Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Goldman Sachs CEO breaks silence on 1MDB: ASIC's James Shipton needs to do the same

by Ganesh Sahathevan


from the 1MDB theft

This blog reported last year that James Shipton (pic above) the then newly appointed chairman of the Australian Securities And Investment Commission (ASIC), could not be assumed to not be involved in the 1MDB kleptocracy scandal.


Shipton was at the relevant time between 2004 and 2013 at Goldman Sachs in Asia, where he was, amongst other things
Head of Government and Regulatory Affairs .It was his job to work with government in order to further the interests of the firm.


Shipton has yet to explain why he should not be seen to
have been involved in Goldman's 1MDB deals.His silence has become even less tenable now that Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon admitted that he "feel(s) horrible" that two ex-Goldman bankers “blatantly broke the law”.The attempt to isolate illegality aside,this is the first time that the CEO has spoken about Goldman's involvement in the 1MDB scandal in any meaningful way.
Meanwhile, the Financial Times, quoting Goldman insiders, has reported that over 30 Goldman Sachs personnel were involved in the 1MDB deals.


Against this backdrop, Shipton, ASIC and the Australia Government's silence on the matter of Shipton's involvement in the 1MDB scandal can only raise further suspicion about Shipton's acts and omissions with regards 1MDB.



END 




Reference
Goldman Sachs CEO: I feel horrible ex-bankers broke law in 1MDB case

Published 3 hours ago on 07 November 2018

SINGAPORE, Nov 7 — Goldman Sachs Chief Executive David Solomon said today he felt “horrible” that two former employees “blatantly broke the law” in their dealings with Malaysian state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

US prosecutors filed criminal charges against the two former Goldman bankers and a Malaysian financier linked to the alleged theft of billions of dollars from the fund.


In investigation into where 1MDB’s money went became the largest carried out by the Department of Justice under its anti-kleptocracy programme, and the scandal was a major reason why Malaysian voters rejected Datuk Seri Najib Razak, their prime minister for nearly a decade, in an election earlier this year.
“It is obviously very distressing to see two former Goldman Sachs employees went so blatantly around our policies and so blatantly broke the law,” Solomon said in an interview with Bloomberg TV in Singapore.


“I feel horrible about the fact that people who worked at Goldman Sachs, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a partner or it’s an entry level employee, would go around our policies and break the law,” Solomon said.

US prosecutors announced last week that Tim Leissner, former partner for Goldman Sachs in Asia, had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and agreed to forfeit US$43.7 million (RM181.9 million).

Roger Ng, the other charged former Goldman banker, was arrested in Malaysia and is expected to be extradited.

Reuters was not immediately able to contact Ng’s lawyer today. His lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment after US prosecutors unveiled the charges last Thursday.

Goldman has also placed its former co-head of Asia investment banking, Andrea Vella, on leave over his role in the firm’s involvement with the case, pending a review of allegations, according to a person familiar with the decision.

The Wall Street bank said in a securities filing on Friday that it may also face penalties from dealings with 1MDB.

Asked if he could provide assurances that neither he, former CEO Lloyd Blankfein or any of the senior management team suspected illegality or compliance breaches in dealings with 1MDB, Solomon said:

“We take compliance and control in our firm extremely seriously, we always have... We are going to continue to cooperate with the authorities and there’s a process in place and that process will proceed.”

According to prosecutors, the investment bank generated about US$600 million in fees for its work with 1MDB, which included three bond offerings in 2012 and 2013 that raised US$6.5 billion. Leissner, Ng and others received large bonuses in connection with that revenue.

Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng told Reuters in June that the government will be looking at the possibility of seeking claims from Goldman Sachs.

Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said Malaysia will look into why Goldman was paid around US$600 million in fees, an amount that critics say exceeds normal levels.

Goldman has maintained that the outsized fees related to the additional risks it took on — it bought the un-rated bonds while it sought investors and, in the case of the 2013 deal which raised US$2.7 billion, 1MDB wanted the funds in a hurry for a planned investment.

The new Malaysian government has barred Najib and his wife from leaving the country, and the former premier faces multiple charges of corruption, money laundering and abuse of power, though he has consistently denied any wrongdoing related to 1MDB.

