Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present four government responses to committee reports, as listed at item 13 on today's Order of Business: Economics References Committee, Part II: Future of Australia’s naval shipbuilding industry: Future submarines; Economics References Committee, Part III: Future of Australia’s naval shipbuilding industry: Long-term planning; Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—A world without the death penalty: Australia’s advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty; and Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Report 167: Nuclear cooperation—Ukraine; Extradition—China. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Part II: Future of Australia's naval shipbuilding industry—future submarines

March 2017

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that the government not enter into a contract for the future submarine project without conducting a competitive tender for the future submarines, including a funded project definition study.

The tender should invite at least two bidders, preferably up to four, to participate.

The tender for the future submarine project should be conducted in line with the committee's recommendations and the guidelines set out in the Defence Policy Procurement Manual.

A request for tender should invite the bidders to provide the Commonwealth with:

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the competitive tender process for the future submarines begins immediately.

As noted by several independent witnesses, there remains sufficient time to conduct a competitive tender for the future submarines while avoiding a capability gap. This is due to the work on the future submarines undertaken by the previous government.

In his evidence, Dr John White set out a timetable that included a competitive tender process, contracting, construction, testing and introduction to service without a capability gap.

If followed, this timetable would allow the government obtain the best submarine capability at the best price, while avoiding a capability gap.

Government Response to Recommendations 1 and 2

Noted.

These recommendations have been overtaken by events.

The evaluation process that underpinned the decision on the future submarine was comprehensive and included substantial internal and external review. The Government is satisfied that the processes were very robust and resulted in the right decision for Australia.

Recommendation 3

Given the weight of the evidence about the strategic, military, national security and economic benefits, the committee recommends that the government require tenderers for the future submarine project to build, maintain, and sustain Australia's future submarines in Australia.

When selecting its preferred tenderer the government must give priority to:

Government Response

Noted.

This recommendation has been overtaken by events.

The Government announced on 26 April 2016 that the future submarines will be built in Australia with Australian steel. Defence will seek to maximise Australian industry involvement and support for the future submarine. The submarine decision is consistent with the Government's already announced continuous shipbuilding program—which will ensure a substantial and permanent naval shipbuilding capability in Australia.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that:

Government Response

Noted.

This recommendation has been overtaken by events.

The Government has already acknowledged that there is no MOTS option available that will meet Australia's Future Submarine needs. This was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister's announcement regarding the Future Submarines on 26 April 2016.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that Defence and the government start immediately to:

Government Response

Agree in part.

The Government's Defence capability requirements were outlined in the 2016 Defence White Paper together with the Government's commitment to resetting the relationship with defence industry as outlined in the 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement. Each of the major shipbuilding projects announced by the Government form part of the commitment to continuous naval shipbuilding in Australia. These projects represent the most significant investment in naval shipbuilding outside wartime. Defence will seek a wide range of inputs and support into each of these projects to ensure the capability is delivered, build premium reduced and local content and support maximised.

The Naval Shipbuilding Plan will bring together all of the elements of the Government's continuous naval shipbuilding strategy to:

Part III: Future of Australia's naval shipbuilding industry—long-term planning

March 2017

Recommendation 1

The committee reaffirms recommendation 1 from its initial report that the tender process for the two replacement replenishment ships:

Government Response to Recommendation 1

Noted

This recommendation has been overtaken by events.

On 6 May 2016, the Government announced it has signed contracts with Navantia S.A. to build Australia's two replacement replenishment ships, avoiding a critical capability gap. Australia's current supply ship HMAS Success will reach end of life in 2021 and needs to be replaced as a matter of priority.

The two replacement replenishment ships are urgently required to avoid a critical capability gap and to meet the operational requirements of the Navy by the early 2020's. The decision to go offshore was based on the schedule and cost-premiums of an Australian build and imperative to replace HMAS Success in the 2021-22 timeframe. There are elements of the ships' systems that will require Australian content in the replenishment ships, including communications and situational awareness systems and quality of life requirements.

The contract with Navantia was signed following a limited tender between Navantia of Spain and Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME) of Korea for the offshore construction of two replacement replenishment vessels based on existing designs, Cantabria (Navantia) and Aegir (DSME) respectively.

