So this is amazing, isn't it? Because a lot of people get to see what is being said by their employees in these Senate inquiries on social media, don't they?

Yeah, look, what happens is government officials tend to work in locked offices with the curtains closed where we can't see what's going on.

Now, one of the things I do is use freedom of information requests to peer inside through the curtains, but the Senate... has a constitutional responsibility to make sure that they are keeping a check on the executive government.

So we have a system of what's called responsible and representative government, that is, ministers and officials are responsible to the parliament, but they are also, from a representative government point of view, they're also responsible to the people who pay for everything that they do, and one presumes that they're doing things for public purpose.

So that's the point of Senate estimate.

One of the problems we see at Senator Estimates, and I experienced this as a senator, is you turn up and you ask questions and the officials forget that they are a public servant and think they're the minister's servant and they avoid the sensitive answers.

and that's not proper and so sometimes you'll see senators will publish information look there are a lot of good public servants who'll front up and they'll tell you what's going on and you might post that to show your constituents you know what's happening inside government But one of the other things you post is when an official just tries their very best not to answer a question just to show the lack of transparency in the government.

And we, from what I can gather, there's information available on a regular basis that isn't available to the public about how that money's being spent.

It is within the rules, but the rules are a bit porous, aren't they?

Well, look, you're absolutely correct.

This happens every election.

So we go back to the previous election.

There was a community batteries program where the Labor Party in opposition chose sites for community battery hubs.

We go back further to the Morrison government.

in 2019, and the sports rorts affair where colour-coded spreadsheets were used to determine where money was being spent.

So they do put a lot of hurdles in the way of trying to find out what they're up to.

[laughs]

Okay? The very government that is, that is using, uh, this funding, uh, t- to, in effect, buy elections, um, the, the, they are the people that wrote the rules.

Now, Ann Toomey has come out very strongly.

She's actually written about this on numerous occasions.

At a constitutional level, the federal government has no business, uh, allocating federal money to local council, uh, projects.

Um, she has said on many occasions that that is a breach of or, or exceeds the power or the duty of the Commonwealth Government, uh, in relation to the way our Constitution works.

Then there's also the public policy, uh, element.

So they do put a lot of, of, of hurdles in the way of trying to find out what they're up to.

Maybe you can sum up the crux, the core of your submission of your argument against this orchestra arrangement to new listeners who are just coming to this?

Yeah, sure.

It's worthwhile stating at the start that I'm a former submariner.

I've also been to sea on nuclear-powered submarines, so I know quite a lot about this topic.

I'm not anti-submarines in any way, but I look at this particular project from a total perspective.

Things that concern me are not the capability itself.

but rather the absolute cost, $368 billion for a single capability for the Australian Defence Force.

So Rex, I'd be interested to know from your perspective, what do you think is an ideal outcome? What would you love to see be the outcome of this inquiry once it's all said and done and the final report is out there? And then what do you think will be the likely outcome that we will practically see at the end of all of this?

part, right?

That's correct.

So the AUKUS program, insofar as it goes to submarines, goes to two parts.

One of them is the US-supplied submarines and then the UK-supplied submarines.

So just recapping, we've had a Rudd home-built submarine.

We've had an Abbott Japanese submarine.

We've had a Turnbull French submarine.

But, you know, what what can we do here? Is there a possibility that we can claw back or is there a plan B if these boats never arrive or are we just going to be sleepwalking off the pier here?

Um, to be clear on that, that is not to say in 12 months' time there will be a place, but it is to say within 12 months' time we will identify what the road will be to determining where.

So the report and, uh, the documents themselves don't actually mention the location.

No location has been selected.

But all of the criteria, what the geological site must be, issues such as transportation, security, um, making sure that the facility is not located on an earthquake zone, those sorts of things.

But I know from the hearing that took place and the decision that was made by the Administrative Review Tribunal, that it does include at least one location.

The tribunal made the point that naming one location doesn't tell you that that's the location the government, um, has chosen.

But, uh, I think the government's worried that if you name any location, people are going to get upset.

What kind of things wouldn't we know without FOIs?

He just doesn't want to talk about it.

Yeah, and that's part of the problem here.

One of the things I'm calling for is the proactive release of ministerial diaries so we can see exactly who is influencing our Prime Minister.

Diaries are released in the states, so in New South Wales, in Queensland, the ACT and so forth.

In the federal domain, there's been significant resistance in relation to this.

Now, the Prime Minister might well say that he went to this dinner as the leader of the Labor Party, but in actual fact, all the people that went to eat dinner and pay their money, they absolutely went to see the Prime Minister of Australia.

So it's always very grey and fuzzy.

Why do we need to wait until next April to find out how much it was?

Yeah.

