The federal Opposition has called for a bipartisan solution to the impasse surrounding the acquisition of Australia's next fleet of submarines.
Opposition leader Bill Shorten has put forward an alternative proposal to the so-called "competitive evaluation process" being used by the Government.
Mr Shorten says his plan ensures the nation's next fleet of submarines could be built and maintained in Australia, while making the most of the best technologies available from around the globe.
Australia would invite the most prominent non-nuclear submarine designers from Germany, France, Japan and Sweden to be involved in the process, with each receiving seven million dollars in funding from the government to participate.
Mr Shorten says after the request for proposals, the government should select two submarine builders to provide final submarine designs and fixed priced contracts.
He says the two parties selected to provide this information would then receive an additional eight million dollars to provide more detailed tender bids.
The Opposition Leader says it is essential to get the procurement process right as any mistakes early in the planning process would compound and magnify over the life of the project.
"Please, this is a two-generation decision. This is a decision of tens of billions of dollars. It is a decision, most importantly, of national security. Why not work with the opposition? Our process doesn't tell them who to buy or what to do. It just says let's do it in a way that all Australians and experts are comfortable and confident with the outcome."
The federal government's tender process would see Japan, France and Germany - but not Sweden - compete to build Australia's next submarines.
The Government has refused to commit to having the submarines built in Australia, despite promising during the election campaign that the new submarines would be built locally.
It has previously ridiculed Labor's call to open the process, suggesting it could result in Russia or North Korea winning the sensitive military contract.
Defence Minister Kevin Andrews has now rejected Labor's bipartisan plan, saying the Government's plan is the right way to go.
"Submarines are the most complicated, sensitive and expensive Defence capability acquisition a government can make. An effective submarine capability plays a critical role in Australia's defence in conjunction with all the other elements of the Australian defence force. As a government and nation, we have one chance to get this decision right. Because of the previous government's refusal for six years to make a decision on the replacement of the Collins Class submarines, we have a looming security and capability gap arriving in about 10 years."
Opposition Defence spokesman Stephen Conroy says Labor wants the submarines built in Australia because it's good for the nation's strategic capability.
He says it's wrong to say Labor failed to act on upgrading the nation's submarine fleet when it was in office.
He says the government is just using that as an excuse.
"This claim by the Government that Labor did nothing is simply false. It has become popular to repeat it. We set aside over $200 million and we whittled it down from four options to two options. We had narrowed down and selected the weapons system and we had selected the torpedoes and set aside land for a testing facility. This argument we had done nothing is false. It is a cover because this Government wanted to give the submarines to Japan because the PM has done a handshake: the National Security Committee agreed to give this contract to the Japanese."
South Australian Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says he thinks Mr Shorten's plan is an excellent one.
"That is clearly very welcome. That is music to my ears. The Government's current process is fuzzy at best and it may just be providing wriggle room for the Government to weasel out of their commitment to build the subs in Australia. Make no mistake about it if the subs aren't built in Australia it will be a multibillion-dollar hit to our economy. It will be a blow to our strategic capability and it will represent a fundamentally broken election promise of the Coalition."