The key reasons for recommendation to limited tender for off-shore build:

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the Government adopt the following procurement process to acquire 12 future submarines:

The committee also reaffirms recommendation three from its report on future submarines that:

Given the weight of evidence about strategic, military, national security and economic benefits, the committee recommends that the government require tenderers for the future submarine project to build, maintain and sustain Australia's future submarines in Australia.

Also, given the national significance and complexity of the project to acquire the future submarine, the committee recommends that the government establish a Naval/Submarine Construction Authority as a 'non corporate Commonwealth entity with appropriate industry and Defence expertise and authoritative leadership to deliver the future submarine'.

The committee recommends further that Defence heed and apply the lessons learnt from the AWD regarding the transfer of knowledge and those of the Collins Class submarine about the consequences of being a parent navy to the future submarines.

Government Response to Recommendation 2

Noted.

This recommendation has been overtaken by events.

Informed by the outcome of the Competitive Evaluation Process, the Government announced on 26 April 2016 that DCNS of France has been selected as the preferred international partner to work with Australia on the design of a regionally superior Future Submarine. The Government also announced that all 12 Future Submarines will be built in Australia.

Sustainment in country, encompassing all upkeep, update and upgrade activities will also ensure that the Future Submarines can be kept at appropriate levels of availability without undue reliance on another country throughout their service life.

The lessons learnt from the Air Warfare Destroyer and Collins submarine programs, together with advice from naval shipbuilding experts, such as the RAND Corporation, will inform the development of the Naval Shipbuilding Plan.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the Australian Government provide the committee with a copy of the 'forensic audit' of the AWD program.

The committee also repeats its recommendation contained in its first report that the government release the report of the independent review of the AWD program (also known as the Winter-White Report).

The committee understands that it may be appropriate for a public version of both documents to be released with classified material removed.

Government Response

Disagree.

The 'forensic audit', into the Air Warfare Destroyer project has not been undertaken by the Department of Defence. Rather, the Department undertook a Comprehensive Cost Review (CCR), in late 2014. The CCR was undertaken by the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Alliance and is Commercial in Confidence. The CCR reviewed the cost and schedule of the shipbuilding score of the AWD Program and informed the AWD Reform Strategy.

The CCR report cannot be released as it contains information that is commercially sensitive to the Commonwealth and some third parties and is subject to strict confidentiality arrangements to protect the intellectual property of the parties involved. Accordingly, the report will not be publicly released as to do so would prejudice the Commonwealth's commercial and legal interests.

Similarly, the Winter-White Report cannot be released in any form as it contains sensitive commercial information. Its release could damage the interests of the Commonwealth and shipbuilding organisations as its contents relate to a range of commercial negotiations that are currently underway. The Minister for Finance and then Minister for Defence summarised the report in their announcement AWD Reform dated 4 June 2014, which is available on the Minister for Finance's website.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that the Australian Government take measures immediately to reverse the perilous downturn in Australia's naval shipbuilding industry, reduce the impact of the 'Valley of Death' and enable a program of continuous build by:

Government Response

Noted.

On 6 May 2016, the Government announced it has signed contracts with Navantia S.A. to build Australia's two replacement replenishment ships, avoiding a critical capability gap. Australia's current supply ship HMAS Success will reach end of life in 2021 and needs to be replaced as a matter of priority. Please see response to recommendation 1 for further information on the offshore build of the Auxiliary Oil Replenishment Ship.

On 5 May 2016, the Government signed a contract with Austal Ships Pty Ltd to build and sustain up to 21 steel-hulled vessels to replace the existing fleet of Pacific Patrol Boats as part of Australia's new Pacific Maritime Security Program. The Pacific Patrol Boat project represents a significant investment in Australian Defence industry with the boats to be built in Australia to be worth around $600 million, in addition to through-life-sustainment and personnel costs, which are estimated at around $1.4 billion over 30 years.

The Government announced on 4 August 2015 the centrepiece of its strategy for delivering a long-term strong and sustainable Australian naval shipbuilding industry—the establishment of continuous build programs in Australia for the construction of the Navy's Future Frigates and Offshore Patrol Vessels. This approach was been reaffirmed by the Prime Minister in his speeches on 18 and 26 April 2016. This is the first time that any Australian Government has committed to a permanent naval shipbuilding industry for Australia.