But the reason for that was that our refineries were suffering from a technology perspective, but also from a scalability perspective, competing with the likes of Singapore.

So as we move forward, what we've got to make sure is...

I think the technology issue will be resolved with a brand-new refinery, but the scale may not still work, and it may be the case that we end up in a situation where we've got a not... profitable oil refinery.

So that may require some government intervention.

If we are going to move forward and we're going to invest in a refinery, public money is going to go in.

I think we need to make sure we take an equity stake.

When you talk about $4 million on a pre-feasibility study, you're talking many years hence to actually get an oil refinery, aren't you?

It seems to be, though, sending a, a message to its own rank and file, doesn't it? This is going ahead.

Oh, there's no question the timing of the announcement is, is absolutely deliberate on behalf of the government, knowing they've got, you know, some political problems inside the Labor Party themselves.

But looking at it from a South Australian perspective, look, [laughs] if, if the government's gonna waste money, I'd rather they waste money in South Australia.

But, you know, ultimately, we've got to look at this from a defense perspective.

If I, if I just walk through some of the infrastructure spend, uh, as you mentioned, eight point five billion dollars being spent here in South Australia.

Uh, there's another eight billion dollars being spent in, uh, the, in West Australia on infrastructure.

We don't know what the spend will be in, in, on the East Coast.

Mm.

It seems to be, though, sending a, a message to its own rank and file, doesn't it? This is going ahead.

Oh, there's no question the timing of the announcement is, is absolutely deliberate on behalf of the government, knowing they've got, you know, some political problems inside the Labor Party themselves.

But looking at it from a South Australian perspective, look, if, if the government's gonna waste money, I'd rather they waste money in South Australia.

But, you know, ultimately, we've got to look at this from a defense perspective.

If I, if I just walk through some of the infrastructure spend, uh, as you mentioned, eight point five billion dollars being spent here in South Australia.

Uh, there's another eight billion dollars being spent in, uh, the, in West Australia on infrastructure.

We don't know what the spend will be in, in, on the East Coast.

Mm

Say it again, Rex.

I asked the government a pretty simple question.

Where are we going to put AUKUS nuclear waste? I did that by way of an FOI, and I specifically looked at some policy work that was being done to inform a paper on how to select the right location for AUKUS nuclear waste.

Now, the government originally gave me nothing.

So they responded and said, Rex, you can't have any of this.

I took them to the Information Commissioner and I did ask the Information Commissioner to just flick this across to the Administrative Review Tribunal because I thought the matter would require evidence, cross-examination and so forth and the Information Commissioner allowed me to do that.

When I got into the ART, the Administrative Review Tribunal, actually one of the nice things about that is that the Australian Government Solicitor gets involved and they have to turn up to courts and tribunals all the time and argue and be, believable by the people on the bench.

But it is certainly unprecedented for them to seek to impose costs on someone who's pursuing something for public interest.

Rex, what's that worked out on? Has that worked out on the retail price?

Yeah, that's my understanding of how it works.

Yeah.

So we have had a significant reduction since the Iran war commenced.

Yeah.

The government will be trying to balance out the amount of money that it collects through this, so the cost to the budget, with things like cost of living pressures.

And the interesting thing in relation to this is that, and just to remind your listeners, back in 2022 during the Ukraine crisis, I was the person as a senator who called and pressed for the fuel excise to be cut in the face of rising fuel prices, and eventually Josh Frydenberg and Scott Morrison did that.

I mean, would that be a better way to do it and a fairer way to do it? Or is a blanket excise on fuel at the pump the best way to do it?

Rex, what's that worked out on? Has that worked out on the retail price?

Yeah, that's my understanding of how it works.

So we have had a significant reduction since the Iran war commenced.

The government will be trying to balance out the amount of money that it collects through this, so the cost to the budget, with things like cost of living pressures.

And the interesting thing in relation to this is that, and just to remind your listeners, back in 2022 during the Ukraine crisis, I was the person as a senator who called and pressed for the fuel excise to be cut in the face of rising fuel prices, and eventually Josh Frydenberg and Scott Morrison did that.

And it's really interesting, following up from that, questions on those were put to the government, and Treasury confirmed that as a result of reducing the fuel excise, that had a quarter of a percent reduction.

downward pressure on inflation or adjustment in inflation.

It is.

Does that matter?

Yeah, look, I'll just start off by saying I've also been to see on US nuclear-powered submarines.

And so I do like them.

However, what the messaging that you can take from the announcement that when you go from, as you pointed out, two second-hand submarines, one new submarine to three second-hand submarines, is that the US are just not in a good position to be able to deliver to us submarines.

When the optimal pathway was talked about, it may actually be that we get two secondhand submarines and up to three brand new submarines.

That was what was originally talked about, but a minimum of one new submarine.

