House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published 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) (14:04): My question is again to the Premier. If the Hunter class shipbuilding project is reduced from nine ships to six and the federal government seeks out different surface ships for the fleet, can the Premier guarantee— The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly West Torrens Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Minister for Energy and Mining The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Leader, there is a point of order from the Leader of Government Business. The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly West Torrens Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Minister for Energy and Mining The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This question is clearly hypothetical: it started with 'if'. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Very well. We didn't get too far into the question, so I am not certain that it necessarily is, but I am going to give the leader the opportunity to recast. The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS House of Assembly Black Leader of the Opposition The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Can the Premier guarantee that the surface fleet ships will be built at Osborne? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain. Leave granted. The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS House of Assembly Black Leader of the Opposition The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Australian industry and defence network chief, Brent Clark, has said that, given the government was prioritising speed to capability, defence would have no choice but to procure from overseas to the detriment of South Australian companies. The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS House of Assembly Croydon Premier The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:05): We think that the federal government does have a choice: they have the choice to build here in South Australia just as they have committed to do. The Defence Strategic Review has made clear that there is a need for a sovereign shipbuilding capability within Australia's borders and that that should be located at Osborne. The DSR doesn't just point to the benefits to the commonwealth and the Navy of that sovereign shipbuilding capability: it goes beyond that and explicitly identifies Osborne as being the location and the home of that work. More than that, the DSR recommends that there should be that continuity into the long term. We have seen in other parts of the world, just as we have seen here in Australia, the price that is paid when you don't see that continuous pipeline of work. Valleys of death emerge, and then when the rebuild has to start from there the cost to the taxpayer ends up being far greater than it would otherwise need to be. It is one of the clear things that we learned from our experience in Barrow earlier in the year—as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition heard in his recent trip—that when the peace dividend was in place in the United Kingdom that brought with it extraordinary consequences when they wanted to recommence shipbuilding in that part of the world, just as the experience has been here. The DSR acknowledges that. It explicitly recommends that there needs to be a continuous build, and that is what we anticipate occurs into the future in Australia. In terms of the Hunter program, which is currently slated for nine ships, in the event that it would go from nine to six then it would provide an opportunity for the commonwealth to then start preparing the work for what would follow it given its commitment to continuous shipbuilding here at Osborne. Our concern as a state is that, whatever the commonwealth decides, it is continuous, that it does maintain the workforce that is required and all the skills that are encompassed by it. The cost is exactly what informed the government's formal submission to the surface ship review. If the government were to abandon Hunter from the earlier stages, then the problem with that would be straight back to the drawing board and we go immediately back into a valley of death. That is unacceptable from the state government's perspective. We don't believe from everything we have been told, and we don't have any reason to believe, that that is on the cards, but a recalibration from nine to six wouldn't represent the same threat by virtue of the fact that there would be an opportunity for the commonwealth and all of its respective partners to then engage in what would follow beyond the six. There would be a lead time to make sure that the continuity of the work is there, which is what matters to the workforce first and foremost. But let's wait and see what the outcome of the surface ship review is, and we will continue to maintain our calls publicly. I say this particularly not just through people following Hansard but to the members of the media who are present with us today: this government calls on the commonwealth to make its decision on the back of the surface ship review. Let's make the decision, put it out there publicly, so there is assuredness and confidence for all concerned that this program is getting on with haste.