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

I guess you have shattered any illusions I may have had, Minister, that a question might get a satisfactory answer. Nonetheless, I will persist.

As you would be aware, Land 400 is a vitally important project. Chief of Army, recently described in a speech how we conceptualise the Air Force with planes and the Navy with warships, and so we must conceptualise the Army with armoured vehicles.

As you would be aware, LAND 400 was one of the flagship projects in the previous DCP—a $10-plus billion program aimed to achieve some 1,100 vehicles. As you would also be aware, the Bradley is now close to if not at obsolescence and the ASLAV has its own deficiencies in terms of contemporary IED threats. So there is a significant requirement for Army. In addition, of course, new generation armoured vehicles are an important part of the digitisation of our brigades more generally.

In terms of LAND 400, there has been significant interest from various quarters in Australia about how Australian defence industries might play a role in LAND 400. As you would well and truly comprehend, having in recent months thrown the Australian car industry overboard and abandoned it merrily to its fate, there are now significant automotive workforces in the northern suburbs of Adelaide and in Geelong that spring to mind who are looking to see whether LAND 400 might provide them with opportunities going forward. You, of course, must be aware of the fact that the city of Geelong has run quite robust campaign promoting its virtues as a destination for investment in LAND 400. Curiously enough, the Ford plant in Geelong was originally built to construct tanks in World War II, so you might say it has a history. It is a city that has capabilities in terms of space, factory facilities and workforce and is no doubt Adelaide makes the same claim.

So, in that context, could you please advise us as to the current time line for LAND 400? Can you tell us when we can expect to see first pass approval? Has the scope and capability requirements for LAND 400 been varied since this matter was previously reported? Can you tell us how the vehicles you are now proposing to acquire under LAND 400? Does it continue to be 1100 vehicles or has that number been decreased? Can you also tell us whether you are envisaging that LAND 400 will acquire a vehicle able to carry, say, 11 persons, or are you imagining a vehicle that is of less capability than that? Perhaps you can also tell us how our traditional partners, and in particular the United States and the United Kingdom, might be in a position to collaborate with us in searching for a fifth generation armoured vehicle.

These are obviously critically important questions. It is obviously a question close to the heart of Army and in the aftermath of the government's recent announcement regarding the acquisition of the F35s—and how could we forget that delightful moment when the Prime Minister climbed around a giant model F35 while across the road Mr Hockey was giving a speech about the end of the age of entitlement, a remarkable set of optics which I am sure, Minister, you are far too sensible to have advise them to engage in. So, LAND 400: what can you tell us about the scope, what can you tell us about the numbers of vehicles, what can you tell us about when it goes to first pass approval?

See this speech in context