HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-12-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Defence Shipbuilding

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (11:59): I move:

That this house—

(a) condemns the remarks of the commonwealth defence minister that he would not trust the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) to 'build a canoe';

(b) reaffirms its support for ASC workers and all other South Australians employed in the defence industry;

(c) demands that the Abbott Liberal government upholds its election commitment to build the 12 future submarines in Adelaide; and

(d) notes that Australians should have the right to trust the word of its leaders when it comes to decisions that affect the national security of this country.

I have just had the great pleasure of attending a fine South Australian business—Axiom Precision Manufacturing. It is a business which had much of its work confined to the automotive sector but decided seven years ago to branch out and diversify its operations. One of the areas it chose to diversify into was the defence sector.

The defence sector presented opportunities for this business, and so it sought to branch its activities out into this growing sector of the South Australian economy, with the strong leadership role that was taken by the South Australian government in pursuing an ambition for South Australia to be the defence state. We have been successful in that regard with in excess of 25 per cent of our in-country spend in Australia spent here in South Australia.

This company now has won sensitive contracts to defend our nation, so much so that its technologies in relation to the construction of equipment are protecting our soldiers in Afghanistan. Crucially, they are making components for our Collins class submarine—not just any components but components which are essential for protecting life and also for protecting the hull from incursion in the operating environment that these vessels undertake at the bottom of our ocean.

This could not be more sensitive and advanced manufacturing. The skills and capabilities of these workers could not be higher. It is a testament to the ingenuity and the enterprise of organisations and workers who have been operating in these premises that they have been able to restructure their operations and take advantage of these opportunities as they have presented themselves in the defence sector.

So, when workers like these and other workers at ASC are diminished by remarks that are made by the defence minister to suggest that somehow their skills and capabilities are not up to scratch, are worthless, and that they do not have the relevant skills and capabilities that would be expected of somebody who can deliver a sophisticated, modern piece of manufactured kit like a submarine, you can imagine how demoralising it is for those workers in those businesses. Today, we heard from the principal at Axiom that he was disgusted with those remarks because he understands the quality of the workmanship that he and his workforce put in to this important set of capabilities for our nation.

Of course the remarks that were made by the commonwealth defence minister that he would not trust the Australian Submarine Corporation to 'build a canoe' are offensive. They are wrong, they should be condemned—and they have been roundly condemned—but one of the difficulties with simply saying, as the defence minister has, that he apologises or regrets causing any offence is that they betray a mindset which is not consistent with a defence minister bringing an impartial mind to the decision which has to be made.

This is not just any decision, but a decision about the defence of our nation, and not just any decision about the defence of our nation but the largest single procurement in the nation's history. We are expecting that somebody who has already declared their bias will bring an unbiased mind to this decision-making. It is simply inconsistent with the approach that we need to have taken in this matter.

It seems clear that much of the leaking that has been going on for much of this year has been about laying the groundwork, and I think all we saw was the hand coming out from behind the glove when those remarks were made public under pressure in the Senate. I think much of the leaking has either been authorised or permitted by the Minister for Defence in a way which has been calculated to lay the groundwork for a decision to back away from a promise. Not just any promise, but a promise that was made solemnly in the lead-up to an election where this government made future submarines an issue.

This was responsive to a question we posed. There was no surprise that the federal minister came to ASC. There was no surprise that he came to ASC, because we demanded clarity around these issues. So, in fact what happened in May of last year is the then shadow defence minister, Senator David Johnston, stood outside the Australian Submarine Corporation with the Leader of the Opposition standing next to him, and he committed that submarines would be delivered and they would be built right here in South Australia.

In fact, let me inform the house exactly what Senator Johnston said that day, because he has contradicted nearly every single word he uttered that day in May. He said these words:

I want to confirm on behalf of the Coalition that we are firstly committed to submarines for the Royal Australian Navy, they are a very important and vital and special capability as a deterrent. Secondly, I want to confirm that the 12 submarines as set out in the 2009 Defence White Paper and then again in last Friday’s Defence White Paper are what the Coalition accepts and will deliver.

We will deliver those submarines from right here at ASC in South Australia. Now why ASC? Right across Australia there is only one place that has all of the expertise that’s necessary to complete one of the most complex, difficult and costly capital works projects that Australian can undertake. It’s ASC here in Adelaide. We believe that all of the expertise that is necessary for that project is here.

