The only way to pick it is to conduct a competitive project definition study where you can get the answers back to your top-level requirements …

I could go on and on about all those comments. The endpoint, of course, of this debate is to ensure that Australian jobs are protected and that we get the best possible submarines for our defence personnel.

In terms of protecting jobs in South Australia, I would like to reiterate what I have said on many occasions in this place: these jobs are absolutely critical to the future of South Australia. This amendment deals with skills and those skills need to be protected in my home state. A lot of the workers at the Australian Submarine Corp. that were so appallingly disparaged by the Minister for Defence had previously worked at Mitsubishi, where they were skilled workers, and then they moved to the Australian Submarine Corp. I have spoken to many of those workers and they are devastated to think that this government, despite the promises that this government made to them before the federal election, is prepared to walk away from them. They may be facing another disruption in their lives where the great jobs they have at the Australian Submarine Corporation are at threat because this minister cannot commit to Australian jobs, he cannot commit to Australian workers, he cannot commit to a competitive tender process, and he cannot commit to providing the best possible vessels for our defence personnel to work on. He has abrogated his responsibility in so many fields.

Here is an opportunity for the government and the minister to come back from that abrogation of their responsibilities. Here is an opportunity. Here is an amendment that has been moved to an otherwise fairly inconsequential repeal bill which gives all of my colleagues on this side the opportunity to support Australian jobs and Australian industry. It also gives the coalition senators from South Australia on the other side the opportunity to do that, too, and I am pleased to see that there are three of them in the chamber here tonight. I guess they have come along to put their hand up for this very sensible amendment to this otherwise reasonably inconsequential bill. Senators Birmingham, Edwards and Ruston, I look forward to seeing you with the ayes when this amendment to the bill is put at some stage in this debate.

I would urge the government to take up this opportunity provided by my colleague Senator Conroy to get behind workers in Australia. Do not spend your time dissing them by criticising them for being union members, as so many of you do. Let's think about good jobs for them, let's think about the skills they bring to Australia, and let's work collaboratively to ensure that there is a good competitive tender process that will ensure that the submarines are built in Australia—as you all promised before the last federal election. Save Steven Marshall, the Liberal opposition leader in South Australia, from having to make comments about how useless the Minister for Defence is. Get on board with this amendment and at least try and salvage some credibility as representatives of South Australia. Stand up for your state; stand up for the workers in South Australia. Here is an opportunity to do it. I look forward to seeing my coalition colleagues—and, indeed, Senator Bob Day down the back of the chamber there—actually honour their commitment to the people of South Australia, to represent them and ensure that South Australia is in the best possible position for the future. We need these submarines in South Australia. We need a good process to get these submarines in South Australia. Here is your chance, senators all around the chamber, to ensure that that happens.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McEwan. Senator Cameron.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I—

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

Point of order. The protocol in this place is that the call vary across the chamber. Both Senator Birmingham and Senator Madigan were on their feet. It would be highly irregular if there were two opposition speakers in a row.

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

On the point of order, I am happy to cede but I must indicate that Senator Birmingham was in conversation on his feet with a couple of senators. You would not have known he was seeking the call. I am happy to cede and accept the convention.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron has ceded the call. I am at the disposal of the Senate. It seems there is not—

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

I will not cede if there is no-one else standing.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, thank you, Senator Cameron.

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

Thank you, Chair. What is going on?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, point of order.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron was on his feet.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking to make a point of order. Chair, as you heard from Senator Fifield in the discussion about who had the call, I was on my feet, Senator Madigan it was on his feet. You had acknowledged that Senator Cameron had ceded the call. You are in the chair. You could rightly have given the call to either of us. I was looking over to Senator Madigan to seek to gesture as to whether he would like to take the call first, as an act of goodwill to Senator Madigan. You rushed to quickly give the call back to Senator Cameron. Chair, there are protocols adopted in this chamber. I am more than happy to take the call, but if Senator Madigan wishes to speak I was, given he was also on his feet, accommodating his willingness to do so.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Birmingham, but protocols in the Senate are based on people seeking the call. All I saw was an exchange between you and Senator Madigan and finally you stood. In the spirit of fairness and the fact that Senator Cameron has ceded the call, I am now waiting for someone to stand to seek the call. Senator Madigan.