In another interview with Bloomberg yesterday, Malaysia’s prime minister-in-waiting Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said it would be “inexcusable” if Goldman Sachs was complicit in the scandal. — Reuters



FT and wires reported over the weekend 3-4 November 2018:

Over 30 Goldman Sachs executives including bank boss David Solomon and his predecessor, Lloyd Blankfein reviewed the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) deals, according to sources familiar with the approval process.
…. Financial Times reported the Wall Street bank helped 1MDB sovereign wealth fund sell about RM27.06 bil (US$6.5bil) of bonds between 2012 and 2013, two years before Malaysian police raided 1MDB’s offices to investigate allegations of massive fraud.
Company insiders were quoted saying the deal had been extensively scrutinised, since it involved not only the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund but also Abu Dhabi’s, which was teed up to buy some of the bonds.



Over 30 Goldman Sachs execs, top bosses reviewed 1MDB deals


  • Nation
  • Sunday, 4 Nov 2018
    8:00 AM MYT
image: https://www.thestar.com.my/~/media/online/2018/11/03/15/22/goldman.ashx/?w=620&h=413&crop=1&hash=BEF228B11059DDDBE469278CACD076E6716BE236
The Goldman Sachs company logo seen at the New York Stock Exchange. - Reuters


PETALING JAYA: Over 30 Goldman Sachs executives including bank boss David Solomon and his predecessor, Lloyd Blankfein reviewed the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) deals, according to sources familiar with the approval process.

The Financial Times reported the Wall Street bank helped 1MDB sovereign wealth fund sell about RM27.06 bil (US$6.5bil) of bonds between 2012 and 2013, two years before Malaysian police raided 1MDB’s offices to investigate allegations of massive fraud. 

In a 2016 indictment, the US Department of Justice alleged that much of the money raised with Goldman’s help was siphoned off by Low Taek Jho, who funnelled it into everything from Beverly Hills properties to Van Gogh paintings.

The report added that DoJ, which is still exploring what sanctions if any Goldman should face, has brought criminal charges against former Goldman bankers Tim Leissner and Roger Ng .
Leissner had pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiring to commit money laundering and bribe foreign officials, the justice department said on Thursday. Ng was reported to be arrested in Malaysia on similar charges.

FT reported that Goldman declined to comment beyond saying that it is reviewing the DoJ’s filings and co-operating with the investigation.

In a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday (Nov 2), the Wall Street firm estimated that possible losses related to litigation proceedings could run as high as $1.8bil (RM7.49 bil) above its total reserves for such matters. Previously, Goldman estimated litigation losses to be in an excess of $1.5bil (RM6.24 bil).

Company insiders were quoted saying the deal had been extensively scrutinised, since it involved not only the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund but also Abu Dhabi’s, which was teed up to buy some of the bonds.

“There were two sovereign wealth funds . . . everybody had a look at this,” said one banker who reviewed the deal. “You're not going to find that what happened . . . (was) because there wasn't an appropriate level of oversight.”

The source told FT that “everybody” included Blankfein and Solomon, who was head of Goldman’s investment banking division from 2006 to 2012, as well as Gary Cohn, then chief operating officer of the bank.

FT noted that a second person with knowledge of the deal’s approval process confirmed that more than 30 people at the bank reviewed it.

“There was no concern that the money was going to be stolen,” he said. “The concern was that this is a new sovereign wealth fund, the concerns expressed were ‘do they understand (the fundraising)?’”

Goldman received nearly RM2.487 bil  (US$600mil) in fees from the deals. Rival bankers have said that the hefty fees the fund was willing to pay for the fundraising should have raised red flags.

FT reported that a senior official at Malaysia's finance ministry this week said Goldman charged between 9 to 11 per cent of funds raised.

The business daily reported that the second person with knowledge of the deal said Goldman offered 1MDB a menu of fee structures and that the fund picked one that involved the US bank taking the most risk on to its balance sheet. If the bond’s price had fallen, Goldman would have lost money. 

The US bank has already taken a hit to its business in Singapore and Malaysia because of the scandal; clients in bigger Asian markets, including China and Japan, are not concerned, one Hong Kong-based Goldman Sachs source said.