Could there be any clearer expression of commitment in the lead-up to an election where this was a material issue in that election, and standing next to the Leader of the Opposition who is entitled to feel equally as angry and betrayed as the people of South Australia? How dare he stand next to one of his own colleagues, make this commitment and then seek to walk away from it after the federal election? If the Leader of the Opposition has any self-respect and his party has any self-respect, he will stand with us and forcefully advocate for the commonwealth government to maintain its commitment in relation to this matter.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. Members are entitled to be heard in silence and I will guarantee you that silence as well.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You will get your opportunity to do it again in this house, which we will all be very pleased to witness. Can I say that this motion is about reaffirming our support for ASC workers and other South Australians, and also about upholding this commitment.

Let's just go to some of the arguments that have been advanced about why we should not move down this particular path, and they are all capable of easy disposal. The price—that somehow we will get some cheaper Japanese solution: it is cheaper. Well, almost every expert has lined up to say otherwise. The timeline—that somehow there is an urgency and we need to go for a Japanese solution which is available now and there is not sufficient time for a proper tender process. Wrong. We now know from experts that there is sufficient time for a proper procurement process to occur with a tender, which will allow this particular procurement to be completed and built in time to ensure there is no capability gap.

Within that, there is another mistruth, which is the fact that there is an off-the-shelf option from Japan. There is not. We now know, and it has even been conceded by the defence minister, that substantial modifications would be necessary. There is no cheap, off-the-shelf option to buy from Japan, given that they produce small, short-range submarines for deep, cold-water environments and Australia needs a large, long-range submarine for operating in warm, shallow-water environments. The modifications needed would likely mean the cost would be more from Japan than the estimated $21 billion to build them.

We know that Japan's two naval dockyards are fully booked for years, so any contract to build submarines for Australian operational purchases is likely to require Japan to build a new shipyard and recruit a new workforce. Australia already has an operational shipyard with the workforce to deliver the submarines.

This $21 billion invested in building the submarines in Australia over a 30-year period not only would support the planning and development of a high technology defence industry and create 3,000 jobs but would fuel additional spillover benefits through the creation of innovative products and IP. We know that the benefits for our nation would be profound—and think of the taxes that would be paid here as opposed to being paid in Japan.

We are at a crossroads in terms of the transformation of the South Australian economy. We are told by the federal Liberal opposition that we are not allowed to build cars any more. We are told that we have to get out of old manufacturing. Now we seem to be being told that we are not allowed to build the most sophisticated manufacturing product—a submarine. What is it that we are allowed to build?

The truth is that when you go to a business like the one I went to this morning at Axiom you can see that they have the skills and capabilities to match it with anywhere in the world. What sort of self-respecting government would not back its own citizens to have the skills and capabilities to make things? We learnt this lesson back during the Falklands War, when we had the Oberon class submarine, which was rendered unoperational because we could not get the parts necessary to run it. This is about sovereign capability—sovereign capability for our nation to actually defend itself. There could not be a more profound obligation that a nation has to its citizens but to equip it with the capacity to defend itself.

Members of this house, I urge you to support this, not just in South Australia's interests but in the national interest. This could not be a more important issue facing our state. It will assist us in the great transformation of our economy that is well underway. We need a federal Liberal government to stand with this state government, and we call on all members of the house to offer their unanimous support.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:12): It is my pleasure to rise, and I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition on this motion, which has been brought to the house by the Premier. I thank the Premier for bringing it to the house. Some would say that it is a cynical exercise, some would say it is politically motivated, but not me. I am not so cynical. I think it is important that we actually debate this issue and that we place on the record our support for the defence sector in South Australia.

There is no doubt that South Australia faces very significant challenges at the moment. This is a point the Premier has made time and time again. South Australia faces some very significant challenges, and principal amongst those, of course, is our alarming unemployment rate in South Australia. Most recently, in fact just two weeks ago, data was published which shows that South Australia recorded the lowest growth in online job vacancies of all states over the past 12 months. We are at the bottom of the class. South Australia recorded only a 1.6 per cent increase in online job vacancies in the 12 months to October 2014, compared with 19.6 per cent in New South Wales, 11.3 per cent in Victoria and 11.2 per cent in Western Australia. Even the ACT recorded an increase of 18.4 per cent.

