House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Question Time Defence Shipbuilding Defence Shipbuilding The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS House of Assembly Black Leader of the Opposition Defence Shipbuilding The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): My question is again to the Premier. Has the Premier received assurances from the Prime Minister that the Hunter frigate program will not be cut? The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS House of Assembly Croydon Premier Defence Shipbuilding The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:08): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for this important question. I have made it very clear to the federal government, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister, who is of course the Minister for Defence, that the South Australian government expects, hopes and advocates for the retention of the Hunter frigate program. We do not think now is the time for any chopping and changing with respect to the big policy position with regard to the surface ship program that the Navy has. The Hunter frigate program is already well advanced. I have had the benefit of being able to see that firsthand on multiple occasions now, as has the Deputy Premier. We have made a written submission to the surface ship review that has been undertaken on the back of the DSR. We understand that that review is arriving at a conclusion at some point in the not too distant future. As recently I think as the beginning of last week—or maybe the end of the week prior, but certainly in the last couple of weeks—I have spoken to the Deputy Prime Minister and made clear again our position on this on the back of our submission. The key message that I seek to impose upon the commonwealth is that any chopping and changing to the Hunter program now would act contrary to our interests in building up the workforce that is going to be required for the surface ship program as well as the submarine program. Any chopping and changing would send a very bad signal to young people throughout the state. Rather, what we want to see is consistency and continuity to the program so that young people can actively choose to participate in the workforce of building these vessels, knowing that this is work that's going to be here for generations. If there is a chop and change to the Hunter program, it would directly undermine that. That is one of the central positions that we put in our submission to the commonwealth. The Hunter program is on a growth trajectory. BAE have advised me that they are in the market of employing anything up to an additional 2,000 people over and above what they employ now between now and the end of 2026 and early 2027. That is a massive undertaking. Finding 2,000 people in a very tight labour market with record job numbers, which we have here in the state, and record low youth unemployment in this state, will not be easy. It is critical that any decisions that the commonwealth makes are cognisant of that. The other thing, of course, is that to delay the Hunter program would deny the Navy a capability that they will need in the not too distant future. The question would be what would even replace the Hunter program. The Defence Strategic Review itself makes plainly clear in written form that there must be a continuous shipbuilding program based in South Australia including with surface ships. A change to the Hunter program would be contrary to what the DSR says itself without actually being able to articulate what would replace it. We are of the firm view that Hunter should stay and, yes, my quick answer to the Leader of the Opposition is that we have made that known to the highest levels of the federal government.