During Friday trading in New York, the bank’s shares were slightly above where they were when the news broke the day before.

“I don’t think it has been or will prove to be a very big deal for Goldman Sachs investors,” said Jeff Harte, an analyst at Sandler O’Neill was quoted by FT.

“(It) looks like a few employees dodged Goldman Sachs's internal systems to secure business from 1MDB. Clearly not a positive, but not terrible or widespread.”


Tags / Keywords:Goldman Sachs 1MDB , Tim Leissner , Roger Ng , Jho Low


Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/11/04/over-30-goldman-sachs-execs-top-bosses-reviewed-1mdb-deals/#Yv2OlcmYiiwpiAGD.99

Saturday, November 3, 2018

DOJ action against Goldman bankers in glaring contrast to Malaysia's inaction against AMBank, Wong & Partners other Malaysian enablers of 1MDB theft

by Ganesh Sahathevan 


AmBank Group said it would take legal action against those behind the a blog posting which claimed a former officer was sacked in 2013 over a total of S$21 million being deposited into Malaysian PM Najib Razak's personal bank accounts.

In mid 2015 AmBank threatened to sue parties behind hoax claiming millions deposited into Malaysian PM Najib's accounts-Nothing has been done.


The Department Of Justice announced on Friday last week that it had accepted a plea deal from Tom Leissner and charged Roger Ng, the senior Goldman Sachs bankers who enabled the 1MDB theft..

Meanwhile, the Malaysian Government has yet to do anything,  about the the following local entities who enabled the the theft:


AMBANK

This might still be relevant:


ANZ's former CEO Mike Smith who led the bank's Asian expansion would know from the time he spent at HSBC in Kuala Lumpur that  Malaysians in general are always (and I mean always) on the look out for a deal to at least supplement meager incomes, if not get rich quick.

Given that deal making propensity ,news of the the SEC's recently reported USD 22 million payout (RM 88 million) to a whistle blower  ,the largest this year and second only to its record payout of USD 30 million (RM 120 million)  will prove too much for AMBank staff to resist.

Given the central role that AMBank and its ANZ led management played in the 1 MDB theft, which the US Justice Department described as the biggest case of kleptocracy ,fraud and theft it has ever seen, AMBank staff can be expected to have already done the math and determined that speaking to the SEC might well set them up for life.



WONG & PARTNERS  



WONG & PARTNERS Law firm Wong & Partners, which is affiliated to international firm Baker & McKenzie, is the legal firm of choice for Jho Low and 1 Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB). They represented 1MDB in the first US$1.0 billion joint-venture transaction with PetroSaudi as well as the subsequent dealings in the Murabahah notes. Wong & Partners was also involved in the drafting of the Memorandum of Articles & Association of 1MDB. The principal partner of Wong & Partners who handled both Jho Low’s and 1MDB business was Brian Chia. A point to note is that Tiffany Heah, who was a legal counsel at UBG Bhd when Jho was a shareholder, had worked at Wong & Partners before joining him. Heah was also at the New York meeting on Sept 7, 2009, where Jho Low met PetroSaudi’s Patrick Mahony for the first time to discuss the joint venture with 1MDB. Another interesting fact is that Chia and two others from Wong & Partners are shareholders of a consultancy and advisory firm called B&M Consultancy Services Sdn Bhd. The shareholders are Chia (33.14%), Adeline Wong Mee Kiat (33.71%) and Chew Kherk Ying (33.14%). B&M described itself as a professional service firm that specialised in strategic corporate consultancy, advisory and management services. “ We are a trusted adviser to our clients, which comprise both domestic and multinational corporations in the public and private sectors, with offices in Malaysia and other jurisdictions. We combine our rich local knowledge with an innovative global mindset to assist our clients in establishing and driving their business and investment strategies in Malaysia and globally, with a view to promoting Malaysia as a strategic investment hub in the region.” 

B&M did work for Jho Low/Javace Sdn Bhd in its General Offer for UBG (Bank).
Documents from the Hong Kong Companies Registry show that on July 9, Low signed two documents to change both firms’ company secretary from B & Mck Nominees to KV Pro Services in Mong Kok.