One of the statistics which has recently been published which I am most concerned about is the rising number of unemployed and job losses in our southern suburbs. We have had almost 10,000 jobs lost in our southern suburbs in just the past 12 months. This is a crisis; there is no doubt about this. Six years ago, the government said that they had a plan. They had a plan to create 100,000 new jobs in South Australia over a six-year period. We are five years through that six-year period, and when we look at the scorecard it is a very damaging scorecard for this government. Seasonally adjusted, we have not created one single new job; in fact, we actually have 900 fewer jobs in South Australia seasonally adjusted. That is a very damaging statistic for us in South Australia. That is why what we should be doing in this place, quite frankly, is working in a bipartisan way to secure every single solitary job for South Australia that we can muster.

Let me tell you that the defence sector is an extraordinarily important sector for South Australia. It has been important historically, it is important now, and it will be important for the future, and that is why we should be working in a bipartisan way.

The Hon. M.L.J. Hamilton-Smith: Well, support the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MARSHALL: It is a significant industry. When we look at the most recently published statistics, we see that 27,000 people are employed in the defence sector in South Australia, 3,000 of them directly in shipbuilding. These are very significant numbers. Those numbers have not been updated for some time, and when I am out there talking to the defence sector, which I have been for years, what I am hearing is that we are losing jobs in our defence sector in South Australia. Anecdotally, I am hearing that we are losing a huge number of jobs in the defence sector in South Australia. They are doing it extremely tough at the moment.

The government wants to talk about the problems going forward. Well, I am here to tell you that there are problems right now, and when we analyse why we have these problems right now, we have to turn our attention to the federal Labor government over their six years in government. They made enormous promises to the defence sector—enormous promises to the defence sector—in fact, they broke $25 billion worth of promises to the defence sector. Of course, a lot of that money was coming right to South Australia. They either cut programs or they delayed programs to the value of $25 billion. They cut defence spending in Australia to a level that we have not seen since before World War II—that we have not seen since before World War II.

Quite rightly, they mentioned the important future submarine program in their white paper and the DCP which flowed from that. I think that is something that we can all agree on, and that is the need for the future submarines program to flow on from the current air warfare destroyer program that we have currently at Techport. It is very important that we have this continuous flow of programs coming to our defence sector in South Australia.

Of course, we are very parochial in South Australia: we would like to see it all come to South Australia, and we have got the best facilities in Australia; there is no doubt about that. We want to see that work come to South Australia, but this is not just important for South Australia, this is important for the nation. We need to have this capability, and we are only going to sustain this capability if we have a continuous build of surface vessels and submarines in Australia, and we need to have a long-term plan.

That is where federal Labor failed, because, whilst they announced the future submarines program, they did precious little work on the future submarines program. Despite the fact that they pushed out the end of the third air warfare destroyer to try to cover up this valley of death that we are hurtling towards in South Australia, it did little to save us from this impending gap of work that we are now heading towards in South Australia. I have heard plenty of speculation about how we might solve this problem. There was some speculation for an extended period of time that we might have a fourth air warfare destroyer for Australia and that would be manufactured at Techport. A lot of people like that idea, but, of course, the Navy did not want that fourth air warfare destroyer.

Now I am hearing very pleasing speculation that we might bring the future frigates program forward so that that can start at the end of the build for the third air warfare destroyer, and, of course, we have the future submarines program. Quite frankly, I do not care what it is; I just want to see us have a sustainable, continuous, shipbuilding, submarine-building, submarine-sustaining capability here in South Australia. I know that the best way to do that is to work in a bipartisan way, and we do not have that at the moment. At the moment, we have the government in South Australia jumping at every opportunity to create political points simply to drive this fear campaign. No decision has been made. We want the decision to be made to bring as much work to South Australia as possible.

I attended the recent defence industry summit, and I will commend the Minister for Defence Industries in South Australia for organising this. I was invited to come along to that. I was not invited to speak but I must say that I was very pleased, when we moved to the open session, that the defence industries minister invited me to make some comments. Those comments were exactly the same as I am making here today.

People sitting at home do not really care too much about the argy-bargy that goes on in this place on a daily basis. What they are care about is jobs for the next generation. What they care about, and are concerned about, is rising unemployment in South Australia. What they care about is the fact that kids finishing school and university are giving up hope. They are moving out of our state. What they want us to do is come into this place and work in a bipartisan way. Let me tell you: it used to happen.

When the Techport project was going ahead—and there were some complexities with that project—the government and the opposition had a relationship which was at a level that enabled those issues to be dealt with without playing them out through the media on a daily basis. That is when we got an excellent facility for South Australia, and that was fundamental in our being able to win that air warfare destroyer project for South Australia. That was fundamental to our ability to turn around the sustainment work that we do here, to the point that the federal government has now acknowledged that the sustainment work done at the ASC is at the best level it has ever been.

