|
senate vote 2015-09-17#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2015-12-10 19:11:45
|
Title
Motions - Defence: Submarines -- Motions - Defence: Submarines
Description
- **This division related to the policy [For building Australia’s new submarine fleet in South Australia](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/policies/63)**
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-09-17.43.10) introduced by Greens Senator [Peter Whish-Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/peter_whish-wilson). In other words, they agreed to take out the words *"commit to the procurement of 12 submarines"* from a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-09-17.41.3) introduced by Independant Senator [Nick Xenophon](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/nick_xenophon). Xenophon's amendment was later passed without division.
- Read Senator Whish-Wilson's reasons for his amendment in [his speech](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-09-17.43.12).
- ### Xenophon's motion text
- > *That the Senate—*
- > *(a) notes that:*
- >> *(i) the 2009 and 2013 [Defence White Papers](http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/) both state a national security requirement for the procurement of 12 new submarines,*
- >> *(ii) on 20 February 2015, the Minister for Defence announced the acquisition strategy for Australia's [Future Submarine Program](http://www.asc.com.au/en/Programs/Submarines/Future-Submarine-Project/), including details of the Competitive Evaluation Process to be undertaken by the [Department of Defence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Defence_%28Australia%29), advising that the department would seek proposals from potential partners on 'options for design and build overseas, in Australia, and/or a hybrid approach',*
- >> *(iii) all tier one navies have their warships and submarines built locally,*
- >> *(iv) submarine builders DCNS and TKMS:*
- >>> *(A) have expressed a view to a Senate inquiry that the total life cycle costs (from design through construction through operation) will be no more expensive if our future submarines are built in Australia, and*
- >>> *(B) along with submarine builder ASC, have agreed to a proposition put to them at a Senate inquiry that participation in the design and construction of a submarine makes through-life maintenance easier,*
- >> *(v) building submarines in Australia would:*
- >>> *(A) contribute to Australia's defence self-reliance, and*
- >>> *(B) provide valuable economic and skills stimulus to Australia's manufacturing industry, and*
- >> *(vi) both the Collins class submarines and ANZAC frigates were built with greater than 70 per cent local content (by value); and*
- > *(b) calls on the Government to:*
- >> *(i) commit to the procurement of 12 submarines,* **[this provision was removed by Senator Whish-Wilson's motion]**
- >> *(ii) commit to its pre-election promise to a local build of submarines and withdraw the stipulated options for 'design and build overseas' and a 'hybrid approach' on Australia's future submarines, and*
>> *(iii) set a submarine build benchmark of at least 70 per cent Australian local content (by value).*- >> *(iii) set a submarine build benchmark of at least 70 per cent Australian local content (by value).*
|
|
senate vote 2015-09-17#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2015-12-10 19:10:17
|
Title
Motions — Defence: Submarines- Motions - Defence: Submarines -
Description
<p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>I, and also on behalf of Senators Conroy, Lambie, Lazarus, Madigan and Muir, move:</p><p class="italic">That the Senate—</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-09-17.43.10) introduced by Greens Senator [Peter Whish-Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/peter_whish-wilson). In other words, they agreed to take out the words *"commit to the procurement of 12 submarines"* from a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-09-17.41.3) introduced by Independant Senator [Nick Xenophon](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/nick_xenophon). Xenophon's amendment was later passed without division.
- Read Senator Whish-Wilson's reasons for his amendment in [his speech](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-09-17.43.12).
- ### Xenophon's motion text
- > *That the Senate—*
- > *(a) notes that:*
- >> *(i) the 2009 and 2013 [Defence White Papers](http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/) both state a national security requirement for the procurement of 12 new submarines,*
- >> *(ii) on 20 February 2015, the Minister for Defence announced the acquisition strategy for Australia's [Future Submarine Program](http://www.asc.com.au/en/Programs/Submarines/Future-Submarine-Project/), including details of the Competitive Evaluation Process to be undertaken by the [Department of Defence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Defence_%28Australia%29), advising that the department would seek proposals from potential partners on 'options for design and build overseas, in Australia, and/or a hybrid approach',*
- >> *(iii) all tier one navies have their warships and submarines built locally,*
- >> *(iv) submarine builders DCNS and TKMS:*
- >>> *(A) have expressed a view to a Senate inquiry that the total life cycle costs (from design through construction through operation) will be no more expensive if our future submarines are built in Australia, and*
- >>> *(B) along with submarine builder ASC, have agreed to a proposition put to them at a Senate inquiry that participation in the design and construction of a submarine makes through-life maintenance easier,*
- >> *(v) building submarines in Australia would:*
- >>> *(A) contribute to Australia's defence self-reliance, and*
- >>> *(B) provide valuable economic and skills stimulus to Australia's manufacturing industry, and*
- >> *(vi) both the Collins class submarines and ANZAC frigates were built with greater than 70 per cent local content (by value); and*
- > *(b) calls on the Government to:*
- >> *(i) commit to the procurement of 12 submarines,* **[this provision was removed by Senator Whish-Wilson's motion]**
- >> *(ii) commit to its pre-election promise to a local build of submarines and withdraw the stipulated options for 'design and build overseas' and a 'hybrid approach' on Australia's future submarines, and*
- >> *(iii) set a submarine build benchmark of at least 70 per cent Australian local content (by value).*
<p class="italic">(a) notes that:</p><p class="italic">(i) the 2009 and 2013 Defence White Papers both state a national security requirement for the procurement of 12 new submarines,</p><p class="italic">(ii) on 20 February 2015, the Minister for Defence announced the acquisition strategy for Australia's Future Submarine Program, including details of the Competitive Evaluation Process to be undertaken by the Department of Defence, advising that the department would seek proposals from potential partners on 'options for design and build overseas, in Australia, and/or a hybrid approach',</p><p class="italic">(iii) all tier one navies have their warships and submarines built locally,</p><p class="italic">(iv) submarine builders DCNS and TKMS:</p><p class="italic">(A) have expressed a view to a Senate inquiry that the total life cycle costs (from design through construction through operation) will be no more expensive if our future submarines are built in Australia, and</p><p class="italic">(B) along with submarine builder ASC, have agreed to a proposition put to them at a Senate inquiry that participation in the design and construction of a submarine makes through-life maintenance easier,</p><p class="italic">(v) building submarines in Australia would:</p><p class="italic">(A) contribute to Australia's defence self-reliance, and</p><p class="italic">(B) provide valuable economic and skills stimulus to Australia's manufacturing industry, and</p><p class="italic">(vi) both the Collins class submarines and ANZAC frigates were built with greater than 70 per cent local content (by value); and</p><p class="italic">(b) calls on the Government to:</p><p class="italic">(i) commit to the procurement of 12 submarines,</p><p class="italic">(ii) commit to its pre-election promise to a local build of submarines and withdraw the stipulated options for 'design and build overseas' and a 'hybrid approach' on Australia's future submarines, and</p><p class="italic">(iii) set a submarine build benchmark of at least 70 per cent Australian local content (by value).