It is not known if he was in Hong Kong when he signed the documents but the registry said a signatory would not need to be in the city to sign the papers.
B & Mck is a subsidiary of US law firm Baker McKenzie. A spokesman from the law firm confirmed it had ceased to work for Low’s companies but declined to give the reason.


END



References 



AmBank will sue parties behind hoax claiming millions deposited into Malaysian PM Najib's accounts

PUBLISHED

JUL 16, 2015, 8:26 PM SGT




PETALING JAYA (THE STAR/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) - AmBank Group will take legal action against those behind the blog postings of a fake press statement and statutory declaration, once it ascertains the identity of those involved and motive of the hoax.

The bank's statement came after a new anti-graft watchdog claimed a former AmBank officer was sacked in 2013 over a total of S$21 million being deposited into Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak's personal bank accounts, only for the self-proclaimed watchdog to admit hours later that it was a hoax. The CAGM had claimed the money was purportedly channelled to the ruling Barisan Nasional's component parties before the country's general election in May that year.

"We are continuing our investigations and inquiries into the Citizens for Accountable Governance Malaysia (CAGM) and its purported chairman, Md Zainal Abidin, to ascertain the real identity of those behind the postings. Once their identities and motives are ascertained, we will take such action as is available to us under the law," AmBank Group said in a statement on Thursday.


AmBank said CAGM on July 12 published what it described as a "press statement" entitled "Najib, Ambank & Mahathir".

The bank said the blog then corroborated its press statement by publishing on July 14 what it described as a "statutory declaration" from an alleged former employee of "AmBank Malaysia Berhad".

On July 15, AmBank said CAGM published another post describing itself, its purported chairman, Md Zainal Abidin and its postings as a hoax created as "just an experiment in social media in Malaysia".



ADVERTISING


"Regardless of the motives behind this elaborate hoax, the postings of July 12 and 14 contain malicious and defamatory statements against AmBank Group, our chairman and employees," it said.

"This was compounded by the republication of these statements in other media publications thereby gaining unwarranted attention and traction. It is of little comfort to us that the so-called CAGM now admits that this hoax was directed at the media and presumably not at us."

AmBank Group said it is bound by the Financial Services Act 2013 (FSA) and Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 (IFSA) and that the FSA and IFSA are strict in their protection of client confidentiality.

AmBank said it adopts good practices in corporate governance and applies Malaysian banking laws and regulations. "We have co-operated fully with the authorities in an open and transparent manner, and will continue to do so."

"We would like to reassure our valued customers that the AmBank Group operates with high levels of integrity and that our business is operating as usual," said AmBank Group chairman Tan Sri Azman Hashim in the statement.


TOPICS:
MALAYSIA
NAJIB RAZAK
BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
















































Monday, October 29, 2018

ExxonMobil's US$1.4 billion claim against Venezuela: ICSID panel member Cecil Abraham's appearance of bias may be grounds for successful appeal.

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Image result for exxon

Exxon






This writer has previously noted of that prominent Malaysian jurist, Tan Sri Cecil Abraham:

Cecil is often in the news.Sarawak Report has the most recent report:
Murder Cover-Up Case Nets Najib, Rosmah and Lawyers Cecil Abraham & Shafee Abdullah

Having said that, Cecil has also been featured on the Global Arbitration Review new-site:

Cecil Abraham has been active on various International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) annulment committees in cases against Venezuela. He sat on panels that chopped US$1.4 billion from an award in favour of ExxonMobil; reduced an award in favour of oil services company Tidewater by US$10 million; and upheld the dismissal of a US$150 million claim concerning a fertiliser expropriation.


ExxonMobil has  appealed and on 26 October 2018 Global Arbitration Review reported:

ExxonMobil has resubmitted a claim against Venezuela to ICSID, after an annulment committee dramatically slashed US$1.4 billion from an award the oil group secured in 2014, concluding that the original tribunal had exceeded its powers.

However, tribunal member Cecil Abraham's entanglement with ex-PM Najib does bring him into the orbit of the 1MDB mess.Indeed, it was Cecil who so brilliantly put that highly creative, winning argument that Najib was not a public officer, in an 1MDB related matter brought by new PM Mahathir Mohamad.