The Future Frigate construction to replace the ANZAC class frigates will commence in 2020—three years earlier than scheduled under the previous Labor Government's Defence Capability Plan. The Government has also committed to bringing forward by two years the construction of the Offshore Patrol Vessels commencing in 2018 to replace the Armidale class patrol boats.

Over the coming decades, the Government's naval shipbuilding strategy will invest in Australia's naval capability and shipbuilding industry, putting it onto a sustainable long-term path, giving certainty into the future.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that the 2015 White Paper is prepared in such a way that all procurement proposals are costed and scheduled realistically, and informed by the need to have a continuous build program for naval ships.

The committee understands that, following the release of its 2015 Defence White Paper, the government will also publish a Defence Investment Plan and an enterprise-level Naval Shipbuilding Plan.

The committee recommends that both documents take note of the evidence provided in this report about the importance of having a continuous build program that will sustain a viable naval shipbuilding and repair industry.

Further that both documents, provide:

The committee recommends the establishment of an ongoing naval shipbuilding industry advocate to work with the Australian Government and the shipbuilding industry, including supply chain and SMEs. The shipbuilding industry advocate should advise Defence and industry during the development of the Defence Investment Plan and Naval Shipbuilding Plan.

Government Response

Agree in principle.

As noted in the response to recommendation 4, the Government recognises the significant value to Australia of having a skilled naval shipbuilding industry and is committed to ensuring the industry's long-term sustainability. Government has announced its strategy for delivering a long-term strong and sustainable Australian naval shipbuilding industry through the establishment of continuous build programs in Australia. As announced by the Prime Minister on 18 April 2016 and 26 April 2016, two shipyards have been identified to implement the Government's commitment to a continuous build of naval vessels—Osborne in South Australia for the construction of major surface vessels and submarines, and Henderson in Western Australia for the construction of minor surface vessels. These decisions are consistent with the RAND recommendations.

The 2016 Integrated Investment Program and the Defence Industry Policy Statement were released with the 2016 Defence White Paper, which together present the Government's policy with respect to the strategic Defence and national security issues facing Australia, as well as the capabilities (both material and enabling) and Defence industry policy that will be required to address those issues. The Naval Shipbuilding Plan will bring together all of the elements of the Government's continuous naval shipbuilding strategy to:

Recommendation 6

The committee recommends that, given requisite capital investments have already occurred, and as the industry's only effective client, the Australian Government adopt an approach to domestic shipbuilding that ensures sustainable demand in order to realise returns on these investments.

The committee also recommends that, during the development of the forthcoming Strategic Naval Shipbuilding Plan, the Australian Government ensure that the Plan recognises the holistic economic value of any domestic shipbuilding project. It is the strong view of the committee that the Plan must also acknowledge the economic multiplier effect of domestic shipbuilding, including that expenditure generates a level of economic expansion beyond its initial value.

Government Response

Agree in principle.

The Government is committed to releasing a Naval Shipbuilding Plan. The Plan will focus on the delivery of continuous shipbuilding rather than modelling the economic affects of shipbuilding.

The RAND of Australia's Naval Shipbuilding Enterprise, released by the Government on 16 April 2015, noted that the cost of building naval surface ships in Australia is 30-40 per cent greater than United States benchmarks, and even greater against some other naval ship building nations.

RAND suggested that this premium can be reduced through reforms in Defence procurement and in the Australian naval shipbuilding industry.

The Government has already commenced the necessary reforms of Defence procurement activities through the First Principles Review of Defence, and through the August 2015 announcement of the long term commitment to naval shipbuilding for ships and submarines in Australia, as detailed in the 2016 Defence White Paper.

Australia cannot afford a naval shipbuilding industry at any price.

In return for the commitment to continuous build, Australia's naval shipbuilding industry must improve productivity and become more cost-competitive against international benchmarks.

The Government's continuous build strategy, and the adoption of the RAND principles for future naval shipbuilding programs, will help to reduce the Australian cost premium by up to half.