</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Leave has been granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>The competitive evaluation process for the future submarines is nearing completion. It would create considerable uncertainty and delay the process if the government were to change the scope of the CEP. Submarine expert and head of TKMS Australia, Dr John White, said at a Senate Economics References Committee hearing in July:</p><p class="italic">… a prudent approach to such a major acquisition is to canvass the market and see what is available, including from overseas.</p><p>That said, all three potential international design partners will be providing options for a build in Australia, and the defence white paper due in the coming weeks will detail the number of submarines required by the Navy. Senator Xenophon is aware of these facts. The government will not play politics when it comes to providing our Defence personnel with the equipment they need to protect Australia and its interests.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>I seek leave to amend motion No. 870 by removing clause (b)(i): 'commit to the procurement of 12 submarines'.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Is leave granted for Senator Whish-Wilson to move that amendment?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>Could you repeat the amendment?</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Yes, Senator Whish-Wilson, if you could—and I should have it in writing, too. I assume it has not been circulated?</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>We have spoken to the respective officers, but I do apologise, Deputy President; we—</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>I do not have it. So could you repeat that amendment, Senator Whish-Wilson.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>I seek leave to amend motion No. 870 by removing a clause: '(b)(i) commit to the procurement of 12 submarines'—taking it out.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Is leave granted for Senator Whish-Wilson to move that amendment? Leave is not opposed, Senator Whish-Wilson.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That motion No. 870 be amended by removing a clause: '(b)(i) commit to the procurement of 12 submarines'.</p><p>and I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Leave has been granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>We have worked with senators. I contacted Senator Conroy and Senator Xenophon, who were moving this motion, to see if we could have that clause removed. The Greens do have a very clear policy around the defence of this nation and its self-defence, but, as was highlighted by the government, we are not committing to the procurement of 12 submarines without more information. We have grave concerns about an escalation of submarine numbers from the six we currently have to 12 and about what their roles would be. We also would like to highlight that $70 billion could be effectively spent in other areas of defence, and we do not have the information we need to support 12 submarines. However, we have also made it very clear that we do support local procurement and we have said this publicly before. We have also told the various unions and workers groups we would support any submarines being made in South Australia and in Australia rather than being made overseas, but we will not be committing to 12 submarines at this point.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Leave has been granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>We will not be supporting the Greens amendment because there have been two defence white papers published, in 2009 and 2013, which set out this debate, and they explain exactly why we need the number of submarines that has been identified. What we are seeing around our region is a massive escalation. I think the current but soon to be gone minister said in a speech that, by 2030, 50 per cent of the submarines in the world will be in our region. So there is a need for our defence capability to be determined by defence forces, not by arguments that we do not have enough information. There are two white papers that have set out the arguments and I would encourage you to have a look at them.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Whish-Wilson to general business notice of motion No. 870 be agreed to.</p><p>Question negatived.</p><p>The question now is that general business notice of motion No. 870 be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Sean Edwards</p><p>Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Sean Edwards</p><p>For these two senators to introduce this right now, as we are starting to close the competitive evaluation process, is quite vacuous. They indeed know what is going on. They are fully aware of it. This competitive evaluation process is developing an enormous amount of credibility day by day outside of the government. It has momentum which they understand. They are merely seeking to grandstand here. If they were serious about it with the two white papers that were commissioned in the term of the former government, why didn't they actually contribute the funds and commit to the projects? $19.6 billion was taken out of the defence budget and Senator Conroy sits there now arguing about something that he failed to argue about.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>It is sad to see—</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Sean Edwards</p><p>Senator Xenophon was there and failed to argue the cause as well.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Come on over, Sean! Don't vote with them!</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>It is sad that they don't recognise your merits, Sean.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement. It is a point of clarification on a procedural matter.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Is leave granted for Senator Fifield?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>For seeking clarification, sure.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Order! Leave is granted.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>When Senator Whish-Wilson was moving his amendment there was some confusion in relation to the call. The government was intending to support the amendment of Senator Whish-Wilson.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Are you seeking leave to have that question put again?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Is leave granted to recommit the question on the amendment moved by Senator Whish Wilson?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Leave is granted, so we will just go back a step. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Whish-Wilson to general business notice of motion No. 870 be agreed to.</p><p></p><p>The question now is that general business notice of motion No. 870, as amended, be agreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p>
|