Federal Member for Port Adelaide Mark Butler Subject: Submarines

Mark Butler MP.

Shadow Minister for Environment

 Climate Change and Water

Federal Member for Port Adelaide

TRANSCRIPT OF RADIO INTERVIEW WITH ABC891 ADELAIDE

Date:  10 September 2014

HOST: Now on this issue of the submarines; it was quite clear wasn’t it, Jamie Briggs, your party, the Coalition promised to build 12 new subs. We’ve heard the grab again and again. I think Nick Harmsen from ABC News has got it sitting on his desk and he just pulls it out and plays the same grab again. It’s quite clear what the promise was and you’re backing away from it.

JAMIE BRIGGS: I think there is, let’s say before a decision being made, a lot of assumption and speculation going on which is not very helpful and I think very unhelpful for the workers at the ASC. Because this has been positioned, if you read some of the coverage and I thought yesterday the story in the Fin Review was the worst of the lot, basically suggesting that there is a choice of either or here. That’s if the Government goes down the path of purchasing a hull, if you like, from a manufacturer overseas, whether it be Japan, Germany or France, that ASC work, that will be it, the ASC will be finished. I mean that is just completely not true. This is a massive contract. It is a very important defence capability for Australia, if not the most important defence capability.

HOST: But if you say in an election campaign that the 12 submarines will be built in Adelaide, that means hull, defence system, plumbing.

BRIGGS: The substantial work will be conducted in Adelaide.

HOST: It’s not the same, is it?

BRIGGS: There will be more jobs in Adelaide under the next generation decision about the submarines than there would have been. And the reality is this; in 2007 Kevin Rudd said, “we will build submarines in Adelaide”. For six years the Labor Party did nothing but rip $20 billion out of the submarine program to the point when we got to Government there was no plan for the future submarines. We are risking right now a capability gap in 2026 because Labor failed to act. Yesterday you had Bill Shorten acting like a union leader, not a national leader, trying to scare workers.

HOST: Mark Butler?

BUTLER: Well of course that’s all wrong. There was a very clear commitment to build –

BRIGGS: Well it’s not wrong, what did you say in 2007?

BUTLER: I gave you a very good go, Jamie. Just be polite. They made a very clear commitment about building subs here, not gluing together some Japanese subs in Port Adelaide, but building Australian submarines here in Port Adelaide. As to Jamie’s comment about there being nothing done over the last six years, there was significant work undertaken with Navy and with the industry to narrow down the options that would be best for Australia. Last year our Government announced that that work, very significant work, had narrowed down the two options to be either an evolved Collins class - or son of Collins class submarine - or a completely original build. In addition to which we started to put in place arrangements to ensure that some of the mistakes or some of the pitfalls of the Collins project did not repeat with either an evolved Collins or a new build. For example, having a land based test system or propulsion test system on –

HOST: But that does sound a bit vague, ‘we’ve narrowed it down to son of Collins or a brand new sub’. You could drive a sub through that, couldn’t you?

BUTLER: This will be the most complex, the most expensive – if it’s done in Australia – most complex procurement decision taken in our history. It’s not something you just do on a whim, which appears to be what Tony Abbott is doing, working to a press conference he has pre-planned for November with the Japanese Prime Minister.

HOST: There is a belief, is there not, that there will be a big announcement with the Prime Minister of Japan?

BUTLER: For all that Jamie says about it being disconcerting for workers down at Port Adelaide, it is being fed out of Government. We’re being softened up here.

HOST: Well, people like Ian McPhedran and Phil Coorey in the Fin Review, they’re not dumb.

BRIGGS: The Fin Review story yesterday was wrong. I mean I’m happy to say that. Ian McPhedran has had a source within the Government and that is very unhelpful, I agree. I absolutely agree with Mark. Whoever put that story in The Advertiser  through Ian McPhedran a couple of days ago is being unhelpful, I agree.

HOST: They’re trying to torpedo it?