I just make this point. We are at our best when we are working in a bipartisan way. I will state that we will be supporting this motion. I will state, as I did last week in the media, that the comments that were made by Senator Johnston were disgraceful. I think everybody agrees that they were completely and utterly unacceptable. I think Senator Johnston thinks they were completely unacceptable. The ASC workers are a fabulous, capable, technically astute group of employees, and they did not deserve the comments that were made; but we have to move forward right now and focus on the things that are important and that means the two sides of this house working together to bring as much work as possible to South Australia.

We on this side of the house would like to see everything come to South Australia but what we do believe is we have to stop this constant victim and blame mentality. We have to work as closely as we can with the decision-makers and we have to do everything we can and not blame somebody else for our demise but look to strengthen our opportunities. The government of the day should be looking at our unacceptably high taxation regime and our unacceptably high regulatory environment. These are the things that we need to do.

The government needs to take responsibility for their own poor performance over the last 12½ years and they should be doing every single thing they can to remove barriers to make sure we can win as much work as possible and, most importantly, make sure that, going forward, we work in a bipartisan way to bring as much work to the defence sector here in South Australia as possible.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (12:23): I thank the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition for their contributions, but I must say that I am disappointed by much of what I have heard from those opposite. I am pleased that they are going to support the motion because what the motion asks the parliament to do is demand that the Abbott Liberal government uphold its election commitment to build 12 submarines in Adelaide. I hope by supporting this motion that the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition are going to go out on the steps of Parliament House after this and unequivocally demand that the promise made by the Coalition, with the Leader of the Opposition beside him, to build those 12 submarines be kept. I hope we are not just going to get a debate in the parliament and no action from the opposition, because the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite could influence this outcome—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence. In the same way I afforded that right to you, I will afford it to him.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: It will not work, Madam Deputy Speaker. To come in here and say one thing—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It will work if we talk about submarines.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —and then to go away and fail to genuinely take action on the other hand—what must happen now is you should get in a plane, go over to Canberra, get in the room with the Prime Minister and say, 'Prime Minister, you've got it wrong'—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, do it publicly as well.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Do it publicly as well.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, sit down.

Mr Marshall: We've done it.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Have you?

Mr Marshall: Yes.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: You've been silent on the issue.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members of the standing orders; I will have to start warning people. Minister.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The Leader of the Opposition has talked about jobs, but what I have not heard is a plan to create jobs. What I have not heard is any meaningful solution as to how those jobs might be built. One way to build those jobs is to make sure that the 120,000 man years of work on offer through the submarine project is built here—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, you know what? Opposition leaders and Liberal leaders in Queensland and other states have almost made a story out of disagreeing with Canberra, yet we hear about bipartisanship, we hear about the need for everyone to agree. I will simply make this point: bipartisanship works when everybody wants the same outcome but has a different idea on how to get there. Bipartisanship works when the federal government is on our side.

I will just point out a few things to those opposite. In the early days of defence in this state, when we were building Techport, when we were winning the air warfare destroyer project, we had a Howard government that was on our side. The Howard government was a good government. The Howard government had four South Australian ministers who were on our side. They wanted us to win that project for South Australia, and there was bipartisanship. This government, this state Labor government, worked cooperatively with the Howard government to get the right result. Why? Because the federal government was on our side.

Then we had a Labor government, the Gillard/Rudd governments. The Leader of the Opposition rightly observes: things could have been done quicker. There is no doubt. Money was cut from defence—that is true—for a host of reasons during the GFC. It is true that things could have been done quicker, but that government was essentially on our side—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —it committed to building submarines and surface ships here. The Gillard, Rudd and Howard governments were on South Australia's side. I will tell you what has changed. What has changed is that South Australians are now asking themselves whether the Abbott government is on their side. If the Abbott government is not on our side, you can bang on about bipartisanship as much as you like, but you have to bring about a political outcome, and that political outcome must be that we build the submarines and surface ships here in South Australia, based in South Australia, as promised. You will not get it by standing up and banging on about how warm and fuzzy things should be.

The decision is not going our way. In case you have not sensed it—and I suspect you have because I think I know what the Prime Minister said to you—the decision is not going our way. It is certainly not going towards those 12 submarines being built here in Australia, based in South Australia. If it was, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence would have repeated the promise and so would the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for defence. But you have not repeated the promise and the reason you have not repeated the promise is that you know it is about to be broken.