John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair. Before I address the amendments to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014 moved by Senator Conroy I would first like to state that I was not aware nor do I condone the way in which this bill has come about for debate this evening. However, many in the community will not be aware of the stunt that was pulled before and therefore I would like to briefly outline why I do support the amendments.

Over the past year or so the government has been continually undermining and badmouthing Australia's submarine and shipbuilding capability. This amendment seeks to right a wrong. It seeks to require that a competitive tender process takes place to ensure that Australian industry is given the opportunity to compete to build the new submarines. Too often it is the case that we relate undesirable aspects of our naval building and maintenance projects within the industry. Let us not forget that many of the troublesome areas which we associate with the shipbuilding-sub industry did not come about due to poor standards of Australian workers but rather faulty or troublesome equipment purchased from overseas. The fact of the matter is that we have not heard so far, in the toing and froing of this debate, anything about the actual hulls failing. It is the propulsion systems, amongst other things, that have given trouble.

The fact of the matter is that the Collins class submarine project was one of the most ambitious technical and manufacturing projects ever undertaken in this country. If we look at some of the other countries in this space, such as Germany and Japan, they have experience in this area going back around 100 years. Both sides need to acknowledge the fact that Australia built submarines from ground zero. That delivered to Australia great social, economic and technological outcomes. There is no other country in the world that has done what we did. We cannot have one toe in the water and four toes out of the water. It is all toes in or no toes in. What it takes to build submarines, and to build submarines competitively, in this country is to stop the political bickering. It takes the unions, the workers, the opposition and the government all working together. We have to make a decision in this place to build the best conventionally powered submarine that will serve Australia's national interests and build on the skills and capabilities of our manufacturing industry in this country. This is beyond political bickering, and it is about time we acknowledged some of the great technological and industrial capability that has been developed in this country in such a short time against competitors around the world who, as I said, have been building subs for close to 100 years or more.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, Senator Cameron was on his feet first.

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

I will cede the call.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron. I rise to speak on the amendment that is before the committee. I have to say that I am astounded at the front, the gall, the cheek and the chutzpah of those opposite. I am absolutely astounded that they would come in on a bill, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014, and come up with a stunt of this nature—a stunt which is completely unrelated to the legislation that is before the Senate and a stunt on an issue that they have such an astoundingly bad track record on.

I have heard others, in speaking to this amendment, speaking about promises. I remember promises. I remember promises from 2007 when then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kevin Rudd, promised that he would kick-start the building of new submarines in Adelaide. He said in 2007:

Starting the process this year will guarantee continuity of work for South Australia's defence industry and those employed in the sector.

Mr Rudd, as we all know, went on to win that election, but did work start that year? No. Did it start in any of the following six years? No. Did we see amendments of this ilk during that time? Absolutely not. We did not see anything other than repeated promises and repeated inaction from those opposite. Not a contract entered into, no meaningful work on designs done, and no plans and no details on how this promise would be fulfilled, just a promise remade time and time and time again with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Now we have this stunt—brought on at 7.30 on a Monday night in the final parliamentary sitting week of the year—on a bill that is completely unrelated to what Senator McEwen rightly acknowledged is the biggest procurement project in Australia's history. Is this the way to handle the largest procurement project in Australia's history? Is the responsible thing to do to have ad hoc amendments to unrelated bills brought before this chamber for the Senate to consider rather than following the proper processes of government—processes that have been established since 2003? Since 2003, major Defence acquisitions have gone through a two-pass cabinet process—a dual consideration by cabinet, where the right assessment is undertaken, where the advice by the Defence chiefs is undertaken and where all of that information leads into considered decisions.