BRIGGS: Whatever their motives are it is not helpful for the workers. It is not helpful for the Government because –

HOST: It must be someone in Cabinet.

BRIGGS: Well, look you can speculate on that, I couldn’t possibly comment. But the reality of the situation is, in the end, there will be much more work for Adelaide. The ASC is world class; we have no question about the capacities of the ASC.

HOST: Apparently it’s a cot case according to your Government.

BRIGGS: No, there is issues with the AWD contract, which the ASC is working through, and Bruce Carter I think has done a terrific job in working through that, but it’s not just ASC’s fault, I might add. The DMO itself is not without blame when it comes to the –

HOST: That’s the Defence Materiel Organisation.

BRIGGS: Who does the procurement when it comes to the contract.

HOST: Mark Butler, being really pragmatic here, what’s the problem if the dirty bits of this project - the hull - is made in Japan and it’s glued together here? If the bottom line though is the gluing together and the weapons systems and everything else that goes into making a world-class sub; if the bottom line is more jobs does it matter where the hull’s made?

BUTLER: Well, we don’t know the details of this. Part of the problem is we don’t know the details of this because it’s being leaked out into the newspapers. We don’t know, for example, how much of the deep maintenance would be able to be done in Australia, given that the intellectual property of these submarines would be owned by Japan. We don’t know what the life of these submarines is. We see reported in The Advertiser that they have potentially only half the life that western submarines have, so you have to end up coming back 15 years later and buying a new set of subs. We don’t know, for example, whether we’re going to have to build a new submarine base in Darwin because these submarines, the Soryu submarines from Japan have only half the range of the Collins Class submarines so they can’t get from Southern Australia to where we need them to be. All of these decisions –

BRIGGS: Just one point about that though, sorry –

HOST: You don’t have to be polite.

BRIGGS: That is a misunderstanding about the submarines. That report itself as I understand it is wrong. The Darwin Harbour’s not deep enough to have submarines.

BUTLER: Exactly.

BRIGGS: So whoever put that into the report … this is why the speculation is completely wrong and frankly off the ball. I mean what we should be doing is exactly what the Government is doing, going through a methodical process to make the best defence decision for our capabilities to defend Australia. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

HOST: Mark Butler, is Bill Shorten running a ‘Reds under the bed’ campaign here?

BUTLER: I just want to finish my point here, Matt. To your earlier question, what we need, what the workers down at Port Adelaide need, what South Australians need, is all of the information on the table. At the end of the day Government has to take a decision, but when we get some of the detail leaked out, ridiculous propositions like Darwin being a submarine base when everyone knows it’s way too shallow for that, when figures are leaked out of $50 billion or $80 billion being the cost of Australian submarine builds, pulled out of God knows where, understandably it’s incredibly distressing for people involved in this project.

HOST: Bill Shorten, though, is he not running a sort of dog whistling when he’s talking about national security? And you’ve talked about the intellectual property being held by the Japanese. Is he evoking a ‘Reds under the bed’ style message there?

BUTLER: No, I don’t think he is. I think he’s saying that as an island nation that depends very strongly on the security of its maritime access pathways to the rest of the world, it’s important that we have our own domestic intellectual property around at least our core defence assets, and there’s no more important defence asset than our submarines.

HOST: What about the super plane, the joint strike fighter?

BUTLER: It’s just completely unrealistic for Australia ever to think of being able to build a fighter jet. It’s just beyond our capacity –

HOST: You could apply the same thing to subs.

BRIGGS: Remember the Boomerang? That was built in Australia.

BUTLER: That was not a particular success from memory. But for an island nation there is no more important defence asset than a submarine. We have the capacity to do it here. Now sure the Government has to take a decision at the end of the day about whether we should do it here or buy something from Japan or Germany or France or any other country, but you can’t ignore the strategic interests involved in Australia as an island nation having its own maritime capacity.

HOST: Michael has called from Clovelly Park. Hello Michael?

