House debates
Thursday, 31 May 2012
Bills
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013; Consideration in Detail
10:48 am
Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source
Very slow but got you there safely. The C27J complements the capabilities of the C130 and the C17 aircraft and has been widely welcomed by the Air Force. You mentioned the two additional C17s that we are purchasing. A competitive down-selection process to the C27J was made following exhaustive assessment by the Department of Defence and DMO, the Air Force, of information provided by manufacturers of the C27J and the C295 aircraft. An equal and same opportunity was given to Airbus Military and Alenia. The decision to acquire the C27J was made by the National Security Committee of cabinet and on the recommendation of the Department of Defence, the DMO and the Air Force, together with formal advice from central line agencies including Treasury and Finance. The response from Senator Johnston then was that there were merits in both C27 and C295 but at $1.4 billion the C27 would cost the taxpayer more than twice as much as the C295. That is untrue. The cost of the C27J and the C295 aircraft are roughly comparable.
What Senator Johnston fails to understand and acknowledge is that the $1.4 billion includes not only the acquisition cost of the aircraft but also the modifications to the aircraft for equipment needed for specific ADF roles, including initial logistics support, testing and certification. These costs would apply to any aircraft platform chosen, including the C295. Senator Johnston said, 'In the eyes of just about every other air force around the world the C295 is not only considered to be the best value for money but also the most effective battlefield airlifter.' Unfortunately, those are not views shared by the Chief of Air Force or the RAAF, who we take our advice from, not the shadow minister. It shows once again that there is a clear disarray in the opposition on defence policy.
In relation to your questions on the ARH and the MRH, there have been some issues around the flying hours for those aircraft. We have had difficulties with the development process but the ARH is now flying and will be supporting full training tasks almost as we speak. The MRH is still undergoing some issues and it will be a while before it will be—
No comments