|
senate vote 2020-02-25#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-02-28 13:50:01
|
Title
Motions — Collins Class Submarines- Motions - Collins Class Submarines - Current sustainment model
Description
<p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 487 standing in my name for today.</p><p>Leave granted.</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-02-25.143.1) introduced by SA Senator [Rex Patrick](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/rex_patrick) (Centre Alliance), which means it failed.
- ### Motion text
- > *That the Senate—*
- >
- > *(a) notes that:*
- >
- >> *(i) Australia's Collins class submarines provide vital capability for the Australian Defence Force,*
- >>
- >> *(ii) in June 2011 the Navy could not put even one of our six Collins Class submarines to sea,*
- >>
- >> *(iii) it took more than half a decade and a significant amount of taxpayer's money to rectify submarine sustainment and achieve world benchmarks,*
- >>
- >> *(iv) the sustainment model now has short term maintenance activities in Western Australia and deep maintenance in South Australia, specifically through Collins Class Submarine Full Cycle Dockings,*
- >>
- >> *(v) Australian Submarine Corporation in South Australia (SA) still sends experts to Western Australia (WA) when WA is unable to resolve complex maintenance issues, and*
- >>
- >> *(vi) there is a proposal before Government to move Full Cycle Dockings from SA to WA which would result in:*
- >>
- >>> *(A) only a small percentage of the SA workforce relocating to WA, causing a huge loss of corporate knowledge from Australia's submarine sustainment organisation,*
- >>>
- >>> *(B) significant challenges and risk being injected into the sustainment model,*
- >>>
- >>> *(C) submarine availability suffering, thereby damaging national security,*
- >>>
- >>> *(D) at best, only similar outcomes would be achieved, thus the cost of the move cannot represent value for money,*
- >>>
- >>> *(E) a sustainment model inconsistent with Defence's longer term plans of having submarines based on the East and West coasts, and*
- >>>
- >>> *(F) Defence being exposed to higher levels of risk by having all its Collins Class submarines maintenance capabilities in one location; and*
- >
- > *(b) calls on the Federal Government to:*
- >
- >> *(i) recognise the success of the current sustainment model, and*
- >>
- >> *(ii) continue the current sustainment model, retaining all Collins Class Submarine Full Cycle Docking activities in SA.*
<p>I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber and move the motion as amended:</p><p class="italic">That the Senate—</p><p class="italic">(a) notes that:</p><p class="italic">  (i) Australia's Collins class submarines provide vital capability for the Australian Defence Force,</p><p class="italic">  (ii) in June 2011 the Navy could not put even one of our six Collins Class submarines to sea,</p><p class="italic">  (iii) it took more than half a decade and a significant amount of taxpayer's money to rectify submarine sustainment and achieve world benchmarks,</p><p class="italic">  (iv) the sustainment model now has short term maintenance activities in Western Australia and deep maintenance in South Australia, specifically through Collins Class Submarine Full Cycle Dockings,</p><p class="italic">  (v) Australian Submarine Corporation in South Australia (SA) still sends experts to Western Australia (WA) when WA is unable to resolve complex maintenance issues, and</p><p class="italic">  (vi) there is a proposal before Government to move Full Cycle Dockings from SA to WA which would result in:</p><p class="italic">(A) only a small percentage of the SA workforce relocating to WA, causing a huge loss of corporate knowledge from Australia's submarine sustainment organisation,</p><p class="italic">(B) significant challenges and risk being injected into the sustainment model,</p><p class="italic">(C) submarine availability suffering, thereby damaging national security,</p><p class="italic">(D) at best, only similar outcomes would be achieved, thus the cost of the move cannot represent value for money,</p><p class="italic">(E) a sustainment model inconsistent with Defence's longer term plans of having submarines based on the East and West coasts, and</p><p class="italic">(F) Defence being exposed to higher levels of risk by having all its Collins Class submarines maintenance capabilities in one location; and</p><p class="italic">(b) calls on the Federal Government to:</p><p class="italic">  (i) recognise the success of the current sustainment model, and</p><p class="italic">  (ii) continue the current sustainment model, retaining all Collins Class Submarine Full Cycle Docking activities in SA.</p> <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>A decision on the future location of the full cycle docking activities for the Collins class submarine sustainment has not yet been made. Our most important priority is to guarantee the ongoing availability of our nation's submarine capability throughout the transition from the Collins class submarines to the next fleet of 12 attack class submarines. This decision will be made by the government after careful consideration of all the relevant information and advice and on the basis of what is in our national interest. We will not decide this issue based on emotion in the Senate. Senator Patrick, in moving this motion, knows that no decision has been made in relation to the future full cycle docking arrangements. He also knows that the government, not the Senate, will ultimately make this decision. As we have made consistently clear, that decision will be made on the basis of what is in our national interest after proper consideration of all the relevant information and advice.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>Labor will not be supporting the motion. Australian submarine capability, including the outstanding work of the personnel at ASC that maintain the Collins class submarines, is a national strategic asset. The fact is that only the government has access to all the relevant advice from Defence and ASC to make an informed decision. Senator Reynolds promised to make a decision last year but singularly failed. She has left ASC workers in the lurch. We also encourage Senator Patrick to use his vote as much as his words. He's a crossbench vote. The government needs to pass legislation, but his support for government legislation is largely a foregone conclusion. This motion won't persuade the government to do anything if Senator Patrick won't back up his words with his vote.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to. I think the noes have it—division required? Senator Whish-Wilson on a point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>My point of order is that there was only one aye that I heard, and I was watching very closely.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Without pointing out any particulars, I was looking very carefully at senators. I'll put the question again, on that basis, because I was looking very carefully. The question is that motion No. 487 as amended be agreed to.</p>
|