Mr Marshall: Get a briefing.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: You get a briefing, because what we need is some political courage. What we need is a state Liberal Party—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —standing up for South Australia, not kowtowing to their federal colleagues in Canberra.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Morialta has a point of order.

Mr GARDNER: I was going to cite 128, but after that also 137 because the minister is refusing to accept your authority.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, none of you are listening to me, so I am going to have to call all of you on that side to order and ask the minister to continue his remarks, addressing the motion before the house.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This motion needs to be supported. It is going to be supported. So, support now not only the vote but the spirit of the motion and get out there and join our campaign. If you want some bipartisanship, I will tell you how to be bipartisan—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —stand out there with the Premier and unequivocally demand that the Prime Minister stick by his promise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a minute. The member for Morialta has a point of order.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: 128 again, and the minister is continuing to defy your ruling.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: They don't like it, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will address the motion.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: They don't like it, because they are being called to account. Minister Johnston's remarks were sad, unfortunate and an absolute affront to Australian workers, to Australian industry, and they are to be deplored. We have been over that, but it is the quality of the arguments that must be going on within federal cabinet within the defence and security committee of cabinet, that created the environment for those remarks to have ever been uttered. That must be the nature of the conversations that have been going on within the Coalition about the ASC being unable to build even a canoe.

If that is the attitude up there, then I can assure you all the bipartisanship in the world will not get us the result and the outcome we want. What will work is bipartisanship at the state level, sending a unanimous message from the states to Canberra about what we expect. The federal minister and the Abbott government generally have embarked on a campaign to negatively influence the Australian public's view of what has historically been a successful and buoyant ship-building industry.

We have built frigates on time and on budget. We have built submarines to an excellent standard. The problem is—and the Leader of the Opposition alluded to it himself—there has not been a continuity of deal flow. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, join with us in demanding that there be a continuity of deal flow because unless we get both the submarines and the surface ships, we will not have a viable ship-building industry. We need them both, otherwise our workers and our enterprises will fail.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Have you been to Canberra?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Stuart is warned a first time.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Your colleagues are planning to buy those submarines in Japan. You know it and we know it. We need to stop that, so join with us and make it so instead of being given orders from Canberra to remain silent. You can come in here, vote for the motion and go away and do nothing—

Mr Gardner: We did two days of media last week.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —or you can join our campaign.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Morialta! You are warned for the first time.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: When the Collins class submarines were built in South Australia between 1993 and 2003, 80 per cent of the materials and labour were sourced in Australia. The Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance is on track to meet the mandated 50 per cent Australian content target written into the project. There were approximately 1,750 Australian suppliers, products and services to the air warfare destroyer build project and 1,250 Australian suppliers to the Through Life Support program for the Collins class submarine. The South Australian government has reaffirmed its support for our workers at the ASC and all other South Australians employed in the defence industry. We strongly support local businesses.

The Premier has mentioned a few. There are others, namely Ferrocut, which provides plate steel-cutting services; OneSteel in Whyalla; Ottoway Engineering, which provides pipe fabrication; Williams Laser Cutting, which supplies air-conditioning ducts; Thermal Ceramics for passive fire and acoustic protection; MG Engineering for the mast block construction; Century, which has supplied fittings; SAGE Automation, which has partnered with Navantia to build 500 control panels forming part of the AWD's integrated platform management system; Ultra Electronics Avalon Systems, which has partnered with Jenkins Engineering Defence Systems in the ITT EDO reconnaissance project and will supply the multipurpose digital receiver and sonar systems; Acacia Research, which is providing assistance to Ultra with sonar integration.

You can come in here and talk about jobs. You can whinge, 'Oh, there need to be more jobs.' Well, how about supporting the jobs in these companies and these businesses by actively—

Mr Marshall: We are.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I have not heard much from you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: We need to hear, we need strong voices.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is unparliamentary to interject or respond to interjections.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: We need to hear more from those opposite. We have not heard enough. We need South Australian MPs who are on South Australia's side. The Premier has mentioned that there are a number of problems with what we have been told. For a start, we have three great friends in the region—we have many friends in the region, but three standouts—the United States, Japan and China. Commentators are now raising questions about why we would frustrate China by entering into an arrangement to build submarines in Japan, knowing full well that there are some difficulties between those two nations. And I remind members in the house that China is by far and away our major trading partner. It is not me saying this, it is commentators around the country who are saying so publicly.