The conclusions of the Productivity Commission's Trade and Assistance Review 2014-15

are premised upon a cost premium of 30 per cent for a domestically built submarine. However the report states that the figure of 30 per cent is hypothetical; the Government has already identified that the premium will drop, by committing to the implementation of reforms of the naval shipbuilding industry, including:

A world without the death penalty: Australia's advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty

March 2017

Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Report

A world without the death penalty: Australia ' s Advocacy for the Abolition of the Death Penalty

Tabled 5 May 2016

Government's Response to Committee's Recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department conduct a review of the current legislative arrangements for extradition and mutual assistance to ensure that they uphold Australia's obligations as a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Response

The Government accepts this recommendation. The Attorney-General's Department has reviewed the current legislative arrangements for extradition and mutual assistance for consistency with Australia's obligations as a Party to the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and is satisfied that they are consistent.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends the Australian Federal Police (AFP) National Guideline on International Police-to-Police Assistance in Death Penalty Situations (the Guideline) be amended to include a stronger focus on preventing exposure of all persons to the risk of the death penalty, by:

" articulating as its primary aim preventing the exposure of persons to arrest or charge in retentionist countries for crimes that are likely to attract the death penalty "

The Government notes this recommendation. The AFP's primary aim is to enforce Commonwealth criminal law, contribute to combating complex, transnational, serious and organised crime that impacts on national security, as well as protecting Commonwealth interests from criminal activity in Australia and overseas. The AFP works with national and international partners to enhance safety and provide a more secure regional and global environment. To achieve this aim, the AFP facilitates the movement of information between countries in a manner that is consistent with Government policy in relation to crimes that attract the death penalty.

" explicitly applying the Guideline to all persons, not just Australian citizens "

The Government accepts this recommendation. The Guideline currently applies to all persons, not just Australian citizens.

The AFP must consider relevant factors before providing information to foreign law enforcement agencies if it is aware the provision of information is likely to result in the prosecution of an identified person, regardless of nationality, for an offence carrying the death penalty. A person's nationality is taken into account only in the context of consideration of any legal or prosecutorial provisions that may apply.

" including a requirement that the AFP seek assurances from foreign law enforcement bodies that the death penalty will not be sought or applied if information is provided "

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government notes that foreign law enforcement partners cannot themselves provide binding assurances that the death penalty will not be applied if information is provided. This is outside the role and responsibility of police and law enforcement agencies. In the instances where assurances have been provided to Australia, they have usually occurred at Ministerial level.

The Government has and will continue to seek Ministerial assurances in appropriate cases where it is clear that the death penalty is likely to be imposed. In practical terms some factors can prevent this occurring, including:

a) in some limited circumstances, where the AFP is engaging with operational law enforcement representatives in high risk, time-critical situations, seeking binding assurances could jeopardise investigative outcomes. This may hamper the AFP's ability to combat transnational organised crime at its source, causing significant harm to Australia and its citizens; and

b) in many instances when it is not clear whether a death penalty offence may be applicable. Information requests can come at an early stage of an investigation, when an investigation is yet to identify crime types or all persons of interest.

" including a provision that, in cases where the AFP deems that there is a ' high risk ' of exposure to the death penalty, such cases be directed to the Minister for decision "

The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.

Under Section 37 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 the Commissioner controls the operations of the AFP. It is essential that law enforcement operations retain a measure of discretionary operational decision-making to effectively balance competing considerations, namely the preservation of public safety and the disruption of crime impacting the Australian community. As a result, decision-making in the pre-arrest phase is best made within the AFP.

Ministerial approval is currently required to provide information to foreign law enforcement agencies in any case where a person has been arrested or detained for, charged with, or convicted of, an offence which carries the death penalty.

" articulating the criteria used by the AFP to determine whether requests are ranked ' high ' , ' medium ' or ' low ' risk "

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The Guideline is currently being reviewed and will reflect this in the revised version.

Recommendation 3

In light of the United Nations' position that drug crimes, including drug trafficking, do not constitute 'most serious crimes' for which the death penalty may be applied under international law, the Committee recommends that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) obtain guarantees that prosecutors in partner countries will not seek to apply the death penalty before providing information in relation [to] these crimes. In situations where such guarantees cannot be obtained, the AFP should withhold provision of information that may be relevant to the cases concerned.