Being entangled with Najib, it is now open to ExxonMobil to challenge the ICSID's  decision in favour of Venezuela on the additional grounds of Cecil's  appearance of bias, for Venezuela and Malaysia are linked by PetroSaudi, a company which is being sued by Venezuela for the recovery of millions of dollars lost 

in an oil services deal, which PetroSaudi financed out of  money  stolen from 1MDB. Malaysia and Najib did not need the complication of a massive decision against Venezuela , and had every reason to see that Venezuela kept whatever little money that socialist paradise turned nightmare retained in its treasury.That gives rise to an appearance of bias, and it  is probably sufficient to throw out Cecil's ICSID decision in favour Venezuela.

END 

Reference





 Buy the Book

Venezuela Issues Criminal Prosecution Against Ex-Oil Minister Over PetroSaudi Contract....

Venezuela Issues Criminal Prosecution Against Ex-Oil Minister Over PetroSaudi Contract....

There has been a dramatic development in the on-going row between Venezuela and PetroSaudi over the off-shore oil contract that was funded by the 1MDB investment in the Saudi-owned company.
Late last week, the country’s top prosecutor issued criminal proceedings and applied for an international arrest warrant for the former powerful Petroleum Minister, Rafael Ramirez, for the “crimes of intentional embezzlement, money laundering and association”, specifically referring to the so-called “ghost ship” contract with PetroSaudi.
“Ramírez you have to answer to justice for this case, for the case of factor K, and the scrap ship Saturn belonging to the ghost company Petrosaudi,” The chief prosecutor  Tarek William Saab is reported as having demanded.
During a press conference, the prosecutor announced that they will request an arrest warrant, as well as Interpol’s red alert, against the former oil minister, Rafael Ramírez, for the “crimes of intentional embezzlement, money laundering and association.”Saab assured that Ramírez is involved in the case that they qualified as “the ghost ship”, making reference to the “vessel for offshore gas exploitation Petro Saudi Saturn”. He recalled that “the boat was rented in a closed contract for seven years, of which although 60% of the time it was inoperative. By the time it was stopped, a total of US$1,175,000 million 300 thousand dollars had been paid in rental costs, even though the boat did not work. The former president of PDVSA is linked to the case of the Office of Marketing Intelligence and Petroleum Policy, based in Vienna. [Translation]
According to the prosecutors the money lost through PetroSaudi was part of US$11 billion stolen from the state oil company PDVSA, of which Ramirez was also head, during his tenure.  Prosecutors say this was down to corruption, however Ramirez, who has fled the country and is believed to be hiding in the United States, is putting the matter down to his political rivalry with the current President Maduro.
Venezuela has put out a request to Interpol and is believed to be waiting on their response.  Meanwhile, the court filings of the US Dept of Justice made clear last year that none of the profits accrued by PetroSaudi from this unequal deal were returned to 1MDB, which had put in the original investment as part of an alleged joint venture and then series of loan arrangements to the company.
Likewise it has emerged that the two dud drill ships owned by PetroSaudi were the sole assets on which 1MDB’s alleged $2.3 billion Cayman Island investment portfolio was based, thanks to criminal over-valuations procured on behalf of the Malaysian fund by Najib’s advisor Jho Low and a ring of collaborators based at BSI Bank (now closed following investigations into the scandal in Switzerland and Singapore).
With a court battle now underway the full details of the once secretive dealings between PetroSaudi and Ramirez’s team at PDVSA are likely to be laid bare in open court, which should provide even more details for Malaysians about where all their money went.
After all, Prime Minister Najib Razak continues to maintain there was “no wrong-doing”, 1MDB still claims it cashed out from the deal with a $2.3 billion sale of its interest and PetroSaudi has claimed that documents used by Sarawak Report to expose the thefts of hundreds of millions of dollars from 1MDB were ‘doctored’ and forged.



