David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, I was looking forward to your hyperbole this afternoon, and you have not disappointed. But I might now bring you on to something that might find you wandering into the realm of fact and reality.

Let us begin with shipbuilding. I am sure you will recall with stark clarity a number of commitments that were made by the coalition in opposition. In particular, I refer you to two. The first was that most succinctly articulated by David Johnston in a press conference of 8 May 2013, where he said:

We will deliver those submarines from right here at ASC in South Australia. The coalition today is committed to building 12 new submarines here in Adelaide.

I think it is fair to say that the coalition went to the last election with a policy that was very clear—that you were going to build 12 submarines in Adelaide at ASC.

Mr Robert interjecting—

And of course—I will ignore the interjections, but insofar as he means, they do help—at that point in time, the opposition clearly was in lock-step with government about the option being either an Australian design or a son-of-Collins design built in Adelaide.

As you are well aware, the submarine capability is one of enormous importance to this country, and is an integral part of the maritime strategy that certainly underpins white paper 2009 and white paper 2013. And, I would hazard a guess, your white paper, which I think is due in April of next year. So I would like to hear from you on the question of 12 new submarines, because the clarity with which you went to the last election has of course disappeared into a miasma of fog since you won office.

Since you have been in office, that clarity has been lost, and instead we have found the Minster for Defence making a number of contradictory remarks. Recently he attended an ASPI conference on the nation's submarine capability, and at that conference—where it was much-heralded that he was going to make some significant announcements in this space—he then proceeded to say very little. But he did, of course, canvas the notion that Australia would pursue a MOTS design. He spoke about Spain, France and Germany in that speech. He talked about a MOTS design and those also being options that were put before government. So what is the status of government searching for a MOTS design, in particular from those three nations?

Then, in more recent days, and in the aftermath of the two-plus-two dialogue with Japan we have seen the Minister for Defence starting to talk about working with the Japanese in a collaborative way to build an enhanced submarine capability. As the minister would be aware—but, no doubt, it is something he does not want talk about—these were productive conversations that we had with the Japanese while the government. We welcome the fact that those discussions are continuing.

But in reporting on those discussions, the minister has alluded to the fact that there would be technology transfer. He has spoken of propulsion systems and other systems, and there has also been canvassed the idea that we would buy a MOTS design from Japan. There are a lot of obvious challenges with that, but can the minister please advise the parliament what the government's intention is with respect to the Soryu class submarines from Japan? Can he rule out the fact that we would not purchase a MOTS design from Japan?

On the bigger question of shipbuilding: there was a commitment from the then opposition and now government that it would deliver a plan to bridge the 'valley of death'. In fact, the Minister for Defence announced that by April of this year he would have a plan to bridge the 'valley of death'. He has at various moments canvassed the idea of building a fourth air warfare destroyer but in office has ruled that out. He has at various moments canvassed the idea of replacement Armidales but, again, we have no concrete decision. And then in more recent days he described as 'an exciting announcement' the announcement that the two replacement oilers would be wholly built overseas in either Korea or Spain, and that local shipyards were to be excluded from the opportunity to bid for that work. He has denigrated the shipbuilding industry; he has said that the shipbuilding industry in this country is not capable of building those vessels—that it does not have the capacity to build those vessels. Can he please advise us how it is that that commitment has come to nothing—to ash? How is it that he is going to bridge the 'valley of death'?

See this speech in context