Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you very much for your Christmas leniency and Christmas cheer, Deputy President. Let me refer specifically to two issues. The first is the so-called James Ashby affair. The Prime Minister has made his position crystal clear on this issue. He has said, firstly, that he has confidence in the member for Fisher as the Special Minister of State and the Minister for Defence Materiel and Science. He has said that Mr Brough is cooperating with the police and there is nothing at this stage to suggest that he should stand aside in accordance with the statement of ministerial standards. Finally, the Prime Minister has said that any investigation should be allowed to take its course if it is necessary. Those are the facts. Questions in relation to the Ashby affair do not need to find themselves in the Australian Senate question time. In the year of big of ideas, there should be other issues worthy of prosecution by Labor Party senators.

Let us go back to Senator Gallacher's question on submarine contracts and let us again get some facts on the table. Importantly, what was Labor's record when it came to submarine contracting? Where did Labor leave Australia's naval capabilities at the end of their six-year tenure? The first point is a simple one. The former government failed to make a decision on the Future Submarine project, risking a critical security and capability gap. That was your legacy, Senator Gallacher. Now Senator Gallacher and others say that they want a tender process. Who should we trust on this matter? Let's trust the Australian Defence department. The Australian Defence department says that a tender process, as proposed by Labor, would risk at least another five-year delay in the program and bring about yet another critical capability gap.

We had six years of inaction under Labor's alternative plan and they want another five years of delay—an 11-year capability gap for our naval forces. Instead, what the coalition has done is put in place a very robust process to choose the best possible submarine capability for the best price while at the same time maximising Australia's industry involvement. That has to be a good outcome. Why do we know that is a good outcome? Let's not listen to what coalition senators say. Let's not listen to what Labor senators might say. Let's listen to what Brent Clarke said from DCNS. What did he say? For those who are not aware: DCNS are very significant French naval shipbuilders. What did they say? On 25 May, Brent Clarke—more informed dare I say than anyone in this Senate chamber—said, 'It is pretty simple— (Time expired)