Response

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government notes that foreign law enforcement partners cannot themselves provide binding assurances that the death penalty will not be applied if information is provided. An undertaking from a prosecutor not to seek to apply the death penalty may not be reliable where a Court can still impose the death penalty. Generally speaking, the Government does not consider it appropriate to seek, or rely on, an undertaking from a prosecutor. In the instances where assurances have been provided to Australia, they have usually occurred at Ministerial level.

Combatting serious drug crimes is a high priority for the Government and the Government's ability to detect, deter and prevent drug crimes would be impeded if Australia could not cooperate with states in the region that retain the death penalty. An inability to cooperate with foreign law enforcement partners poses risk of harm to the Australian community and significant impact to society.

Although desirable, some states will not agree to a blanket assurance that the death penalty will not be applied where convictions result from cooperation with Australia.

The National Guideline onInternational Police-to-Police Assistance in Death Penalty Situations is the most appropriate way to balance the need for effective cooperation on transnational crime and the commitment to protecting individuals from the death penalty.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will continue diplomatic efforts to encourage states to abolish the death penalty.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government revisit the 2011 decision to decline becoming a member of the international group the 'Friends of the Protocol'.

Response

The Government accepts this recommendation. That decision will be reconsidered in the context of developing the whole-of-government strategy on advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty (see recommendation 8).

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade develop guidelines for the Department's support for Australians at risk of facing the death penalty overseas. This document should guide the coordination of:

The Government accepts this recommendation. Guidelines have been finalised and will be attached to DFAT's internal Consular Policy Handbook.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends that, where appropriate and especially in relation to public messaging, Australian approaches to advocacy for abolition of the death penalty be based on human rights arguments and include:

The Government accepts this recommendation. These arguments are already an integral part of the advocacy the Government undertakes in opposition to the death penalty.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department amend the guidelines governing the Serious Overseas Criminal Matters Scheme and the Special Circumstances Scheme, and make necessary adjustments to the schemes' operation, to ensure that:

The Attorney-General's Department has reviewed the Commonwealth Guidelines for Legal Financial Assistance 2012 (the Guidelines) and is satisfied that the Guidelines in their present form, in combination with the Legal Assistance Branch's practice of assigning a case officer to a grant for the entirety of the grant, has resulted in achievement of the objectives stated in Recommendation 7.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade coordinate the development of a whole-of-government Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty which has as its focus countries of the Indo-Pacific and the United States of America.

Response

The Government accepts this recommendation. Development of the strategy is underway and its content will be determined in consultation with relevant agencies and ministers. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade aims to have a publicly-releasable document finalised by mid-2017.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that the goals of the Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty include:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends that the specific aims of the Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty include:

The Government accepts this recommendation in principle. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade already undertakes many of the activities outlined in this recommendation, including bilateral advocacy in all of the countries identified. The specific aims of the strategy will be determined as the strategy is developed.

Recommendation 11

The Committee recommends that the following techniques, among others, be utilised to achie

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( I move:

That the Senate take note of the Senate Economics References Committee reports Part II: Future of Australia's naval shipbuilding industry: Future submarines and Part III: Future of Australia's naval shipbuilding industry: Long-term planning.

In April last year the Prime Minister made a well-publicised visit to ASC shipyards in Osborne, in South Australia. He announced that the design partner for the Navy's Future Submarine project would be the French company DCNS, and he made this promise: 'The submarine project will see Australian workers building Australian submarines with Australian steel'. That was a direct quote from the Prime Minister at that time. It was quite clear the Prime Minister was gearing up for an election campaign, a campaign in which he desperately needed to shore up his party's support in South Australia.

Now, not quite 12 months later, this government is clearly intent on winding back the commitment he gave then. The government's response to the recommendations in the two reports before us tonight do not use the forthright language Mr Turnbull used at the time of the original commitment that the 'submarine project will see Australian workers building Australian submarines with Australian steel'. Instead what we see is a collection of weasel words, of spin doctors' platitudes. The Prime Minister promised that with:

… every lever of policy that we can engage, it secures our successful transition to the economy of the 21st century and the jobs which our children and grandchildren are entitled to expect.