I appreciate that those opposite may not know much about the process that has been in place since 2003. They used it once or twice, but, because they were so incapable of making a decision when it came to Defence contracting, they did not have much reason to use it terribly often. They do not have much experience in it; they would not remember. They certainly did not do it when it came to submarines. Here is Senator Conroy, the architect of tonight's grand stunt. He was not much of an architect; it fell apart in the first 10 minutes. The architect has arrived. They would not know much about the established cabinet process. Senator Conroy certainly would not know, from his time around the cabinet table, because he never followed any proper procurement processes himself, whether it was for the Australia Network or whether it was for his NBN. They were all, of course, done on the fly and on the run, just like this amendment tonight is being done on the fly and on the run. It is little wonder that they could not make any decisions around the procurement of future submarines—little wonder they could not make those decisions, because they were too busy slashing the defence budget. They were too busy making cuts to defence, and deferring their defence budget, such that it would have been completely impossible for them to have actually made a commitment to a design of a submarine, or a commitment to a contract for a submarine, or a commitment as to when we would actually fill this critical capability gap in Australia's submarine and naval capacity.

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

Fluffing around!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Senator Edwards is quite right: when it came to defence procurement, and particularly to submarines, all they did for six years was to fluff around and to talk—and between that and the revolving door of defence ministers that they had, absolutely nothing could be achieved. We saw defence spending plummet to its lowest share of GDP since 1938.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is before Adolf Hitler!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason is correct; that is before Hitler. A whopping 10½ per cent was cut from the defence budget in 2012-13 alone. Chair, it is little wonder that they could not make decisions on submarines if they were slashing the budget that deeply. It is astounding that they were slashing the defence budget—given that they were running record deficits, and given that they were so profligate in spending in every other possible way, and given that they were putting the country on a trajectory towards some $667 billion worth of debt. It is astounding that, amongst all of that spending and amongst all of that debt, they could not find the money to invest in defence; they could not find the money to ensure that we did not enter a scenario of a potential capability gap. It is completely remarkable.

Madam Chair, this government will not allow that capability gap to worsen. We will do our best to make sure there is no capability gap. We know that the procurement of submarines is essential to this nation's defence; it is essential to our naval capability requirements—

Senator s Cameron and Conroy interjecting—

I hear the hectoring from those opposite; from two people who sat there and did absolutely nothing for six years. If Senator Conroy was so sincere in this, could have gone into the cabinet in his days sitting there and said: 'Well, I realise things are tough, and things are tight around the budget;'—nobody, of course, said that under the previous Labor government, but he could have been the first—'how about I surrender some of my $40 billion for my National Broadband Network, so that we can do something about the submarines we have been promising since 2007? Let's trade some cable for some submarines!' He could have done that—but no, he did not do that. They did not budget for them. In fact, in their time in government, Labor stripped hundreds of millions of dollars out of the submarine budget and out of the future procurement arrangements.

We will budget. We will deliver. We will come up with an option that not only delivers the capability our naval personnel need in the future, but—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Promise it is going to be in South Australia!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

we will also make sure that there are more jobs in South Australia as a result. We will make sure that the naval shipbuilding industries in South Australia have a secure future.

Senator s Conroy, Cameron and Bilyk interjecting—

And you can hold us to that absolutely: we will deliver—

Senator Edwards interjecting—

on the policy we took to the election. There was no policy of course from those opposite—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The chamber is getting disorderly. Senator Birmingham has the right to be heard in silence.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair. We will deliver the policy we took to the election. Those opposite had no policy; they just had a bunch of hollow promises again. We will deliver in terms of making decisions to fill this capability gap within 18 months of the election. We will deliver on the promise that work will be centred around the South Australian shipyards. In doing so, we will deliver more jobs for South Australians in the future, at the best price for taxpayers that we can deliver, and we will deliver the capability requirements that our Navy needs. That is what good decision-making is about. That is what those opposite were incapable of doing.

Debate interrupted; progress reported.