Labor says the government’s decision to protect a multinational arms manufacturer by suppressing a finding from the auditor general will have a “chilling effect” on his independence.
The defence minister, Christopher Pyne, on Monday defended the decision to black out sections of an auditor general’s report on Australia’s $1.3bn contract with Thales to provide the Australian army with 1,100 Hawkei light protected vehicles.
Following a request from Thales, the attorney general, Christian Porter, used extraordinary powers to redact parts of the report, saying it was necessary both on national security grounds and to prevent unfair prejudice to Thales’ commercial interests.
Documents obtained by Guardian Australia suggest much of the censored content relates to a finding that Australia could have paid half the amount through the joint light protected vehicle (JLTV) program in the United States.
Pyne on Monday defended the decision to redact the audit report, insisting there were national security grounds justifying the decision.
He also repeatedly criticised any comparison of the Hawkei and the JLTV, saying they offered completely different capabilities.
“The attorney general did it because myself, as the [then] minister for defence industry, and Marise Payne, as the minister for defence, asked the attorney general to act under the legislation to ensure the national security of the country,” Pyne told the ABC.
“Comparing the Hawkei vehicle to the JLTV is like comparing a Ford Territory to a Toyota Sahara and saying they should both cost the same price. That’s not the case. They are very different vehicles.”
The auditor general has previously expressed confusion at the use of national security to justify the censorship. He said he had worked through his report with the defence department, to ensure it contained no sensitive information. Pyne acknowledged the defence department had worked with the auditor but said he still had national security concerns.
“I still had concerns,” Pyne said. “I acted under the legislation. The attorney general acted under the legislation. That’s what it’s there for.”
But the shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, and Labor MP Julian Hill, the deputy chair of a committee inquiring into the Thales case, warned that Porter’s dramatic intervention risked having a chilling effect on the auditor general, Grant Hehir.
Hehir has already warned that other agencies are now flagging possible requests to the attorney general to censor his findings.
“While Mr Porter’s actions were within the bounds of the act, it is clear such powers should be used in extraordinary circumstances only,” Dreyfus and Hill said in a joint statement. “Mr Porter has still not given a valid explanation as to his actions in this case – it’s not good enough.
“Independence of the auditor general is absolutely central to any claim of credibility of parliamentary control over the executive in the Westminster system.”
Labor said it would consider reforms to the suppression powers once an inquiry into the matter was finished.
The crossbench senator Rex Patrick described Porter’s intervention as “astonishing” and an “extraordinary failure of judgment”.
He said the government should release all information about any contact between Thales, ministers, their staff and senior officials.
Thales had objected to the audit report’s release because it argued the audit was flawed and should not have compared the Hawkei and the JLTV in such a way.
Patrick said that may be a valid argument but did not justify the suppression of the auditor general.
“Thales may argue with the validity of the vehicle cost comparison to the US JLTV, and could have asked that a company response be included in the auditor’s report,” he said.
“However, government suppression of the auditor general’s assessment is entirely wrong. It is completely at odds with the proper accountability of government to the parliament and the people for spending taxpayers’ money.
“This latest action by the attorney general is a most serious assault on the effectiveness of the auditor general.”
An auditor general’s report has been redacted once before in 1987, over a report on air force explosive ordnance. Those powers were exercised under the old Audit Act 1901, the predecessor to the current Auditor General Act 1997. The current powers have never been used before.
• This reporting is supported by the Susan McKinnon Foundation through the Guardian Civic Journalism Trust