It would be much more sensible to have a relationship with a European submarine builder which was building in Australia, but I must say it should not bother us whether we build a Japanese, Swedish, German, or French submarine—whatever. I do not really care about the model, as long as the work and opportunity is here; as long as it is done here. I do make the point that you have to be very careful about the strategic relationships you enter; and these are 30 to 40-year relationships.

If you said to people in 1914, 'We want you to develop a defence acquisition strategy that goes for the next 40 years,' it would have been 1954 by the time that arrangement came to an end. What happened between 1914 and 1954? Two world wars, the Great Depression, and the advent of nuclear power. And you are now trying to tell us what is going to happen in the next 40 years? You cannot tell. You have to be very careful about these relationships you enter into over the long term, and that is before we start to consider whether we are going to put our sailors to sea in submarines which, if they are built overseas, may result in them being dependent on that nation for their support.

We had problems with the Oberon-class submarine during the Falklands War; we had a problem with the Mirage fighter aircraft during the Vietnam War; we had a problem with the Carl Gustav anti-tank weapons where countries refused for one reason, or were unable to support us for various reasons, and those capabilities foundered. Be very careful before you make your defence force dependent on an overseas manufacturer.

We are being told by the federal government that South Australia is not good enough to do things. First of all, we were told we were not good enough to produce motor vehicles, and that industry was demolished. Then we were told we were not good enough to produce radio and television—the ABC has been cut. Then we are told we are not good enough to have science here—the CSIRO has been cut. Now we are being told we are not good enough to produce defence products here and we have a Liberal opposition who, it would appear, wants to have some sort of a moratorium on unconventional gas and wind energy—

Mr Marshall: Rubbish!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, it is in your policy to have a moratorium on wind energy.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: You now want to have arrangements put in place—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Just listen to the mining and energy industry and what they are saying. So, 'We are not supportive of unconventional gas; we are not supportive of wind; we are not supportive of science; we are not supportive of the ABC; and we are not supportive of the auto industry. What are we supportive of?' Where are these jobs going to come from? What is the plan?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I bring the minister back to the motion before the house.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I point out that I am picking up the points that the Leader of the Opposition raised in his address. He went on about jobs, and I am simply asking: what is his plan? Where are the jobs going to come from? Because if you are not supporting this, what are you supporting?

Mr Marshall: We are.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: If you are not out there advocating with us—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: No, you are not advocating with us—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —you are not fighting the fight.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: You are saying the words, but you are not taking the action.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is not sitting down to give you a turn. He is going to sit down while you all listen to my rulings on this.

There being a disturbance in the strangers' gallery:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you mind escorting that man out. We would like you all to continue the debate in silence.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I will talk about Team Australia because I think it is a good idea; I think it is something the Coalition had initiated which resonates. But do not expect Team Australia to get out there and win games on the paddock if the captain and coach are saying to them, 'You're not good enough.'

If you are saying to your industry, your businesses and your workers, 'You aren't good enough to do this; you can't build ships and submarines; you're not capable of making motor cars—we're not up to it. We need to go and buy these things from overseas because you just simply aren't good enough,' do not expect the team to go out and win the games. Do not expect Team Australia to be a team of champions if the captain and the coach are not backing them up saying, 'Yes, we can.'

I put this point to you: we have built submarines and surface ships, and we can do it again, but we need a customer who provides a regular deal flow, and on that we completely agree with the Leader of the Opposition. We need that regular deal flow to include both submarines and surface ships.

All the points the Premier made have been confirmed by experts around the country. There is time to go through a full tender process, look at all the options and get it right, and to have a submarine in the water before 2026 when the Collins begins to go out of life, before we even look at extending the life of Collins. There is time. There is the industry capability and the skilled workforce to make this happen. It is simply crucial that we make the right decisions about the submarine.

The whole furphy that, because of budget problems in Canberra, we need to rush off and buy submarines overseas because we will save money has been completely dispelled by experts everywhere. We will lose money by buying submarines overseas. There is no off-the-shelf product ready. It is high risk and, not only that, the sums produced so far have failed to include the payback through income tax, through GST, through revenues, through wages, through company tax and all the other benefits as that layer of complexity through the economy that is provided by a vibrant defence industry delivers benefits to our economy in real dollar terms. It is not correct to say that we are in a rush, it is not correct to say that we will save money by buying overseas, and it is not correct to say that our industry and our workers are not up to it.