Tuesday, October 23, 2018

China reaches into Malaysia,ASEAN to build defence ties while Australia ignores Mahathir's attempts to containChina-Is the Anwar obsession , Mahathir hatred,getting in the way?

by Ganesh Sahathevan
Australia has shown little interest in backing Mahathir as he pushes back against China,despite the Five Nation Defence Pact:
https://www.malaymail.com/s/1678646/china-free-to-move-but-no-battleships-in-south-china-sea-dr-m-says

Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today brushed off China’s “sovereign claim” over a disputed chain of islands in the South China Sea, stating the country has the right to go “wherever they wanted to”. However Dr Mahathir further explained to British national broadcaster BBC that Malaysia’s policy is not to have battleships and warships in the South China Sea as tensions in the region will escalate into armed conflict and subsequently war if vessels are stationed in the area.

“I explained that China has the right to go wherever they want to go but please don’t check on ships or prevent ships on passing through the straits of Malacca and the South China Sea, that is all we want,” he told HARDtalk programme host Zeinab Badawi.


Meanwhile China is doing all it can to build a new defence pact with Malaysia, and other ASEAN countries:

RT Echinanews " and launch maritime drill in Zhanjiang. The joint drill is the first of its kind held between China and ASEAN countries. "



Saturday, October 13, 2018

Is l'affaire Adelaide a repeat of DCNS's l'affaire Karachi-Australian taxpayers have not been told why French subs will cost 5 times more

by Ganesh Sahathevan


First for context and references see:

DCNS's Philippe Japiot charged with corruption, spent much time in Australia before the award of the Australian AUD 50 Billion contract

What did DCNS (aka Naval Group) do with information on Ray Grigg's affair: L'Affarire Adelaide deepens


Then some recent reporting on escalating costs:



The AFR reported in May 2018:
Taxpayers will spend $100 billion to build and operate the new fleet of submarines, Defence Department officials have revealed for the first time as they also fended off warnings the naval shipbuilding program was at risk of cost blowouts and delays.


The Australian's reported on 2 October 2018:


It’s only when you look at how the original deal was done that you realise why the capital costs have risen from $50bn to $90bn (before it starts) and that add-ons take the total outlay to $220bn-plus over several decades.

And worse still, thanks to the research work of leading physicist Aidan Morrison and questions by Senator Rex Patrick and others, we now know there are grave doubts about the technology behind the submarine, which looks like a $220bn white elephant. Significantly, the French are shifting their ground on the technology.


And finally,against the backdrop of escalating costs ,this report ,where costs seem to be an irrelevant consideration:


Future submarine project deadlocked as French shipbuilder digs in on $50 billion contract

Updated 28 Sep 2018, 12:52pm
The Government has grown so frustrated with the French company selected to build Australia's next fleet of submarines that Defence Minister Christopher Pyne refused to meet top officials visiting the country this week.
Naval Group was selected in 2016 to build 12 submarines for the Australian Navy, in the country's largest-ever defence contract worth $50 billion.
The ABC understands Mr Pyne will only meet the chief executive of the majority French state-owned company once a crucial document, the strategic partnering agreement (SPA), has been signed.
Negotiations on that document have stalled and it is feared they may not be resolved before next year's federal election.
Defence and industry figures have told the ABC that France and Australia will not be ready before 2019 to sign the document, which is needed before detailed design contracts can be finalised, and submarine construction begins.
Sources familiar with the process say a goal to sign the vital SPA during a visit to Adelaide this week by French Minister Florence Parly has slipped off course, with fundamental differences that may not be reconciled before early next year.
Concerns over warranties and technology transfer are believed to be the main sticking points in the tough negotiations between the Australian Commonwealth and French-owned Naval Group.
The knock-on effects of delay on the SPA, which covers the guiding terms and conditions that govern the submarine program, and the likelihood of a federal election being called in the first quarter of next year threatens to create a "perfect storm" of uncertainty, with some risk that it could ultimately sink the French project entirely.
Ms Parly was accompanied to Australia this week by Naval Group chief executive Herve Guillou and project boss Jean-Michel Billig, but scheduled meetings between the two company representatives and Mr Pyne and Defence Industry Minister Steven Ciobo were cancelled.
Naval Group has declined to say whether it is disappointed that Mr Pyne refused to meet them, but has conceded the negotiations with Australia are "challenging" and "complex".
"Negotiation of the SPA is continuing to ensure we implement an equitable and enduring agreement to deliver the Future Submarine capability over the next 30 years," Naval Group said in a statement.
"Naval Group continues to enjoy a strong and collaborative relationship with the Commonwealth."
Another round of talks between Naval Group and the Defence Department has been scheduled for October in Canberra, but even if a broad agreement emerges next month, a finalised SPA document is unlikely to be signed before Christmas.
Federal Opposition figures have signalled that if the SPA is not completed by next year's election, Labor could order a review of the project if it wins office.
Asked today whether the agreement would be signed before the next election, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the Government was working to the timetable that had been set out.
"The timetable for that has already been set out and we're working to that timetable," he said.
The ABC has contacted Mr Pyne for comment.
First posted 28 Sep 2018, 5:02am


