Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the motion put forward by the member for Paterson. Unfortunately, he is unable to be with us this afternoon so I am here to present his thoughts. This matter is about the development of a new light protected mobility vehicle for the Australian Army. Under phase 4 of LAND 121, Project Overlander, defence will acquire light protected mobility vehicles which will perform roles including command and control, communications, reconnaissance and electronic warfare. This is a major capability acquisition, and one that offers Australian industry a unique opportunity to build on its existing experience in building light armoured vehicles. Yet, remarkably, the Rudd Labor government has decided against supporting Australian industry.

In October 2008, when the former Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, announced that Australia would join the United States Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Program, there was no mention of support to Australian industry. Again, in February 2009 when the Rudd Labor government awarded $40 million to American companies for the development of nine joint light tactical vehicle prototypes, it failed to consider an Australian defence industry manufacturer as a possible supplier. The Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, the Hon. Greg Combet, has said on many occasions that his government will ensure that Australian industry is given the opportunity to compete for work. However, this is just more droning rhetoric from a government without substance. This government has shown that it is willing to provide $40 million of Australian taxpayers’ money to US companies without, at the very least, offering equal financial support to comparable Australian industry—most notably Thales in Bendigo, Victoria.

The Rudd Labor government will try and argue that Australian industry has had an opportunity to compete for the work, but it is simply not true. Australian industry were only given the opportunity to tender for the work as part of the request for proposal process some eight months after it was announced that defence will join the US Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program, and four months after providing US companies with $40 million worth of funding. This has left Australian industry behind the eight ball.

I strongly support the concept of providing equality of opportunity to the Australian defence industry. It is in our nation’s interest and that is what I am arguing for today. I am not advocating preferential treatment and I am not advocating that defence procure equipment from Australian industry at any cost. I am simply arguing for equality of opportunity for the Australian defence industry. When the Rudd Labor government awards $40 million to US companies without financially supporting Australian industry, this is not equal treatment.

We do have a strong track record of developing and delivering light armoured vehicles. The success of the Thales Bushmaster project in Bendigo is evidence of this. Thales will deliver a total of 737 Bushmasters to the ADF and export 72 Bushmaster vehicles to the Netherlands. More importantly, no soldier has lost their life while riding inside a Bushmaster, despite numerous encounters with improvised explosive devices. As recently as last week I heard comments from the Chief of the Defence Force in relation to how good our Australian Bushmaster vehicles are and how well they protect our soldiers in the line of duty. Ian McPhedran, a defence journalist currently in Afghanistan, recently quoted troops saying that the Bushmaster was the vehicle of choice for protection against IEDs and that the protection they provide is second to none. It stands to reason that a company that has been able to deliver such a highly regarded vehicle receive the same financial support that American companies receive for their work on developing a protected light mobility vehicle.

The contract for the protected light mobility vehicles will be for approximately 1,300 vehicles and is worth in excess of $1.5 billion dollars, according to the latest Defence Capability Plan. How much exactly is unknown due to the vagueness of the document but, importantly, the contract would support over 250 direct jobs and hundreds more indirect jobs in Australia. The economic and social contribution to the Bendigo community would be particularly welcome. It is only because of the continuing opposition from local industry, particularly Thales, and lobbying from the federal opposition that Australian industry has even been invited to participate. Again, all the rhetoric accounts for nothing, and the local Bendigo community should, in fact, be looking at their local member for his lack of support and lack of foresight. Therefore, I call on the Rudd Labor government to immediately provide funding to Australian industry to enable it to progress Australian designed and built prototypes for consideration in the protected light mobility vehicle program.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When they invented the term ‘hypocrisy’ it was the Liberal Party they had in mind. This motion is a prime example of Liberal hypocrisy, incompetence and sheer laziness. Let us examine the facts. The Department of Defence announced the Land 121 phase 4 vehicle replacement program, the biggest vehicle replacement program in the history of the ADF. Part of this program will replace some of the ADF’s existing Land Rover fleet with light armoured protected mobility vehicles. On 26 February 2008 then Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement issued a media release outlining initiatives designed to assist the Australian defence industry, stating:

The announcement of these programs fulfils Labor’s election commitment to emphasise preference for Australian content and require tenderers to develop detailed strategies for involving Australian industry to the greatest possible extent

The member for Paterson was silent.

On 29 October 2008 the then defence minister, the member for Hunter, issued a statement saying the government had joined the US Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program, which was developing similar prototypes. The same media release said Australian defence manufacturers would also be given the opportunity to participate in the Land 121 vehicle replacement program, including the protected light mobility vehicles. The member for Paterson remained silent. I issued a media statement on 18 December 2008, published on the front page of the Bendigo Advertiser on 19 December, welcoming the announcement and pointing out the opportunity this presented for Thales in Bendigo. The member for Paterson, totally oblivious to this course of events, remained silent.

Australia joined the US JLTV program because there are no Australian manufacturers currently producing this type of vehicle. In fact there are no US manufacturers currently producing this type of vehicle. Thales Australia produces the highly successful and world-beating Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle with a gross weight of around 15 tonnes, and the US is currently producing the 30-tonne MRAP protected vehicles. The PMV-light specifications call for a gross vehicle weight of just seven tonnes.

The Australian government, in line with our election commitments and the statements I mentioned earlier by the previous minister and parliamentary secretary, directed Defence to engage with local industry in late February 2009 on the PMV-L program as per our election commitment. The new Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science released a request for proposal specifications that will facilitate Australian manufacturers’ involvement on Friday, June 12.

The Australian government is determined to provide the best protection available for our fighting men and women. That is why it signed up for the US JLTV program and that is why we are engaging local manufacturers to test their capability in producing Australian prototypes to test against the US vehicles. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and extremely dangerous. This is precisely the same procedure followed by the Howard government when Thales won the original contract to provide Bushmasters to the Australian Defence Force.

The member for Paterson fails to acknowledge that the former Howard government tried to torpedo the Bushmaster contract on several occasions and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into finally providing, through the Bushmaster program, the best protection for our fighting forces available in the world. Thales has a next generation protected mobility vehicle on the drawing board, based on the outstanding success of the Bushmaster platform. Now, in line with Labor’s election commitment and the statements mentioned earlier, Thales will have the opportunity, along with other Australian manufacturers, to bid for funding to develop Australian prototypes. I have been in regular contact with Thales representatives and I am more than confident that Thales’s next generation vehicle will compete successfully with any vehicle produced anywhere in the world.

The member for Paterson is a Johnny-come-lately to this vehicle replacement program debate. He had no idea of the potential for local manufacturers in the PMV-L project until a story appeared on the front page of the Bendigo Advertiser quoting a prominent Bendigo business leader expressing concern over the government’s involvement with the US JLTV program. We know the member for Paterson is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but his level of laziness and, indeed, incompetence are not only mind-boggling but very, very dangerous, especially if he should ever have carriage of a defence portfolio in government. His ridiculous attempts to be seen to be driving this issue and claiming the credit for the government’s decisions are now exposed and would be simply laughable if the protection of our fighting men and women was not so serious and this government’s top priority. As I said earlier, when they invented the term ‘hypocrisy’ it was the Liberal Party they had in mind. When they invented the terms ‘lazy’ and ‘incompetent’ it was the member for Paterson that they had in mind.