Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important bill, the Defence Legislation Amendment (First Principles) Bill 2015. I know that the constituents in my electorate of Tangney are particularly concerned with matters pertaining to our national defence and security. The importance of strategic planning, and readiness has really been brought home to many in this country with the horrific images we have seen with the Paris terrorist attacks recently. It is a cliche but still holds truth that if one fails to plan then one should also plan to fail. It is reassuring to know that this coalition government puts national security and defence at the very highest priority. That is why under the leadership of previous Prime Minister Abbott the government commissioned the First Principles Review in 2014. The focus of the review was on ensuring that Defence is fit for purpose and is able to respond to future challenges and deliver against its outputs with the minimum resources necessary.

What we observe today is a world that is changing: the face of terror—the challenge—is changing. The threat is real, growing and ever-present, and this bill demonstrates an agile response to those challenges, very much like the way Prime Minister Turnbull responds to and addresses the changing and challenging economic environment we encounter. Agility is the operative paradigm for our age. This is an outlook and attitude that each of us must become attuned to going forward. Being agile is an approach and a way of thinking that in effect permits systemic review of all decisions, past and present. Here it is important to note that changing course is not always a sign of weakness. Specifically, I would like to give an example of one program, the Joint Strike Fighter program. The Joint Strike Fighter program was a result of a Howard-era decision, and it has been carried on by successive governments—a decision made in different times for a world with different needs. We should critically review why we are still staying the course. There is no nobility or value in blind faith or loyalty—just ignorance. The new government of Justin Trudeau in Canada has reviewed and cancelled that country's participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program. Should our nation go down that road of nonparticipation, we would not be the first or only country to exit the program. There are a plethora of reasons we should do so today, and many of those reasons can be found in the past.

In 2002 we decided, without any capability requirement or analysis that would compare various tenders, to switch off all other options and get 100 Joint Strike Fighters to achieve initial operational capability in 2012-13. I do not see any Joint Strike Fighters in service in Australia today. No: the initial operational capability is now set for 2020, the cost is up, and we are no longer talking about 100 JSFs; we are now talking about 72. This begs the question: if 72 Joint Strike Fighters can do the job, why go to 100 in the first place? That is a waste of money. We should be purchasing only what we actually require. The simple fact is that the initial operational capability, in being eight years late, means that we are getting an aircraft that is even closer to obsolescence before we even get it in service. The aircraft is more expensive than we bargained for. We are getting less than three quarters of what we were initially going to get. And remember, this capability is arriving eight years late, which means it is going to extend out longer, so we are going to have obsolescent aircraft for longer and have fewer of them. And the aerodynamic performance is not within a bull's roar of even the threshold requirement, never mind the objective requirements it had. In fact, its performance is similar to that of the 50-year-old F-4 Phantom, which was known to not be particularly aerodynamically capable in its day.

Yet we persist. Shouldn't we be asking questions, looking at options, rather than buying at the behest of the US and Lockmart? At what point do we question? To give a ridiculous scenario, let's say it gets to the point where we can afford only one Joint Strike Fighter, and it will reach initial operational capability in 2030. Should we be asking the question then? At what stage are we going to go about looking at getting the capability that we require? At what stage are we going to go back to first principles and say, 'This is the capability we require; let's compare contenders and get what is best for Australia'?

Take cost, where Lockheed Martin and Defence were assuring us that each Joint Strike Fighter would cost considerably less than $100 million. In fact, the price is well above $150 million, pretty much lineball with what independent experts at Air Power Australia said. And take schedule: Air Power Australia said it would be years late. Defence and Lockheed Martin assured parliament—and I remember being here in 2006 during these assurances—that initial operational capability would be achieved in 2013. I do not see any combat-capable Joint Strike Fighters anywhere on the planet, never mind in squadron service in Australia. Regarding aero-propulsive performance, Air Power Australia was absolutely on the money, and Lockheed Martin and Defence were assuring parliament that it would at least meet its turn and acceleration performance. Incorrect decisions have been made on numerous occasions, such as when three US services purchased the F-4 Phantom without a gun because dogfights were deemed to be obsolete and it was all going to be missiles. It sounds very similar to the arguments supporting the Joint Strike Fighter. Vietnam proved the fallacy of that argument then. In fact, the end of dogfighting has been suggested for more than half the history of air combat.

The reality, when fighting peer threats, has always come back to bite. The other fact is that most JSF purchasers have other aircraft they will use for their air superiority role, but not us. Potential-threat nations are objectively testing—

See this speech in context