Senator HOGG (12:31 PM) —The other day when I was speaking on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2000-2001, I was referring specifically to the Defence Integrated Distribution System process, which has fallen into chaos because the government have failed to address this very important issue.

Senator HOGG —I note that Senator West is in the chamber at this stage, and I am now about to refer to the efforts of Senator West and myself to pursue this issue at Senate estimates. On 23 November last year, Senator West asked some very pointed questions in estimates of the officers from Defence and received the response that, yes, in effect the process had slipped out, that it had been hoped the process would be determined by mid-2000, but here we were in late 2000—and here we are even now—and the process is still no closer to being determined. An interesting response came to a question from Senator West, and the particular question was:

Major General Haddad responded:

When one looks at the critical issue here, one finds that it is rural and regional employment—which is very important—in a number of Defence sites throughout rural and regional Australia.

Also in response to a question by Senator West at the supplementary estimates on 23 November, Defence clearly outlined the sites which were covered by the DIDS project. There were a number in most states of Australia. In particular, it numbered the positions at risk as 1,392, and 1,113 were in the current staffing arrangements. A number of positions were at risk in various parts of Australia. Some of these sites that were within the scope of the Defence Integrated Distribution System project were mandated sites, where the successful tenderer would have to continue the operation, but others were not mandated. A number of those that fell into the rural and regional areas were of grave concern for this government, given the difficulties that are currently confronting this government electorally.

The matter was again pursued in the additional estimates on 21 February, so we have seen the project slip out even further. I raised it primarily because I have had a number of representations from people who will be affected by the outcome of the DIDS project. They are concerned for their own personal wellbeing and about the great uncertainty that surrounds this very project. In response to a question by me about the management review team—and this is a very interesting response indeed—Major General Haddad said:

Yet we have this project for $1.056 billion that is being put out to the marketplace for tender. The only basis on which it has any legs whatsoever has been the fact that the very people it seeks to put out of a job were absolutely essential to the process, so that they could advise the government—so that they could advise Defence—as to what was needed in the tender process. These people now, having been drawn into the process, are very concerned indeed.

It is fair to say that, when the issue was raised, Senator Ian Macdonald, who was the minister at the table, was filling in. The question raised by Senator West was:

In response, Senator Ian Macdonald said:

I would say to the government that they have had long enough. The tenderers have now been asked to renew their interest in the tender process on at least two occasions. There is a substantial tender at stake here. There are a number of people's jobs at risk, and there are a number of sites at risk. People are looking for some certainty and some assurance.

The government are baulking at making a decision on the process because of the impact on rural and regional employment, and that is understandable. We are not advocating in any way that those jobs should be lost to those people. But there should at least be some clarification as to what is happening in the process. Either the process is going to proceed or the process is going to be dispensed with—as it should be—and the people who are working in the various distribution sites within Defence can have some certainty. If one looks at an email received by Senator West from another group of people at one of the distribution centres who are interested in this very issue, it is pertinent to look at a comment that was made about the effect on their lives and their lifestyles. After the 10 November 1999 meeting, they said:

Whilst this was a large and important contract, I believe that that is correct. There is a moral and ethical obligation to come to a conclusion one way or the other about this project, as I have stated.

The process has been troubled right from the outset. The management review team was put in place to assist in the process, which was embraced by the employees at the sites. The employees had some faith in the process, where they believed there would be proper consultation and proper feedback. As I have pointed out in my statements to the parliament on this matter, that management review team has met on only one occasion. Whilst there has been an acknowledgment in the estimates process that Defence have handled the consultative process by, as they say, using the `chain of command' within Defence, that has not proven to be satisfactory at all. It has proven to be most unsatisfactory.

Of course, the other problem is the fact that the bidders have been asked to renew their bid on a number of occasions. One must ask the obvious question: what will happen if the government decide to ditch the project altogether? What compensation will the bidders seek for the time, effort, energy and money that they have put into this bid? I am sure that they will not let it pass, and I am sure that they want to see the whole process brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

The government's actions have shown their indecisiveness in this. It has dragged on for far too long. It is a major project indeed. It is a project that Defence have claimed is important to them and the organisation of their warehousing and distribution. There have been productivity gains. There have been organisational gains made as a result of the involvement of employees in the process to date. I am led to believe that many of those will, of their own accord, assist Defence in better dealing with the handling and distribution of Defence material. At the end of the day, we are dealing with the lives and the wellbeing of a loyal and knowledgeable work force. They deserve to be treated far better by the government than they have been to date.

Senator Ian Campbell —That is politicising Defence.

Senator HOGG —I am not politicising Defence. They need to be treated better than they have been by the current government, and they need a determination of the outcome of the DIDS process as soon as possible. They do not need the tardy way in which the government have acted so far.