Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Defence. I refer the minister to the CEO of submarine builder TKMS Australia, who told the ABC that TKMS could deliver 12 submarines that met Australian requirements for $20 billion, with the price including 'all the programmatic aspects to deliver the submarine in Australia'. Given that the minister has now been caught out by claiming that there is a capability timing gap if our new submarines are built in Australia, does he stand by government claims that Australian built submarines will cost between $50 billion and $80 billion?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, a lot of corporate entities, companies and, indeed, some countries will promise the sun and the moon in order to get a very big and lucrative contract like this.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know how to fix that!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The top end requirements for our submarine capability are well known across the board, but can I say that we have not made a decision with respect to submarines.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister has.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be a first- and second-pass process.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No more promises!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cameron!

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the head of the DMO has said, we have engaged many countries with respect to this highly-complex and difficult program. Indeed, Germany was one of them.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

I pause to say that one of the top end requirements is for a tonnage in a submarine of 3,400 tonnes. This is beyond what Collins now is. The Germans, of course, have never built a submarine of those dimensions. That is a very important consideration, and we will engage with TKMS as to what proposals they have and will put on the table. A vital part of that will be where the build is to take place and what cost there is in acquiring our submarine capability. In the last 12 months we have been working assiduously to perfect and to finalise our top end requirements so that we can engage these companies and get the best capability for our Navy. That, at the end of the day, is what this is all about.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to retired Rear Admiral Peter Briggs who has criticised the government's plans to buy the Japanese Soryu submarine, saying:

Proposing that you go and buy an off the shelf submarine with a 6,000 mile range, it’s worse than a waste of money, it’s an illusion.

Given that the minister has been caught out misleading the public on a capability timing gap and the cost, do you stand by the government claims that Japanese submarines meet Australia's Defence requirements? (Time expired)

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia's Defence requirements require the best possible capability that we can provide. We have been bequeathed a boat, the Collins class submarine, that was sold to the Australian public on the basis that it was reliable and low in cost to maintain. It has been little short of a disaster. Indeed, retired Rear Admiral Briggs has been an advocate for a son of Collins. Son of Collins was one of your last remaining options. That was laden with fantasy because no work has been done. At $1 billion a year with one or two boats infrequently in the water, I do not want a son of Collins; I want something that gives Navy some capability, which they have been desperately seeking for such a long time. (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the Senate has now heard expert testimony that Australia's future submarines should not be bought off the shelf and can be built in Australia with the capabilities that the Navy needs at a competitive price to taxpayers and in a time frame that would avoid a capability gap, why won't the government and you, Senator Johnston, keep your promise and build our new submarines here in Australia?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the reasons is because I have seen what the Labor Party delivers in its policy propositions to the Australian public. You are advocating that we do not learn the lessons of Collins. You are advocating that we go straight down the old Collins path where we take billions of dollars of money and heap it into a program that will be over budget and will be over time schedule but, more importantly, will not provide the capability that we need going forward. We will do this properly. I am very upset when the air warfare destroyer program is $100 million or $200 million or $300 million over book. Labor have no qualms about having an NBN that is $30 billion over book. Thirty billion dollars is what you bring to the table in losses. I am not going to deliver anything like that. We are looking for the best capability that Navy can have. Clearly, those on the other side of this chamber do not like the truth because they never tell the truth. They do not like the truth on this subject. (Time expired)