$100 billion babies: Defence reveals true cost of new submarines for taxpayers


Naval Group has been contracted to build 12 new submarines for Australia in a $50 billion program.
Naval Group has been contracted to build 12 new submarines for Australia in a $50 billion program. Naval Group

Taxpayers will spend $100 billion to build and operate the new fleet of submarines, Defence Department officials have revealed for the first time as they also fended off warnings the naval shipbuilding program was at risk of cost blowouts and delays.
While the $50 billion budget to build the 12 French-designed submarines in Adelaide has been known for several years, Rear Admiral Greg Sammut told Senate estimates on Tuesday the same amount again would be spent on sustaining the submarines throughout their operating life, although he conceded the costs were yet to be finalised. 
"Many of the detailed costs of acquisition and sustainment will be determined during the design process through choices made but at this point early estimation of the sustainment costs for the fleet are of the order of up to $50 billion on a constant price basis," he said in response to questions from Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick. 
Construction of the first submarine is scheduled to start by 2022 and it will enter service in the early 2030s, with the last submarine to be retired by 2080.
In comparison, the six Collins class submarines currently cost $600 million a year in sustainment costs.
Advertisement
Senator Patrick later told The Australian Financial Review he was concerned the government had underestimated the cost of sustaining the new submarines, with naval sustainment costs generally between two and three times the acquisition cost. For example, the government has budgeted between $7 billion and $11 billion to sustain the offshore patrol vessels, which will cost $2.8 billion to build.
"It's disturbing that Defence has done this," he said.
"The variations being talked about here make the corporate tax cut revenue impacts look like pocket change. This issue needs a lot more scrutiny." 

'Significant changes' to program

Officials also disputed key findings of an auditor-general's report this month that highlighted the "high to extreme risks" in establishing a continuous shipbuilding industry in Australia.
Deputy secretary Kim Gillis, who oversees Defence's Capability, Acquisition and Sustainment Group, suggested some of the report was outdated because Defence had implemented a number of measures to mitigate risks of building warships and submarines in Australia. He said the report had been misinterpreted by some commentators.
"At no stage has Defence not been providing robust advice to government. You can see the significant changes that have occurred over the last two years as we have developed this program," Mr Gillis said.
Outgoing Chief of Defence Force Mark Binskin told estimates the navy would soon be deployed to the south-west Pacific in a goodwill mission with neighbouring countries amid concerns over China is using aid and infrastructure projects to gain regional influence.
Air Chief Marshal Binskin said four ships and 1000 personnel would take part in this year's iteration of its annual Indo-Pacific Endeavour exercise.
"The 13 week deployment will focus on the south-west Pacific, with an emphasis on planning for disaster assistance, multinational naval manoeuvres and training activities with partner nations," he said.

Helping the Philippines

Air Chief Marshal Binskin also said Australia had 180 army, navy and air force personnel deployed to the Philippines to help with counter-terrorism training and maritimes patrols, a much deeper level of commitment than previously revealed.
An initial 80 personnel were deployed midway through last year to help Filipino forces fight a local offshoot of Islamic State in the southern Philippines, but since the defeat of the insurgency in October, Australian personnel had participated in almost 3000 "peer-to-peer" activities such as training and patrols, including deploying two patrol vessels to the Philippines.
Defence Department Secretary Greg Moriarty said Australia's contribution to the Philippines cost $39.1 million in 2017-18.
Vice Chief of the Defence Force Ray Griggs confirmed a RAAF aircraft was continuing surveillance flights as part of enforcing sanctions against North Korea amid confusion over whether the summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un would go ahead.

END