CALLER MICHAEL:  I’m a business owner in the manufacturing sector [and I’m] very concerned about the message that we’re receiving from Canberra; the follow up from Holdens, the insecurities regarding the submarines. There’s a lack of confidence in the state and I can’t see anything that’s trying to lift us out of that and I can’t see any support from the Liberal Members who don’t even turn up for a Senate meeting. I think it was in late August –

BRIGGS: [scoffs]

CALLER MICHAEL: … where there was silence from the Liberals on this issue of the submarines.

HOST: Why are you scoffing at that Jamie Briggs?

BRIGGS: He seems to be very well informed. I mean the reality is if you’ve been following, as you seem to have, if you’re following Senate debates Michael, that we had a meeting with the Prime Minister here three weeks ago. There was a lunch with the SA Members, Matt Williams, myself, Christopher, Simon Birmingham, Cory Bernardi and David Fawcett and Ann Ruston and Sean Edwards were all there and we’ve spoken to the Prime Minister. I’ve been in regular contact. This is I think the fifth interview in two days I’ve done publicly about this issue. It is an important issue and we are working to ensure South Australia gets the vast bulk of the work that is done on the next submarine contract, and we will get the vast bulk of the work done on the next submarine contract, which will mean more jobs in South Australia.

CALLER MICHAEL: But you don’t seem to be fighting for this state.

BRIGGS: Well, that’s exactly what I’ve just told you. We are fighting for this state. We are ensuring that we have got the best deal out of this. We can’t fix the fact that for six years Labor ripped $20 billion out of this. We had the lowest defence spend in Australia last year since the Second World War. That’s the reality of what the Labor Party left us.

HOST: That would be in percentage of GDP?

BRIGGS: Exactly.  

HOST: Okay. Now Jamie Briggs, a lot of people are sending us texts along the lines of, ‘this is just being driven by ideology’. Maybe there’s nothing wrong with that. It depends on whether you think the ideology is good. Some people might think it’s good to have a philosophy behind government and people know where you’re coming from, but that’s not to say whether it’s good or bad. It’s a good idea to have a philosophy. Last week you were on the television defending a proposal to buy brand new cars from overseas online. That’d have a devastating effect on dealerships.

BRIGGS: No, it wouldn’t.

HOST: You don’t think so?

BRIGGS: No, it wouldn’t. It’s a discussion paper about the Motor Vehicles Standards Act and the reality of the situation would be that after manufacturing ends in Australia, because we’re moving to global standards for our vehicles, which we’ve been doing for a very long time –

HOST: But it’s a tough line. It’s a hard philosophy. It’s a philosophy that says goodbye to Holdens. It’s a philosophy that makes it harder for dealerships. It’s a philosophy that says to blue collar workers down at Osborne ‘you might not have a job’.

BRIGGS: No, it’s not. It’s about ensuring we’ve got the most effective and efficient economy we can so we can be as successful as we can, and that is the direction the country’s taken since 1983 when Paul Keating and Bob Hawke put these changes in place. We live in a globalised world. We cannot stand outside of what the global pressures are whether people want to do that or not. The reality is, I agree largely with what Mark Butler said earlier –

HOST: Doesn’t sound like it. Mark Butler doesn’t sound like he agrees with you but you agree with his position on it?

BRIGGS: Mark won’t agree with pretty much anything I say when we’re in Government and he’s in Opposition. But the reality is we are making the best defence capability decision for Australia’s future because this is a very important strategic decision. But what is not helpful, frankly, is a person who seeks to be a national leader acting like a union leader, screaming at workers yesterday down at Port Adelaide, harking back to his old past of being a union boss.

HOST: Mark Butler, you’ve got a chance to stick up for your boss?

BUTLER: I thought Bill spoke to workers from the heart very much about the view that the Labor Party have developed over a couple of years about this being the best defence and industry option for Australia. Now, if Jamie doesn’t like his tone, there’s not much I can do about that, but this was a decision we’d come to, to narrow it down to these two options: evolved Collins or an original build based on the evidence.