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

The Future Frigate Program, which is the subject of this discussion, is currently undertaking a competitive evaluation process, a CEP, to select a designer/builder to deliver nine antisubmarine warfare frigates to the Royal Australian Navy and set the foundation of the Turnbull government's continuous shipbuilding plan in Australia. These are ships which will provide the Navy with critical capability that will underpin the defence of Australia into the future. The CEP is on track for the government to make a decision on the successful tenderer before the middle of 2018, enabling steel to be cut on the future frigates in 2020, creating over 2,000 shipbuilding jobs and in conformity with the government's previous commitments on this matter.

In relation to the order that was agreed by the Senate on 6 February 2018, I would like to make some remarks and address some of the incorrect claims made in the preamble to the order. On 3 May 2017, then Senator Xenophon submitted a freedom of information request for documents which related to Australian industry content in the future frigate request for tender. At the time, Defence originally declined access to four documents identified as matching the scope of the FOI request on the grounds that, at the time, the procurement was at a very sensitive stage of the competitive evaluation process. At the time of the initial request, tenderers were in the tender preparation phase of the CEP. When the decision was considered again by the department, the department was evaluating the tenders.

In September 2017, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents relating to the future frigate request for tender, for which the government claimed public interest immunity on 7 and 13 September. Advice to the Minister for Defence Industry was that release of the information at that time was not in the public interest, as it may have compromised aspects of the future frigate request for tender evaluation and may have damaged Australia's national security and defence interests and our international relations. I spoke to the Senate in relation to those matters. At the request of the FOI applicant, the FOI decision was further reviewed. Given that the substantive tender evaluation for the Future Frigate Program is now complete and the project is in the offer definition phase, Defence no longer had any objection to the disclosure of unclassified sections of the request for tender concerning Australian industry content. The documents were sent to the applicant by Defence on 25 January 2018.

For the Senate's information, offer definition is a very significant opportunity for Defence to seek refinement of each tenderer's offer to increase certainty and value for money, but it doesn't permit tenderers to, for example, submit a new bid. As such, the release of the request for tender documents at that time is less sensitive. Given that the Future Frigate Program has moved into the offer definition phase, the government will now review the documents sought in the motion agreed to on 6 February 2018 and will table any documents that it is now able to.

In relation to any other documentation which is also referred to in the order, I would note that the scope of the documents that were originally sought in order for production of documents numbered 449(2)(e) still requires:

(e) any other documentation held by the Future Frigate project that discusses Australian Industry Capability, the partnering or use of Australian shipyards, and how Techport and other Australian facilities might be used in the program.

As I stated previously in my statement to the Senate on 13 September 2017, this is a broad range of documents that, if the government were to comply with the breadth of the order, would require us to release parts of the tender responses themselves—that is, those parts of the tenderers' submitted responses that pertain to Australian industry capability and the partnering or use of Australian shipyards, all of which are held by the Future Frigate project, to use the words of the order. Clearly, the release of sensitive material of that nature could not only adversely affect the tenderers but undermine the integrity of the entire procurement process.

Moreover, the information that is requested—that is, any other documentation held by the Future Frigate project—would include documents that contain sensitive information with regard to Defence's negotiating position in relation to a variety of issues, including Australian industry capability and a negotiating position of the Commonwealth government in respect of any future contract. Frankly, it does stretch credulity that a sensible person in this place would support the government being required to table our negotiating strategy partway through a competitive evaluation process—unless, of course, the outcome they seek to achieve is actually to delay the project. So I remain to be persuaded.

Of course, Defence has already released large portions of the request for tender documents relating to Australian industry capabilities through the FOI process. These are available on the Defence website, and I am happy to table them here in the chamber as part of the return to order. Further, I am always happy to consider any requests, in consultation with my colleagues and in seeking advice from the department, from senators about specific documents that we may be able to release.

The government is committed to absolutely ensuring that the Future Frigate Program delivers the best capability possible for the Royal Australian Navy—that is its absolute priority—while maximising Australian industry content. The frigates will be built in Australia, by Australians, with Australian steel. I reject the notion that the public interest immunity claims on behalf of the government were mistaken or unsustainable. As I've set out, the CEP and tender process is progressing, and with the change from tender evaluation to offer definition phase, as I have indicated, the risk of damage to the process has changed and that allows some additional documents to be released. I do think that it is time that everybody in this chamber got onboard, so to speak, with this important project. It's important for Navy, important for our nation and important for thousands of jobs.