But the government's responses that we are discussing here tonight highlight an entirely different policy lever. What they do is fail to explain that the government does in fact intend to have Australian industry engage fully in the Future Submarine project. What they say is: 'Defence will seek to maximise Australian industry involvement'. Just what the word 'maximise' means in this context is of course left unexplained. It leaves just enough wriggle room for the government to be able to weasel out of any commitments.

The government has been embarrassed by the evidence tendered to a recent parliamentary inquiry, because it conflicts directly with Mr Turnbull's promise. Last week, at a hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the Head of the Future Submarine project, Rear Admiral Sammut told the inquiry:

… it is important that we use steel of a specification that France currently uses to design its submarines, …

The Rear Admiral said:

… it is very specialised steel. It is not really used for anything else. It is used for submarine hull construction.

He said:

… at the moment we are currently looking at the capacity of the Australian steel producers to produce steel to the very demanding specification that is required for submarine construction, …

It was not a discussion about whether the Australian industry had been approached with the relevant specs and been asked whether or not they would be able to supply the relevant steel. In fact, on Friday, the CEO of DCNS Australia is resigning. Adelaide-based Sean Costello is resigning, and rumour has it that the dispute between DCNS Australia and DCNS France has reached the point now—over the very issue of the extent of the Australian industry's engagement in the Future Submarine project—that the CEO has said he has had enough.

This is a very bad sign. We need to ensure that Australian steel is used in the building of Australian submarines, and we cannot be certain of that, given what the Rear Admiral has said—despite the commitments the Prime Minister has made, despite the commitments that Minister Pyne has made on these matters.

Similarly, we can look to the Chief Operating Officer of DCNS Australia who said that there were surprisingly few potential Australian suppliers. Only 25 out of the 398 identified as possible had passed an initial audit for supply chain involvement in the Future Submarine project. This is not because all of those others were inadequate. He explained: 'One of the things we will be talking about at our next industry brief is the fact that we are a little disappointed in the uptake of this with Australian companies.'

The committee evidence and the evasive language of the government's response in these reports is building a very different picture to the rosy one that Mr Turnbull and Mr Pyne painted a year ago. We have gone from promises about submarines being built 'by Australians with Australian steel', to hints that local steel may not be chosen at all. We have gone from promises about 'jobs for our children and grandchildren, jobs they are entitled to expect', to puzzlement about the low engagement with the project by Australian suppliers.

The complaint in the industry is that Minister Pyne is not interested in this being a national project; he wants to see this as an Adelaide project. We should be working with Australian industry to ensure that we can meet the project requirements at a national level. It is an important part of the department's job to work with industry to ensure that the will of the government of the day is carried out. This does not happen spontaneously. Local involvement does not magically appear through a thought bubble or a ministerial press release or an election commitment. What is required here is political will and a determination by government to deliver on its commitments. It just so happens that this government does things in a report that demonstrates their failure to understand the importance of industry policy and their failure to understand the importance of building Australia's industry capabilities. The committee report recommends 'encouraging Australia's Defence industry to marshal its resources into support of shipbuilding and the submarines project'. That is the view of the Senate.

Further, they recommend 'listening to the technical community's concerns and consulting retired naval engineers and submariners to identify the contributions that Australian firms can make and integrate these into the project as far as possible'. These things are simply not happening. All the government can say in its response to these repeated weasel words is that 'Defence will seek to ensure that local content and support are maximised'. By this government's standards, 'maximised' means that we will provide whatever support we can to the French to build these vessels in France.

The government has put a lot of rhetorical effort into assuring Australians that it wants a defence industry in this country. In fact, it has established a separate cabinet position. But every indication other than the rhetorical is that that proposition is not being fulfilled. The so-called Minister for Defence Industry is being revealed as nothing more than the minister for the South Australian Liberal Party seats. Whatever he is doing, he is not pulling the policy levers referred to by the Prime Minister in his visit to Osborne. Unless this government is willing to work actively to ensure an integrated Australian industry in the Future Submarine project, the Prime Minister's fine promises will come to nothing.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.