I do not know if the Liberal Party is listening to the people of South Australia, but I can tell you that others are. This is one of the number one issues out there. It is bigger than submarines and ships; it is about whether leaders care about jobs. These are the jobs not only of today but these are the jobs of 10 year olds today because in 12 years' time they will be finishing university and they will be saying to their parents, 'I want to be an engineer, but I have to go to Sydney or Melbourne or Japan to get a job.' That is not the sort of future we want—and we are doing something about it.

Unless there is one hell of a political argument put up over the next six to nine months, this decision is going to go the wrong way. It is not about what we do in here today. It is not about members opposite coming over here and sitting down so they do not have to go out to the media and explain why they voted against it. What it is about is every single one of us, federal and state, sending a message to the Coalition government that they must stop this frolic they are on about building a submarine in Japan or anywhere overseas.

A simple commitment to building both the submarines and the surface ships here would end all this. We do not care about the design—it could be Japanese, it could be German, it could be Swedish, it could be French; we do not care. The Navy can decide that; they are the experts. The commonwealth can make that decision. They then need to sit down and determine how we will make that work because you know what happened with the ANZAC frigates: the first two or three frigates ran over time and over budget, just like the air warfare destroyer, and the last six or seven came in under budget and on time, and it was an extraordinarily successful program. Once you commit to building the submarines and frigates here, you will get a competitive industry, and it will work and it will be a huge success.

I just make this point in conclusion: there is an alternative. If the Coalition decides to build these submarines overseas, I can tell you that all hell will break loose in this country because state governments here and in Victoria, in Western Australia and in New South Wales, who are our partners in shipbuilding, will not accept it and neither will the people of South Australia. There will be a solution, and that will involve changes of government because, if one side of politics is going to go to the next election arguing that we should export 120,000 man-years of work and the other side of politics is going to go to an election arguing that we should keep that work in Australia, I think I know what the Australian people will decide about that argument.

The Australian people are not silly. They know when a government is on their side and they know when a government is selling them out, and they know that at the federal and at the state level. So, let there be no doubt that if this decision goes the wrong way it will not only be the Coalition that pays the price—it will be the Liberal Party, both state and federal, around this country, because they will have signalled to the people of Australia that they are not on our side. There is only one way for this decision to go: these 12 submarines and all the surface ships must be built in our great country, based in Adelaide, and we must not be sold out.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:44): I rise to speak to this motion. I appreciate the fact that the Premier has brought it forward, and I wholeheartedly agree with it, as does the Leader of the Opposition and as do my colleagues. We wholeheartedly agree with the words in the motion. I will get to them in a minute, but it is important to point out that it really is just a stunt. As the Minister for Defence Industries has clearly outlined, it is really just an attack on the Liberal Party. That is what this is being used for, and that is completely inappropriate for such a serious issue.

This is a continuation of the government trying to use the blame game. Both the Premier and the Minister for Defence Industries have talked about the federal government stopping the car industry by saying that we cannot build cars here. General Motors decided that they could not build cars here. They actually said, 'It would not have mattered how much money the federal government gave us, we would have had to go anyway.' It is a public quote.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: A public quote, Deputy Speaker. This is just about the government trying to use this as a stunt and trying to use it as a blame game, as they did on 5 March last year. A very similar motion was used on 5 March last year, but there was one key difference. Last year, the member for Waite thought a very similar motion was a stunt. He thought it was just politics and talked against it. I invite people to check Hansard of that date. Today, he thinks it is a good idea. Today, he is on the other side, so today he thinks the stunt is a good idea to pursue.

Let me just say that we support the motion. We support the motion even though we know that it is being used as a stunt. Let me go through the words the Premier has used:

(a) condemns the remarks of the commonwealth defence minister that he would not trust the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) to 'build a canoe';

Of course, that is blindingly obvious. It was a dreadful thing to have said, and I bet nobody regrets it more than the defence minister does. Nobody would regret that decision more than he does. While the Minister for Defence Industries says that he has not heard it, the Leader of the Opposition was extremely strong in his rebuke as soon as that remark was made. Publicly, privately, in our meetings, in the media and everywhere he went last week he was incredibly strong about rebuking that remark. We agree that it deserves to be condemned, and I bet that the Minister for Defence, David Johnston in Canberra, agrees too. The motion continues:

(b) reaffirms its support for ASC workers and all other South Australians employed in the defence industry;

Of course we do. We know how important this is. We understand the issues about defence industries. It is actually a much bigger industry than the automotive industry. It is a dreadful shame that we have lost the automotive industry, but this is an even bigger problem that faces us and we understand that.