The issue is that the United States is building about 1.2 submarines per annum, and they need to build two per annum in order to meet their own needs, and 2.3 to be able to meet their needs and our needs.

How much better were the Collins boats that replaced the Oberons?

So hang on, we're not going to get them at all?

all?Well, it's against the US-- It's against US law.

When the Congress approved the, the transfer concept, they basically stated that two hundred and seventy days prior to the transfer, the US president has to certify that the transfer will not affect US undersea capability.

So what, what you're seeing here is there's a facade that's been put up, and you just heard Jonathan Mead saying, "They are committed.

They are committed.

They are committed." And what we heard yesterday is Defense Minister Marles saying, "Well, actually, they're not quite so committed." And over time, what's gonna happen is the truth is going to bite, and we're gonna find out that we are simply not going to be able to get any of these submarines.

We've, we've, we've basically injected already two point eight billion dollars, that's two thousand eight hundred million dollars, into the US submarine industrial b- uh, base.

Staggering that this is not going to eventuate, and as you say, eggs in one basket, it is never a good strategy, Rex Patrick.

So, how we're not going to get them at all?

Well, it's against the US l-- uh, it's against US law.

When the Congress approved the, the transfer concept, they basically stated that two hundred and seventy days prior to the transfer, the US president has to certify that the transfer will not affect US undersea capability.

So what, what you're seeing here is there's a facade that's been put up, and you just heard Jonathan Mead saying, "They are committed, they are committed, they are committed." And what we heard yesterday is Defense Minister Marles saying, "Well, actually, they're not quite so committed." And over time, what's gonna happen is the truth is going to bite, and we're gonna find out that we are simply not going to be able to get any of these submarines.

We've, we've, we've basically injected already two point eight billion dollars, that's two thousand eight hundred million dollars, into the US submarine industrial ba- uh, base.

Hasn't moved the, the construction dial, uh, at all, uh, and that money we s- we won't get back.

So that's money that has just left our treasury with no guarantees.

Staggering that this is not going to eventuate, and as you say, eggs in one basket, it is never a good strategy, Rex Patrick.

So the contract was written in a way that allowed America to change the settings at the last moment?

Well, one of the problems here is we don't have a contract in place.

So one of the things, look, the fundamental problem here is that the United States, in order to meet its submarine needs, its own submarine needs, needs to be building two submarines per annum.

To meet our needs as well, they have to push that number up to 2.3.

Right now, they're at 1.1, 1.2 submarines per annum.

They are well short, and there's no pathway that gets them to 2, let alone 2.3. And so one of the things we've been doing here in Australia is tracking money or shipping money across to the U.S. to try and help them with their U.S. industrial base.

$2.8 billion so far.

And they're giving us the old submarines because the new ones are more powerful and they want the new ones.

So, Anika Wells, I mean, does she just sort of believe in her heart of hearts that as a federal minister that we should pay for everything?

Look, I think it's really important that your listeners understand ministers must always be held to the highest of standards.

There's sort of two issues associated with this.

One is the sense of entitlement that surrounds this particular incident and the effect it has on people's trust and faith in politics.

But the second thing is just an issue of judgment.

Ministers exercise judgments all the time.

And sometimes the consequences of those judgments are significant.

That's not normally where you carry out your work, is it?

So Anika Wells, I mean, does she just sort of believe in her heart of hearts that as a federal minister that we should pay for everything?

Uh, look, I think it's really important, uh, that your listeners understand ministers must always be held to the highest of standards.

Uh, there's, there's sort of two issues associated by, with this.

One is the sense of entitlement, uh, that surrounds this particular incident and, or the effect it has on people's trust and faith in politics.

Uh, but the second thing is w- just an issue of judgment.

W- uh, ministers exercise judgments all the time.

They-- and, and sometimes the consequences of those judgments are significant.

Like, that's not normally where you carry out your work, is it?

Who are they and what will they be

doing? So the AUKUS command is a new command within the AFP set up over the last six months, and its function is to provide a security overlay to AUKUS submarines, that is US and UK submarines operating out of Western Australia and other Australian ports.

But actually more broadly, what the document showed is that the remit goes much, much broader than what I've just talked about.

And in actual fact, there's an MOU, a memorandum of understanding that's been signed between the Australian Federal Police and not the Australian Submarine Agency, but the Department of Defence.

So much broader.

And so it's planned, at least at this stage, that the AFP will have four teams of people who will look after things like when a submarine comes in, making sure they're escorted.

The documents show that the force will have a marine asset, some form of boat with trained coxswains on board, jet skis, remotely piloted aircraft, And that will allow the police to provide a protective service for submarines that are transiting in and out of HMO Stirling.

So what do you think the public needs to know about the creation of this AFP task force? Again, because it intersects with the