Mr TANNER —My question is again directed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. Minister, yesterday you compared your decision to purchase 104 PADS units with a decision taken by former transport minister Collins and AMSA in 1990, and you stated that his decision `did not involve a product trial'. Is it not a fact that Senator Collins approved the purchase by AMSA of 10 PADS units solely for the purpose of testing or, in your words, for a product trial and that this was demonstrated in evidence before the Senate inquiry? Is it not a fact that AMSA tested PADS and found it to be unsafe? Is it not also a fact that in the briefing you received from Airservices in April 1996 you were advised of AMSA's adverse finding on PADS as well as those of the RAAF?

Mr SHARP —This is interesting, because Senator Collins was on ABC radio last night defending his honour in this matter. What I said yesterday was that when Senator Collins was minister he instructed his department, or AMSA, to purchase these units of PADS and that these purchases were made without any tendering and without any testing. This, somehow or other, seemed to be a perfectly appropriate process when Labor was in office.

I make the point that the process that has been undertaken with the testing of PADS in this instance has been done without first purchasing the equipment before testing. Senator Collins instructed them to purchase the equipment without even doing any testing. What happened in this instance was that no purchase of equipment was made without testing; without a trial being done.

So no money was committed in purchasing this equipment under the processes undertaken by Airservices Australia without there being a trial, whereas when Labor was in office and Senator Collins was the responsible minister they purchased the equipment and then had a trial. We said, `Have the trial and then determine whether you want to purchase the equipment.' I think there is a substantial difference in process there; one which would make our process stand up very well against yours.

Mr Tanner —Tell the truth for a change.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne!

Mr SHARP —May I also go to the tests that the honourable member for Melbourne and Senator Collins have referred to in regard to the early trials on PADS. I refer to the RAAF tests that were done I think in 1995. I have a report here from the RAAF aircraft research and development unit. The relevant paragraph is worth reading. Rather than saying, as was implied by the member for Melbourne yesterday in the House, that PADS should never been be used again—

Mr Tanner —I said it was too unsafe to test. That is what the report said.

Mr SPEAKER —I warn the member for Melbourne.

Mr SHARP —The report said:

Provided the deficiencies—

of which they have identified nine—

identified are corrected, the PADS unit would be acceptable for further testing in a single store delivery system category.

In evidence given to the Senate hearings on this subject, both the Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia, Mr Bill Pollard, and the head of Aerospace Technical Services, Mr Jones—both of whom it could be alleged are experts in this field—said that, whilst the PADS system had its faults, it also had enormous merits and that those faults could easily be fixed. Mr Pollard said that, if the manufacturer put their mind to it, they could fix the faults in a period of up to 10 weeks.

If those faults can be fixed, as is indicated they can be, then you have a system that has been proven to hit the target eight times out of nine rather than three times out of nine. Indeed, that is the purpose of all of this—to get the best equipment and to provide the best search and rescue service for Australians lost at sea, rather than to play silly little political games, like the Labor Party is doing now.