There are 25,000 or 27,000 people with families, children, mortgages and other commitments working in the defence industry, and nearly 3,000 of them are working directly on shipbuilding and submarine sustainment. We understand how very important that is, and we took a package of policies to the last election that would have supported enhanced employment and enhanced business growth. Unfortunately, we cannot put those into place, but our support for those workers has always been there and will never, ever change. The motion also states:

(c) demands that the Abbott Liberal government upholds its election commitment to build the 12 future submarines in Adelaide;

Of course, that is what we want, and I would say that anywhere. That is exactly what I want, and I am hoping and working, like the rest of my colleagues and I believe members of the government are doing so as well, to convince the federal government that that is exactly what should happen. There is no disagreement about that here. It continues:

(d) notes that Australians should have the right to trust the word of its leaders—

and this is a very important point. The Premier has said:

(d) notes that Australians should have the right to trust the word of its leaders when it comes to decisions that affect the national security of this country.

Why on earth did the Premier put in that last bit? Why not just stop with 'Australians have the right to trust their leaders'? Why did he say 'when it comes to issues that affect national security', which of course have nothing to do with the Premier or with the state Labor government?

I wonder why he decided to leave those words out. Would it be because of the promise of 100,000 new jobs that is not going to be fulfilled? Would it be because of a promise that there would be no job losses from the privatisation of the forests in the South-East? Would it be because the government promised the police Recruit 300 program and has failed there as well? Would it be because the government promised not to tax the family home, yet has introduced an increase to the emergency services levy and that increased money goes straight to Treasury? Not one extra dollar goes towards the emergency services sector.

Would it be that maybe that is why the Premier added that last bit, that this motion only refers to leaders and their decisions that affect national security? All leaders should be responsible for what they say. That last bit should not have been added; however, with the last bit in, we agree to the motion as well. I would have preferred that it was not there, but we agree with every single part of this motion.

So, anybody who comes in here and tries to pretend that it is not true is just making stuff up. Anybody who comes in here and tries to pretend that they do not know that the Leader of the Opposition has been out doing exactly this work very publicly for a long time is just making stuff up. Anybody who pretends, and particularly a person who has not done so himself, that the Leader of the Opposition has not gone to Canberra to advocate on shipbuilding and submarines or that the shadow minister for defence industries has not done it, and anybody who pretends that that is not happening is just making stuff up.

The Minister for Defence Industries should do exactly the same thing. The Minister for Defence Industries should go to Canberra and do what the leader has done and what I have done, to try to do everything possible to represent the workers of South Australia in this very important industry. We agree with every single point of the motion, and anyone who tries to pretend differently is playing politics. Anyone who says that there is any difference with regard to the government and opposition in our opinion on this motion, that person or that group are actually the ones who are playing politics with this issue.

Where are we really with submarines at the moment? It is an incredibly important issue; we understand that. We want the 12 submarines and future frigates to be built here—of course we do. That is exactly what we want, and I know the Minister for Defence Industries understands this. He knows defence better than anybody else in this house. Step one: the Navy must get what they want. That is the absolute highest priority. Defence says, 'These are our priorities, these are our specs, these are our quantities—this is what we need.' That is first of all.

Once those priorities are identified, we can only buy what we can afford. It is an unfortunate truth: we can only buy what we can afford. We cannot break that fact of nature. Then, after that, where do we go? We want as much to be built, bought, employed, used and to come from South Australia as possible. We understand that there are other states in Australia that deserve to share some of that work, but we in the state opposition, just like the state government, want as much of that work as possible to happen in South Australia. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

We need the right products at the right price and as much of it as possible coming from South Australia. We need this because it supports our economy for decades to come. It is a gigantic, huge contract, but it is not just about the purchase price. It is actually about the next 20, 30 or maybe more years of sustainment work that can be done in South Australia. This is about trying to set our economy up for decades to come. We understand that, that is why we are fighting for it, and that is why we support this motion.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (12:54): I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. The test for all members of this house is what we now do in the public advocacy for this most crucial issue for the future of our state. We look forward to seeing all members of this house raising their voice and raising their efforts to ensure that we achieve the correct outcome for not only our nation's defence but South Australia's future prosperity.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT