Posts

Does the ADF really think electric vehicles can defend our nation?

,

I asked questions of two Army generals as to the viability of military EVs in the field. They spoke of the challenges of recharging in the field, considering factors such as solar charging and the use of hybrid vehicles.

I was told that the technology was not there yet but the hope was that technology would have matured by 2030-35 when the fleet of vehicles may be transformed to EV status and technological problems be overcome.

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: My questions are to do with the Army’s electric vehicles. Since the publicly released information of electric vehicle conversion of the Australian designed and built Bushmaster, has the Australian Army progressed to test the operational feasibility of other Australian electric military vehicles in the field? I understand from Minister Conroy, who gave us a crossbencher briefing, that this is at concept stage at the moment, nothing more.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll begin, and then I’ll hand to my colleague Major General Vagg for any further comments.  The concept demonstrator that you referred to was part of our power and energy work, which involves some studies to understand how we can use alternative sources of fuel (1) to ensure an operational capability and (2) to reduce the logistic footprint that is created by bulk fuel. There are a couple of important points to note. Firstly, we were able to produce an electric Bushmaster, but that was to really test the parameters of power generation and how that work would translate into the design of the vehicle and to really test the
art of the possible.

Of course, the operating environment would probably require us to have a hybrid approach, similar to a hybrid passenger vehicle, with both solar panels and also the fuel that would be required. So it is on a path of development to determine how we can continue to operate vehicles and reduce the logistics footprint and, obviously, the output of those vehicles.

Senator Roberts: What progress has been made? What stage are you at right now?

Major Gen. Vagg: As the chief has alluded to, we produced the capability demonstrator with Thales. One of the limitations is power generation and storage and the distribution — which I think you’d appreciate —

Senator Roberts: Easy to understand that.

Major Gen. Vagg: for operational use. We’ve got a number of studies underway to look at power generation and electrification of various sizes of wheeled and tracked vehicles. Those studies are indicating that the technology won’t be in a mature state until about 2030. We have plans from 2035 onwards to look at how we’ll transition the broader Army fleet as we move across.

Senator Roberts: So the time frame is you’re hoping to put something into operation by 2030.

Major Gen. Vagg: That’s the time when the studies are indicating the technology will be mature enough so we can field it as an operational capability.

Senator Roberts: So at the moment there’s no real understanding based on anything concrete—it’s just studies at the moment. You haven’t got a plan or deadline or date.

Major Gen. Vagg: As I said, from about 2035 we’ve got plans to look at starting to convert Army’s fleets across to electric vehicles.

Senator Roberts: What are your findings on energy density? One of the advantages of hydrocarbon fuels like petrol and diesel and gas is that they have very high energy density—not as high as nuclear, but very high energy density. Sunlight is incredibly low.

Major Gen. Vagg: That’s a good observation. To inform some of that work, we’ve got trials with electric vehicles that are occurring this year. We have 40 electric vehicles—civilian—that are operating in the ACT. From 2024 we’ll look at a series of small, light commercial vehicles that will use hydrogen cells. We’ll use those capability demonstrators to inform further work and how we’ll look to operationalise that.

Senator Roberts: To what stage has the thinking gotten in terms of replacing the current diesel powered vehicles?

Major Gen. Vagg: Again, I go back to my first point. Looking at the levels of maturity for those technologies, we don’t expect that to mature to where we can deploy it as a legitimate operational capability until about 2030.

Senator Roberts: Is there any way in which our concrete operational plans assume electric vehicles, say, by 2035? Are we going to be reliant upon these things being developed?

Major Gen. Vagg: I don’t think we’d be reliant on them being developed, but that’s a goal where we’ll look to do that transition.

Senator Roberts: So it’s a goal, not a plan yet.

Lt Gen. Stuart: If I can describe the approach, there are a whole range of emerging technologies that we need to understand, and then we need to test their application to the set of tasks that we need to provide for the integrated force. In some cases, I expect, those will be successful; in other cases they may not be. What we want is to be informed and take advantage of the developments in technology as they’re developing. We work with both academia and industry to explore the art of the possible. We’re not making any presuppositions about exactly when, because we just don’t have the evidence or the data to support exactly where that technology may be. What we’re working on at the moment in the case of electrification is that we think, based on the advice we’ve received, that technology—noting your point about energy density and the requirement to operate vehicles in operational situations—is probably toward the end of this decade. That is our estimation based on the work we’ve done so far and the advice from experts that we’ve been working with.

Senator Roberts: Have you deployed the vehicle in the wet or in the north or in the desert or put it through any arduous tests, or is it still very much a concept?

Major Gen. Vagg: It’s still very much a concept.

Senator Roberts: What about battery charging? You mentioned that as one of your challenges. I think, from memory, on Friday afternoon the Minister for Defence Industry, Mr Conroy, said that you had some concepts for fast charging. Is that correct?

Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll have to take that one on notice. As I say, as part of the power and energy work we’re doing, we’re looking at a whole range of things, which include both power generation and power storage—which includes battery technology.

Senator Roberts: What would power generation involve—what sort of concept?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Solar, hybrid engines—

Senator Roberts: Solar panels?

Lt Gen. Stuart: and those sorts of things.

Senator Roberts: Hybrid using hydrocarbon fuelled engines?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes.

Senator Roberts: You’re not far enough advanced, then, to discuss the recharging question for field operation?

Major Gen. Vagg: No. As I alluded to before, we’re still looking at how that technology matures. That’s one of the principal challenges that we need to overcome.

Senator Roberts: What’s your early gut feeling? Much of the science on this and the application of the science on these technologies is still hypothetical—wish.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I don’t think my gut feeling is particularly relevant. We’ll follow the science and what can be demonstrated and how that can be applied to the work that we are required to do. But we think it makes a
lot of sense to be understanding and to be working with experts on how we can apply new and emerging technologies to the business of Army in this instance.

Senator Roberts: I’m reassured now. Initially, I wondered if we were going to be dependent on something happening in the next few years, and I had visions of extension cords all across North Queensland and the Territory. That has put that to rest. Thank you very much.

/21 Comments/by

Government opening the door to China’s bullying in Antarctica

, , ,

Australia claims a very large part of Antarctica as our territory. Despite this, China is muscling in, refusing to sign treaties and building 5 research bases in the Australian Antarctic territory. To add to the worries, Australian Government has back-flipped on its plans to build a strategically important, all-weather runway at Davis research base.

This opens the door for China to do it instead, further eroding our claim to Antarctic territory.

The decision came from the minister for environment which begs the question, have we let China take a strategic win because we were a little bit worried about the penguin’s feelings?

Transcript

I think the last stretch.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here tonight. Minister Sussan Ley recently made a decision to not proceed with the building of an all-weather runway at Davis research base in Antarctica. What level of consultation did the Minister have with the Department of Defence and what advice was received prior to making such a decision, which many see as retrograde?

Senator, I can probably assist with that. That was a decision taken by the Government. There was extensive consultation with a range of departments and indeed I and Mr. Ellis personally, were in discussions with the Secretary and the CDF and others on that matter before it was considered by Government.

I understand Defence were pushing it.

I think the view taken by the Government was that the combination of the very significant environmental impact, the proceeding with the airstrip, would do together with the very sizable cost, ultimately meant that proceeding with a project that would not provide results for another 15 or 20 years was not viable. However, there are a whole range of other ways that we are very confident we’ll be able to ensure continuing and indeed expanded presence in Antarctica.

Was the Minister aware of the likelihood of China then building the strategically important runway, thereby enhancing its claim for a portion of the Australian Antarctic territory when the Australian Antarctic territory is renegotiated, or even sooner, because China is not a party to the Treaty?

A full range of geopolitical and other considerations were available to government in taking the decision, Senator.

Is the Minister aware that China has already built five research bases within the Australian Antarctic territory to enhance its future claim?

The answer is yes, we certainly are aware. I’ll let Mr. Ellis answer as to the number, but certainly we’re aware that China, and indeed a number of other countries, have established bases in the area claimed by Australia.

Does this mean that environmental issues, such as the comfort of penguins can be used to negotiate, to negate issues of national security to the detriment of all Australians? You mentioned that, you mentioned the 15 year time span for the return, I’ve just come from the Australian Rail Trade Corporation and they’re talking about a 30 year timeframe.

Some of these projects do involve a long period of time, Senator. But the answer is that we are very confident that the right decision was made, taking into account all of the factors and, as I’ve said, indicating that Australia’s is continuing presence. Our scientific research, our expeditionary exploration are second to none and we’ll continue over the decades ahead.

So is this yet another example of the short-term strategy visions that have dogged Australian antarctic policy, antarctic policy making us a pushover for the Chinese Communist Party?

I wouldn’t agree with the premise of any of that Senator, Australia very significantly ensures that we are a strong player in the international system that focuses on Antarctica, on CCAMLR and Australia, through investments, such as the Nuyina, which we’ve just been talking about at 1.8 billion dollar investment together with all of the other activities that Mr. Ellis and our hundreds of staff, both in Hobart and in Antarctica undertake, we believe that we are very much ensuring Australia’s interests are protected and advanced.

Perhaps a question to Senator Hume. The Chinese Communist Party just rolls over weak leaders. They see in Australia a country that is handed over its sovereignty to many UN agreements, destroying our energy, for example, our property rights, UN policies gutting our culture. These get no respect from the CCP and I think it makes us targets. So, was this the best decision to make at a time of heightened concern about the expansion as policies and aggression of the CCP? Especially as what they’re doing to us in trade.

I don’t necessarily agree with the premise of your question, Senator Roberts, but what I will say is that Australia in no way will be ceding any of our territory. The decision that was made was always gonna be contingent on a final investment decision next year and careful consideration of the environmental impact, economic investment and broader national interests. Australia feels that it’s particularly important that all nations place the Antarctic environment at the absolute centre of their decision making, and respect to the Treaty system. And the government is now considering further investments in our scientific research and environmental programmes in Antarctica. That include to continue to create jobs and investment for Tasmania, as the international gateway to East Antarctica.

Thank you, Chair.

[Attendant] Thank you very much.

/by

Government delays moving Defence data from CHINESE-OWNED company

, ,

Sensitive Defence information is still being held at data centers owned by Global Switch, a Chinese-owned multinational company, despite promises to have all government data migrated out by 2020. Regardless of the complexity of the move or data being “less sensitive”, this is an unacceptable situation. The Chinese Communist Party must be laughing at our Government.

Transcript

Okay, thank you. Getting onto storage of defence data, including critical secure data. In February, 2021, the Australian federal government renewed its contract with the firm Global Switch, despite serious security concerns. The company has hosted Australia’s sensitive and high security data for some time. Elegant Jubilee, a Chinese consortium, bought 49% of the parent British company Alders Gate Investments, causing an ownership change for Global Switch in 2016. Then treasurer Scott Morrison said in 2017 that the defence data would be shifted back to a government owned hub for security reasons. After he became prime minister, he later decided to extend their contracts with Global Switch. Does the firm Global Switch still host Australia’s sensitive and high security defence data?

Senator, Jeff Goedecke, First Assistant Secretary ICT Service Delivery and Reform. The Global Switch facility, which is completely controlled by the commonwealth, does hold some of the less sensitive data. There are as indicated in the release by secretary Moriarty in February last year, there are plans in place to migrate that data from Global Switch by 2025. This is in accordance with the whole of government hosting strategy.

So why was it decided to continue this arrangement, hosted ultimately with, with Chinese ownership?

It’s, it’s, it’s not Chinese ownership. As I said, the Commonwealth owns, has complete control of the facility, both from a physical perspective and from a, and a, a protection from a logical sense, from an ICT perspective and security perspective. The amount of equipment and data, and the complexity and interdependencies, necessitate a longer term to remove these things. There’s a, a great deal of reliance on defence business continuity, that requires a staged approach to remove this stuff. It basically, the complexity and size of the footprint, the payload inside the data centre, means it was impossible to, to move that over a very short period of time.

So when was the decision last made to, to leave it there, and eventually you take it off by 2025?

So, just bear with me, Senator

And Senator, Greg Moriarty, Secretary of the Department. All of, all of the highly sensitive information is, is long gone. So what, so-

What sort of information is there?

Well, this-

So we, so what happened was the government approved, back 2018 for defence to be funded to move what was sensitive data from the data centre out. That occurred by June, 2020. So that was all removed. Because of the size of the footprint of the remaining data, which is less sensitive data, again, still protected from a government perspective and government controlled. There was a, there is a process in place now where we are, have an evolution to move that data out. And that ties in with the additional lease, which expires in 2025.

So what is that less sensitive data?

It, it’s for a range, range of things. It could be administrative related. It could be some sort of logistic, but we wouldn’t normally discuss exactly what type of data we hold in what locations.

So there’s no risk whatsoever of the Chinese accessing it, ’cause they’re pretty good hackers.

There, there is no risk.

What, what, why can you be sure of that?

It’s, it’s based on the, the the facility itself has physical controls in place. That’s everything from, from it being a fully manned facility, it has all of the CCTV capabilities. It has, you know, alarms, it’s fully accredited. And in fact, the facility is accredited to look after more sensitive data. That hasn’t changed. So there’s a higher level of security than would normally be afforded that level of data, which is an important factor as well. In addition to that, we have ICT securities. So cybersecurity controls where we, we monitor that we have a, the defence security operations centre monitors cyber activity. And that includes that within the footprint as well. Gateway, secure gateways also assure the information. So from a defence perspective there aren’t risks related to that, Senator.

Has it been tested at all? ‘Cause the Chinese, some Chinese are very good hackers. I’m sure you know that.

Absolutely. So there are, defence has no indications at all that there’s been any compromise at all related to data held in that facility.

So it’s not a case then of the, the Fox looking after the hen house?

Not at all.

Okay.

No, but, and, and just to make sure that, I mean, that, that is why the government has, has directed defence to move all of the data by a particular point in time. Senator, we believe that the mitigation strategy that we have in place is very robust for the, for that level in, in fact, as Mr. Goedecke said, it’s, it’s much more significant wraparound than what normal data of that level would be. But we are moving out. We are, we are gonna remove absolutely any risk by, by removing ourselves from that, from that data centre. And the government has, has agreed the timeline.

Thank you. And thank you, too.

Additional Information

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/defence-delays-global-switch-data-centre-exit-by-up-to-five-years-560042

https://www.afr.com/companies/telecommunications/federal-bodies-struggle-to-exit-chinese-owned-data-centre-20200304-p546p5

/by

The ADF protects and defends Australia. Australia needs to do more for our veterans

Available on these platforms:

A decision to join the Australian Defence Force, be it army, navy or airforce, is a life-defining decision. The change that every recruit who becomes a soldier goes through, is forever. Military training and active service is an experience that re-shapes a person’s life. Our ADF personnel must be highly skilled, self-reliant, brave and courageous, and many become wired for conflict. The physical, emotional and mental demands on individuals in deployment are impossible to imagine for those of us who haven’t served. 

When our defence personnel finish serving our country the transition back into civilian living is challenging for many. For some it is too challenging. 

An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report found that 432 serving or ex-serving members suicided from 2001 to 2017. In 2018, 33 suicided. 

Ex-serviceman are 3.1 times more likely to suicide if discharged for medical reasons than if discharged voluntarily. 

And there are in excess of 5,000 ex-servicemen and women who are homeless over a 12 month period. 

Successive governments have more than enough data that shows too many of our defence personnel are not getting the support needed to cope with defence force work, or cope after that work is finished. 

A senate inquiry found that one in four returned solders had experienced a mental disorder and the rate of suicidal thoughts, plans and attempts, was double that of the general population. 

It has taken so long, needlessly and excruciatingly long for the Australian Government to recognise the unique nature of military service and to establish a Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It’s disappointing that the Government’s own agency, the Department of Veterans Affairs, has shown disregard, disrespect and callousness towards our veterans and that it has taken until this year for parliament to force a Royal Commission. The stories are numerous and share a common theme of delay, deny and destroy. 

Jesse Bird was a private with Townsville’s Infantry Battalion who served an eight-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2009-10. 

He had been pursuing a claim for permanent impairment for almost two years and just weeks after losing the claim and pleading for help, Jessie committed suicide. After his death DVA approved his claim. 

As a nation Australian must do better to recognise the service, sacrifice and immense challenge our servicemen and women and their families face, especially when it comes to returning to regular lives. 

The Australian Government provides nearly $12 billion in federal funding to support 325,000 veterans and their families each year, yet too many remain unsupported. For some veterans, only other veterans understand well enough to help heal and re-integrate. 

Highly skilled and motivated defence personnel upon retirement from the ADF must have access to meaningful work. Veterans cannot be courageously defending your nation this week and then be left with a void the next. As I’ve already said military training and active service is experience that re-shapes people’s life. 

We need more organisations like Bootstraps, which are veterans for veterans, receiving funding in our communities. Only veterans know what veterans have been through. Our courageous servicemen and women need to know that Australians understand the vulnerabilities and frailties that can come from active service. Our veterans need better care, and a sense of honour and urgency from support agencies. 

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide needs to deliver for the men and women who have fought for our country. Veterans and all ex-service men and women need better mental health and transitional support and our country needs improved ways for veterans who are not actively seeking support to identify and get such needed support. Defence Force personnel and their families deserve that. 

Our guests today:

SAM KAVANAGH served in the Army for 20 years and spent time in Combat Engineers, Signals and Corps of Intelligence. His father served for over 30 years in the RAAF. Sam set up Bootstraps, a group for veterans. Sam and Bootstraps are dedicated to Australians who have laced up a boot in service of our country. 

DR SHARITH SIPPEL was trained as an Electronic Warfare Linguist which is communications and intelligence and served for 5 years. Sharry left the Navy 20 years ago and retrained as a chiropractor. 

/by

The Drums of War – 2SM with Marcus Paul

,

Governments are destroying our country which is making it harder to stand up to China. I talked to Marcus Paul this morning about that and how I was reminded over the weekend about just how good Australian manufacturing used to be.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul] Hello, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts] Good morning, Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus Paul] All right, thank you how are you?

[Malcolm Roberts] Very well, thanks.

[Marcus Paul] What do you make of it all, the drums of war beating and all this rubbish?

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I think you summarised it very well, when you said marketing. It’s about pretending that the government is strong. Whereas in fact, I’ve just finished an inquiry report for the Northern Agenda. You know, what’s happening in our country, Marcus, is that the North is being held back along the same issues that the South is destroying. Energy, water, taxation, the basics. And the fundamental point about security is you have to have a strong economy. And the wombats in Canberra are destroying our economy through pandering to overseas bureaucrats, and selling our country out. It’s treasonous. So the fundamentals: we have to have a strong economy, a strong country, and that’s what we need to get back to.

[Marcus Paul] All right, with the fact that the, you know, the whole issue of quarantine during the pandemic, which is a federal responsibility, is being completely ballsed up, and palmed off by Morrison and his mates, with the fact that that’s completely being stuffed up. Be, you know, some of the reasons for the distraction, do you think?

[Malcolm Roberts] Possibly quite possibly, because you know, these politicians in Canberra have a habit of distracting, as you just said. But the whole pandemic has not been managed well. What we’ve got is an absence of data, that’s driving the plans. And we don’t have a plan, actually. We don’t even have a strategy. It just seems to be lurching from one thing to the next. One moment, one message to sell. Every single week, different message. There’s no coherent plan, that’s based on data. And I’ll talk more about that in a few weeks time, at senate estimates. But we need a plan for managing our economy, because that is fundamental to health. What we’re doing is destroying our economy, with some of the responses. I mean, people, you know, the Premiers of the States talk, and the Prime Minister talks about going and spending money in your state, and travelling. How the hell can people make plans when they could fly to Western Australia for example, and get locked down because they’ve got one positive test. They’d have to come back and spend $3,000 in quarantine. It’s just capricious. It’s destructive, it doesn’t consider the people.

[Marcus Paul] Your mates up there in the upper Hunter, might be as unhappy as what labor are at the moment, because I’m sorry, Pork-Barrelarow is out there with his chequebook, story this morning. And they’re promising funding to a number of women’s business organisations. While you know, there are other areas, probably should be prioritised. There’s a bit more pork barreling going on by the Berejiklian Barrilaro government, to sort of like keep your heads up on that, mate.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m not surprised, are you?

[Marcus Paul] Well, of course not.

[Malcolm Roberts] But you know what these people are going around. What we have in this country is a system of having options every four years at the state level, every three years at the federal government level. And people don’t seem to realise that these promises have to be paid for. And who’s gonna pay for them? The very people who have taken part in the election, the voters. So, it’s a disrespectful way of running government, but it seems, the people seem to fall for it quite often. So we’ve gotta get more people aware of what’s going on in government, so that people realise that these promises are just hollow, and that they’re wasting money, quite often

[Marcus Paul] Aussie ingenuity and initiative, what’s happened to it? We used to make engines and wonderful pieces of technology.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, you’re absolutely correct, Marcus. A lot of your listeners, the older listeners will remember names like Lister, Southern Cross, Cooper, Sundial, Barzakov. These are just some of the names on old engines, old diesel engines that were purring and puttering along at the Dalby, I went out to the Dalby Show. You know, you would have gone to shows when you were a kid.

[Marcus Paul] Oh yeah, yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, Royal Easter, where did you grow up?

[Marcus Paul] Sydney’s West, the Luddenham Show, the Penrith Show. You know, they were wonderful.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, and so what we saw at Dalby, which is west of Toowoomba on the Darling Downs, beautiful Darling Downs, it’s definitely a rural town. And we saw one whole field dedicated to 400, more than 400 engines, old engines. Had to be more than 30 years old. Some of them are a 100 years old that were puttering along, and they set a record for having the most engines running concurrently in a small area. But could you imagine this? Hundred metres long, five lines of engines, all with the enthusiasts with them, tinkering them along. You know and these engines, as I said, had to be more than 30 years old. But they worked across our country. They were essential in farming industry. Many were designed and built in Australia, highly dependable, highly reliable. Some were built under licence from overseas countries. We make none of these engines now, none at all. Yet we have great people like Jack Brabham, for example. He’s the only person ever, to have been an owner of a Formula One team, a designer of a car, and the driver, the only one ever. And he won three world champions. He’ll never be repeated. We’ve got the talent in this country. We’ve just destroyed our capacity to be productive.

[Marcus Paul] Ah, gee. All right, Malcolm. Great to have you on the programme, mate. We’ll catch up again next week. Thank you.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Marcus. Have a good one, mate. One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts. Marcus Paul in the Morning.

/by

Can we afford $220 billion Submarines right now? Department of Defence at Senate Estimates

, ,

CANCEL THE $220 BILLION SUBS CONTRACT

It is currently estimated that the Future Attack Submarines the government wants to buy will cost $220 billion including construction and ongoing service. We aren’t expecting to see the first one in the water until 2032 and the final one sometime in the 2040s.

They are outrageously expensive, will be obsolete by the time they hit the water and aren’t even nuclear powered. Don’t just take my word for it, almost every expert adviser and person outside the government has said they must be cancelled.

Transcript

[Chair]

As the call.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you Chair, thank you all for being here today. My first, the questions are about the Attack Submarines Contract. Given that some estimates of the final cost to Australia for this Attack Submarine fleet of 12 subs may run to more than $200 billion over the life of the subs. For example, the Managing SEA 1000 document is Australia’s Attack Class Submarines, February, 2020. Why is this considered good value for money in the face of wide criticism from reputable experts on the government appointed Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board, which included admirals and others. The board advised the government to consider terminating the contract with Builders Naval Group.

[Greg Sammut]

Greg Sammut, General Manager Submarines. Senator, the board didn’t recommend terminating the contract with Naval Group. They recommended that we make sure that we are managing our risks properly as we continue our work to get into contract with Naval Group and talked about the best alternative to a negotiated outcome when they made their recommendations. What actually occurred was, we reached a negotiated outcome with Naval Group. We entered into contract with them and as the auditor general concluded, we have established within the strategic partnering agreement. A fit for purpose strategic framework for meeting the government’s objectives for the future submarine programme.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. You raise the word risks and that report raised risks, that committee meeting. If the last sub will be delivered in the 2040s and the first delivery estimated to be in 2032, ’33, won’t these subs be obsolete by the time they’re ready for the water.

[Greg Sammut]

No Senator, they won’t be obsolete by the time they enter the water we’re designing these boats now to meet Navy’s capability requirements. Those requirements contemplate a submarine that has to operate within the timeframes of delivery. We’re also designing this submarine to have appropriate margins, such that through life new technologies as they sufficiently mature can be incorporated into the submarines to keep them regionally superior throughout their service life.

[Malcolm Roberts]

When the contract was first being considered, is it true that only eight submarines were to be built?

[Greg Sammut]

Not when the contract was being first considered I’ve said previously in Senate estimates that the competitive evaluation process that was initiated in February of 2015, which was established to pick an international partner used an assumption of eight submarines. But as we’ve also said previously to this committee, after the decision was made to commence the committee evaluation process there was a defence White Paper in which the government announced its policy to acquire 12 submarines.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What was the reason for the change? From eight to 12

[Greg Sammut]

There was a policy decision in the White Paper of 2016 to acquire 12 submarines that followed a process that was underway at that time, called a full structural review that accompanied the defence White Paper of 2016. And through that process, when options were considered for the structure of the defence force, 12 was the number that was decided by government.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The original cost quoted of around 25 billion was that for eight or 12?

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not sure what original cost you’re referring to, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m told that the original cost of the programme was expected to be around 25 billion.

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not sure where that information ever came from, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It was widely known that in the early stage of this project that the cost was estimated to be around 55 from memory for 12

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not aware of what you’re referring to, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What was the original cost of the programme? The very first cost when the contract was set.

[Greg Sammut]

When the contract was set, $50 billion constant, which today in outturn dollars is $88.5 billion that has not changed.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So the $200 billion that some people are estimating, reliable people.

[Greg Sammut]

I think people are endeavouring to estimate not only the acquisition costs but the through life sustainment costs, which will run out to an excessive 2080. And cost that also include I might add, not just material sustainment of the boats but expected costs of crewing, operations and fuel.

And infrastructure.

Infrastructures included in acquisition costs as well, Senator, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

How will these subs be cutting edge when they use technology from the 20th century?

[Greg Sammut]

What technology are you referring to, Senator?

[Malcolm Roberts]

This technology of the subs comes from the 20th century.

[Greg Sammut]

Well, Senator, I’ll assume you’re referring to the battery technology that we’re using.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I am, ’cause the next question is will these subs be using lead acid or lithium composite battery bank? That’s one of the things, but the technology generally comes from the last century.

[Greg Sammut]

We are using proven technology in these submarines to meet the capability requirements of Navy. And I think that’s what we must understand in the first instance. We’re not making compromises to meeting capability requirements, by simply choosing technologies. We are also being very mindful of the risks that attend the use of new technologies in something as complex as a submarine. So if we were to take the battery as an example, yes, the first batch of submarines will be delivered or at least the first future submarine will be delivered with a lead acid battery. We need make that decision now because if we don’t make that now the boat’s design will not be completed. And if the boat’s design isn’t completed in sufficient time we won’t be able to commence building and deliver the boat by the early 2030s. What’s important to understand is that in choosing the battery technology that we’ve chosen we are still meeting Navy’s capability of requirements when it comes to parameters such as dive endurance, range and so forth. We will continue as we are currently doing now to look at new battery technologies. Indeed we have an established and funded science and technology programme that is looking into a number of battery chemistries, including lithium ion but there are other promising technologies out there such as nickel zinc. When these are sufficiently mature, And we agree that they can be safely incorporated into the submarine to meet the Seaworthiness requirements of Navy which go to the safety of our crews at sea as well as meeting those capability requirements or indeed expanding the capability of the boat because of what advantages that new technology might bring. We will have the option to incorporate that. Because as I said earlier, we are building a submarine with margins to be able to incorporate new technology into the future.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, how easily, these questions reflect concerns of our constituents. And they’re very concerned when we look at the government debt right now and what has happened last year, they’re very concerned at the amount of money that’s going towards these subs. And they’re very concerned about the value in particular. How easy will the submarines be located by potential enemies when they’re so large and powered by obsolete diesel engines that apparently are easily heard? I’m not a submariner, but that’s what I understand.

[Greg Sammut]

One of my first response would be that diesel engines aren’t obsolete. Diesel electric submarines throughout the world use diesel engines to generate electricity, to charge batteries, to run the submarine. Again back to the capability requirements of Navy to which we are designing this submarine, it contemplates the threats and the scenarios in which the submarines will be operating. And those requirements have been established to enable the submarine to operate in the environments in which it operates remaining undetected to achieve its mission.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Given the exponential rate of increase or improvement in technology throughout life. Is there any regular or systemic review of the original assumptions?

[Greg Sammut]

We always continue to look at new technologies and what they might bring, not only to the future submarine but the existing submarine capability we have today. And that’s a good example perhaps to use that for your constituents, to understand how we continuously look at the ability to upgrade existing platforms that were produced some time ago. And if you look at any Naval vessel, it generally has a long life. And you’re right Senator, of course technology does evolve over the life of ships or submarines which are typically in service for at least 30 years in many cases. Over that timeframe we have to have the ability in Australia to be able to not only maintain the systems as they’re delivered, but to update them to deal with obsolescence that might emerge as well as upgrade them to take advantage of those new technologies so that we can maintain a capability edge or regional superiority. We do that today with the Collins class, we’re upgrading the Sonar suite in the Collins class, we’re upgrading the communication systems in the Collins class. We continue to manage any obsolescence that may arise in the Collins class because it was designed back in the 1980s. And we have to make sure that it continues to perform well. Life of type extension for the Collins class looks at these very issues where we will look at updating the diesel engines in the boat as well as the main motor and power control and distribution systems in the first instance. So what I’m saying to you is that we don’t design a vessel, deliver it and expect that that’s the way it will remain throughout its service life. It will be updated. It will be upgraded to ensure that it remains a potent and viable capability for the defence of our nation.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. And you mentioned the Collins class. So let’s go to that. Given the difficulties that have been reported about like for locating enough submariners to man the current Collins class submarines, what’s planned to identify and train enough submariners to man the Attack Class submarines, should they actually be built

[Greg Sammut]

I’ll hand that question to Chief of Navy whose his area of responsibility that falls under

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

Good afternoon Senator, Vice Admiral Michael Noonan, Chief of Navy, with respect to the workforce for our submarine force, we have a growth plan which will allow us to achieve the required manpower to man 12 submarines as the Attack Class come to service.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Can you tell us any particulars about that that would give us confidence without divulging anything secret?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

The submarine force has been enduring record growth over the last five years. I currently have over 800 submariners in the trained force which is an increase of almost 50% of where we were 10 years ago. And we have a separation rate from our submarine force at the moment, which is the lowest of any other trade within the Navy. I need to achieve a growth of approximately 50 submariners a year to achieve our target for the introduction of the cones. And we are well on track.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So could you just tell me the expansion, how much it expanded? Was it 50% since when?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

50% in the last 10 years.

[Malcolm Roberts]

10 years. Could we man all of the Collins class submarines 10 years ago?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

No, we could not.

[Malcolm Roberts]

My final three questions Chair. They’re brief ones, they’re to the minister because they’re matters of policy or opinion. Given minister that the prime minister has just said that the submarine contract will go ahead is this to win votes because of Australian-built content?

[Minister]

Absolutely not, Senator Roberts, as you know and as I think Mr. Sammut has indicated and has been discussed in this committee for some time both during my previous tenure and since. The Australian government and the Australian Defence Organisation, both the ADF and the Defence Organisation itself regard submarines as a vital element of our defence strategy essential to protecting those interests. And we will continue to stand behind the commitment that we have made the partnership that we are invested in and engaging in. We have, as you have noted in passing a very strong policy approach about maximising the Australian industry content, about building submarines here in Australia with Australian steel, with Australian workers. But that aside, Senator, we regard this as a vital element of our strategic approach.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Has the government given… I’ll leave that question. Can Australia afford this in the light of the COVID 19 restrictions from state and federal governments, that recovery will now take enormous effort from our country? Can we still afford it?

[Chair]

How many last questions do you have, Senator Roberts?

[Malcolm Roberts]

One.

[Minister]

Senator, my response to you would be how can we not afford to do it? We must do it in the interests of the factors I put forward to you in response to your previous question and in the context of a COVID-19 recovery, the the impact of the work that we are doing in defence industry and particularly in Naval ship building is absolutely vital in the Australian economy. So I would absolutely respond to you in the affirmative to say we can afford it and we will afford it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So given the risks with technology increasing and improving so much outside the area, as well as inside the area, given that and the cost, and the changing circumstances in Australia isn’t it time to face reality and cancel these particular submarines?

[Minister]

Senator, I don’t agree. And I think Mr. Sammut has done an excellent job of setting out the reasons why including at a highly technical level.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

China take advantage of weak Australian governments

, , , ,

Transcript

 I move:

That the Senate notes that the current dispute between China and Australia is more deep-seated than a trade spat involving wine, coal and timber.

The motion I moved is the opening paragraph in Robert Gottliebsen’s newspaper article in The Australian yesterday, and I’ll quote it again:

When China declared that Australia had been “evil” it suddenly became clear that the dispute between the two nations is more deep-seated than a trade spat involving wine coal, timber etc.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia who is involved in the governance of Australia, I want to focus on Gottliebsen’s meaty fourth paragraph:

From President Xi down, there has been little respect for Australia for a long time and many in China believe we are a foolish country that makes mistakes at almost every turn, led by defence.

He then details serious flaws in the governance of three Defence projects, the submarine ‘shemozzle’, as he calls it, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and the Hunter frigates. We obviously are ‘a foolish country’ based on this, and the obvious point of his article is our shoddy governments over many decades, both Liberal-National and Labor.

People in this country are feeling concerned about the seriously deteriorating state of our country. We have lost our economic sovereignty. We’re losing our national sovereignty. We’re plunging towards catastrophe economically, and dependence with a complete loss of security. People are fed up and, across many communities and industries—and I mean right around the country—people are feeling dispirited, hopeless, confused, aimless, wary, concerned and even fearful, because most can sense our country’s destruction. Yet, 100 years ago Australia was No. 1 in the world in income per person and had the highest GDP—gross domestic product—per person.

There’s a worse aspect beyond economic demise though. Bullies like China prey on those perceived as being weak. Gottliebsen rightly says that, due to poor, and even stupid, decisions, we’re rightly perceived as being weak in defence. Yet he barely scratches the full extent of the deterioration of our security, because our productive capacity has been dismantled, and our economic security has been smashed, destroyed. We are vulnerable. Now, as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, that is what I will discuss, because, like bullies in a schoolyard or in a workplace, China preys on those it perceives as weak or foolish. By the way, when I raise China, I refer to the Chinese Communist Party and not the millions of Australians of Chinese descent now in our country, descendants of those who came during the gold rushes almost two centuries ago, and those who immigrated more recently.

Not only does the Chinese Communist Party assess other nations against China’s values and standards; the Chinese Communist Party assesses our country against our own values, and from that it finds out: Does our government have courage? Does our government have integrity? Do the politicians in this country and this parliament have the strength of character needed to lead a country? I’ve been thinking about this for some years now and I’ve made a list of Australian values: mateship; a fair go; support; loyalty; being fair dinkum; telling the truth; honesty; fairness; freedom to live; freedom of speech; freedom of thought; freedom of belief; freedom of religion; freedom of faith; freedom of interaction; freedom of exchange; democracy; our flag; our nation; family; care; respect for people; respect for community; respect for the law; respect for the environment; making sure government fulfils its three primary roles, which are protecting life, protecting property and protecting freedom, and stays out of everything else; and our Constitution. We value our Constitution, especially competitive federalism, and we value human progress. Australia has led that improvement in progress in the past 150 years. It has been amazing progress, right across the world.

So let’s assess governments against these values and their impact on our productive capacity. Productive capacity depends on many things, but particularly energy costs—the primacy of energy. An ever-decreasing cost of energy has led to 150 years of human progress. Australia has gone from having the world’s lowest electricity prices to having the world’s highest, yet we’re now the world’s largest exporter of energy—gas and coal. China imports a lot of our coal, but the production of coal in their own country is eight times our total production—not just our exports but our total production. They make us look like small producers of coal. They have the largest coal reserves in the world, along with the United States. They use our coal. They’re building steel power plants out of our coal, and they’re building hundreds of coal-fired power stations.

We legislate to use their wind turbines and their solar panels. We subsidise them. It drives up the cost of our electricity, and we pay them for unreliables—their solar and wind generators. We pay them for components of electric vehicles, which we also subsidise. And then we have Chinese companies, affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, owning electricity networks in our major cities. Then we have the Queensland Labor government stealing $1½ billion a year through the generators. All of this destroys jobs and destroys competitiveness.

Then taxpayers pay people, quite often foreigners, to come in and squat on the land, just to get carbon dioxide credits. It’s called carbon dioxide farming. It takes good farmland and destroys it with noxious weeds and feral animals—pests—and then that has to be reclaimed at some later date; who knows when. Then we have Angus Taylor, the Minister for Energy and Emissions, a farmer. He knows that the EPBC Act is hurting him—I’ve had conversations with him—but he just smiles, rolls his eyes and puts up with it. He is a sceptic on climate change—sceptical that we are affecting the climate. He’s been slammed, and he’s now coming back into parliament and driving up electricity prices. Matt Canavan, Barnaby Joyce: strong sceptics in their beliefs. Barnaby Joyce was the Deputy Prime Minister. The Chinese know that. They watch him. They saw him come into cabinet and they saw him run for election in New England, when he moved out of the Senate and into the lower house. And Malcolm Turnbull, to get Mr Joyce elected, showered $400 million of taxpayer funds on unreliable wind power. Then Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce were both in the cabinet, and they suddenly became alarmists, spouting alarm about carbon dioxide.

So I asked Matt Canavan in the Senate one day where his evidence was, and he just slid away from me. Now that he’s out of cabinet and Mr Joyce is out of cabinet, all of a sudden they’re becoming a little bit sceptical again in their words. But the Chinese Communist Party see this and that tells them a lot about the lack of leadership in this country.

The Chinese have their own agreement within the Paris Agreement. It says, ‘We will continue doing whatever we want, continue growing our economy, continue constructing our country, developing our country and putting in place infrastructure, and then in 2030 we may consider something.’ Meanwhile, this parliament in this building has legislated to destroy our economy to comply with Kyoto. That’s not an agreement; that is stupidity and economic suicide. The Chinese Communist Party watches us pay academics to tell lies about climate and to misrepresent the climate science. We even put some of them in charge of or in senior places in the CSIRO and pay them $800,000 a year to destroy our country. Dr Andrew Johnson went from head of the climate research agency department in the CSIRO to become head of the Bureau of Meteorology. Under him and his predecessors, the Bureau of Meteorology has been shown to be concocting the data and misrepresenting temperatures.

We pay people like Ove Hoegh-Gulberg and Ian Chubb, former chief scientists, to destroy the science, to misrepresent the science. In 1975, Whitlam signed an agreement saying we’ll comply with the Lima Declaration to shut down our manufacturing and export it. The following year, Liberal Prime Minister Fraser ratified the deal. In 1992, Paul Keating’s Labor government signed the Rio Declaration, which is about 21st century global governance. Then we had the Kyoto protocol destroying our country, stealing our farmers’ property rights. And now we have the Paris Agreement exporting jobs and shutting manufacturing.

Then the current Prime Minister has the temerity to say, ‘We will fiddle with the industrial relations system to bring back manufacturing.’ How the hell can you bring back manufacturing when you have the highest electricity costs in the world and a big component of manufacturing—the largest component, usually—is the cost of electricity? How the hell can you do it with a tax system that favours multinational companies and lets them off scot-free? How the hell can you do it with overregulation? How the hell can you do it with a lack of water? How the hell can you do it with a lack of infrastructure? The Chinese are watching this and they’re helping us destroy our electricity sector and export even more jobs, because our prices for electricity are going up, businesses are shutting and then the jobs start up in China.

We are now reversing the last 170 years of human progress, because the key to human progress is decreasing the price of energy, which raises productivity, raises wealth, raises the standard of living. That ended in this country 24 years ago. We have ceded governance to the UN: Lima, Kyoto, Rio, Paris and many other agreements. How does this comply with Aussie values? How does it comply with being fair dinkum? Worse, the granddaddy who concocted this climate change rubbish was Maurice Strong. He concocted it when he created and then took over as head of the United Nations Environment Program. He pushed that program, starting from the 1970s, and in the 1980s he ramped it up. In 1988 he formed the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a fraudulent organisation. And the Liberals, Labor, the Nationals and the Greens have fallen for it all. Maurice Strong was a crook. He was wanted by the police in America and died in exile in China. Who’s the beneficiary of all this destruction of Western civilisation? The Chinese government.

That’s what the people in this chamber and the chamber across the hall there have done to this country by blindly following the UN diktats. How does that comply with our values? It doesn’t. It breaks our values. What about water ownership? Destroyed by separating water ownership from property ownership. What about the Murray-Darling Basin and the corruption that is rife? What about the family farms shutting down? What about water projects? What water projects? That’s it; there aren’t any. And yet look at what amazing water projects the Chinese Communist Party has put together to develop its country.

What about infrastructure? Hardly anything built and no plan. The north is exposed without the Bradfield scheme and we see floods destroying Townsville. There is destruction and a waste of water flowing out to sea. We see the state governments joining in. The Labor Party in Queensland has reef regulations which are shutting down agriculture. Vegetation protection legislation is destroying agriculture. Firebreaks aren’t allowed and are being destroyed when farms are under fire. We put animals and fungus ahead of humans.

The Queensland Labor government put a Chinese company in charge of the electoral roll and then there is Queensland local council corruption linked to the Labor state government. This extends well beyond Ipswich and Paul Pisasale; it is systemic and it is widespread. We have foreign banks that were deregulated under John Howard and we saw the result of that through the Hayne royal commission. We see Adani frustrated by both the Liberal-National and Labor governments in Queensland and by the federal government, which was weak. That’s one man from India, which has a booming, growing economy, who wanted to spend $17 billion in our country. He was thwarted for eight years. That’s a blight on us that not even the Chinese can miss—that no-one in the world can miss. We go on and on and on.

I give Senator Rex Patrick credit for moving a motion to get an inquiry into the relationship between China and Australia six times—and I supported him every time. Both the Labor Party and the Liberal-Nationals squashed it. This is what the Chinese are seeing, yet Australians are wanting far more. Australians want leadership. Australians want security, reassurance, confidence, leadership, trust, pride and freedom—a restoration so that we can be No. 1 in the world again. What does Australia need? It needs principled leadership based on values. It needs disciplined leadership based on data and facts instead of ideology paying off donors. It needs honest leadership and strength of character. It’s the simple ability to say: ‘I’m wrong, I’m sorry—can you help me? Please explain.’ We need visionary policies, and that is what will take us back to being No. 1.

/by

Matthias Cormann given millions to jet around Europe – 2SM with Marcus Paul

Transcript

[Marcus] Malcolm good morning.

[Malcolm] Good morning, Marcus. I’m disgusted with that rort I’m bloody annoyed because look, what’s really going on here, mate is it’s not just that he’s got a job that’s being protected. What we’re doing is Mathias Cormann in the Senate, who often answered questions by saying we are fulfilling our global responsibilities.

To hell with the global responsibilities. We have to look after Australian sovereignty. I don’t need him in the OECD bringing back OECD stuff to steal wealth from Australians. I need as Australian parliamentarian to look after Australians.

[Marcus] Yeah, I thought that might have you fired up. And I’m glad I asked the question. You said it much better than what I did. I mean, you, you’ve dealt with this man, and it’s not a personal attack. It’s just the way the system’s set up. And you know, we’ve been talking at length this morning about the disparity, if you like, in opportunities and pay for men and women in our workforce. But I mean, this is just beyond the pail.

It really is and you know, 4,000 odd dollars. Now that’s before staff mind you, up to eight staff, the Prime Minister is apparently providing this former Senator, former Finance Minister with, to try and get him around the world to lobby people. So he gets his prime gig with the OECD, mind you at the same time, he’s going to receive a pretty decent politician salary upon the fact that he’s decided to pull the pin. He’s retired etc. He’s still of working age. I mean, the whole thing is just, it’s a joke.

[Malcolm] Well, it’s actually worse than a joke. It’s theft because the costs that you have just outlined are huge, but Marcus, they are tiny compared to the cost to the Australian people of pushing this globalist agenda. Morrison has appeared to be against the international globalist. But the fact is his behaviours show that he is a globalist.

He said on the 3rd of October, 2019, after we were pushing the fact that the message about the globalist taking over, he came out trying to steal our thunder by saying he is against the unelected, unaccountable, internationalist bureaucrats. He pretended to be against them. He didn’t say the UN, but since then, he’s said that we need to give the World Health Organisation, a UN body increased powers, powers of weapons inspectors, to just go into countries.

He’s just collected an award from Boris Johnson as for fulfilling his global agenda. And Morrison is just pushing policies. I’m tired of the liberal and labour and national parties, pushing policies that are destroying our water in accordance with UN, destroying our energy sector in accordance with the UN Kyoto Protocol, destroying property rights and farmers’ rights to use their own land in accordance with the UN Kyoto Protocol.

Both of these major parties have done that for 30, 40 years. Look at our tariffs look at it that have been smashed and left our companies vulnerable. Look at the taxes that we have paid to the foreigners and multinational companies in this country and 90% of the large companies in this country are owned by foreign owned multinationals, and they paid little or no tax.

[Marcus] That’s right.

[Malcolm] That’s fact. And then we’ve also got people being destroyed in the family law court system, which is a slaughter house of the nation, that’s fact. And that came from the UN as well. We’ve got to start running this country for Australians and let the Australians do the job. Instead of these bustards from overseas, it really fires me up.

[Marcus] Ah, well, I can tell all it’s missing next to the Australian flag behind the Prime Minister is a sign saying, “The Great Reset.”

[Malcolm] Correct. That is what is going on. And it’s just a return to feudalism. We will be surfed, serving the barons and the international barons. We have got one of the wealthiest countries on earth. We are the biggest exporters of energy in that gas and coal in the world, even greater than Middle East countries.

And yet we’re sitting at the crumbs, we’re taking the crumbs off the table now because the wealthy corporations are just taking it. They don’t pay taxes for taking our natural resources. This is ridiculous. They’re stealing it. And we end up poor and we’re taking the crumbs off a rich man’s table when we should be sitting at the bloody table.

[Marcus] All right, the Defence Inquiry has wrapped up the Brereton Report, there’s a whole range of issues. Here, Malcolm, you’d be happy to know that we are speaking to ex-Commando ‘H’ on our programme regularly. He’s outlining things from… And he’s not one of the people who’s been accused of any of the alleged war crimes, but he’s providing us updates on welfare of fellow serving Australians.

And they wanna start a petition to try and get their citations kept rather than taken off them. And also the other issue of course, is the fact that bloody War Memorial now wants to, before anything’s gone through courts before anyone’s been found guilty of anything. The War Memorial is already talking about setting aside a section of that sacred place in IsaLean, Canberra dedicated to the so-called atrocities of war in Afghanistan.

I mean, it’s almost as if these people have been found guilty. Don’t we have a presumption of innocence here, at first?

[Malcolm] Well, of course we do Marcus, and this is really, a really very difficult situation to walk through. You know, our country has a value that you don’t murder people in cold blood. That’s a value that we have to stand up for, whether it’s here or overseas. But we have to be compassionate and understanding that these people were sent overseas, if first of all, they must have a trial and they must have the resources.

Secondly, their generals above them are culpable because there’s no way, if this is true, there’s no way the general did not know this was going on. It’s their responsibility.

And I take it a step further, Marcus, John Howard came back from America, according to Alexander Downer, and when Downer retired, he said that John Howard came back from America after 9/11, and walked into the cabinet and said, “We’re off to Iraq,” no executive council meeting, no cabinet meeting, we’re just doing it on one mans say-so.

And apparently, I don’t know this for a fact, because I’m not educated on this. I haven’t been briefed on it yet, but apparently Afghanistan, we did not declare war. So there were no true terms of engagement. And so what we had, we had women and boys with land mines, with explosive tied to them.

And we also had Afghanis in an American training base and an Australian training base shoot Australians and Americans within. And so this is a war that’s not really a war.

And yet it’s diabolic, a very deceptive. And we went in there, based upon one man and that man later admitted, or his government later admitted, there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, look at what we’re doing with our boys in this country.

So if we can’t uphold murder, but at the same time, you have to be compassionate because we sent these people there, to do our job, and we should have done a better job in looking after them.

[Marcus] Well, well said a lot of people we’ve spoken to, including Commando “H” said that, you know, the situation over there is best described by people who’ve been there rather than armchair critics. And even to be honest, generals who sit in their plush leather chairs in Canberra and direct these men.

Look, the issue obviously is that in relation to the enemy, it’s not an international war as such. It was more a civil war, so war within a country. So whenever they did manage to capture some of these people, Taliban and otherwise, they had to eventually, within a day or two release them, only to be shot at again by the same people that just captured.

I mean, the whole thing really needs a good looking at, and we need to bear in mind that it’s very correct what you say, Malcolm, we don’t condone outright cold-blooded killings, but at the same time, we also need to understand what went on over there, why we were there in the first place.

And the other issue, of course now, comes down to mental health and we know, and we’ve been told by our sources and Commando “H” that, you know, so many men and young women who’ve served overseas and are suffering mental health issues as a result of not only their service, but this inquiry as well.

[Malcolm] Yes, well, very well said. There’s an a Roman general who said that no one who’s been to war can understand what goes on and people who go to war do not come back with the same mental approach. They have enormous burdens mentally and emotionally. So let’s recognise that for start.

So we send them, we bend them, but we don’t mend them very well in this country, but it is good to see that the people have set up a hotline for these servicemen, but, you know, stripping medals from people who have earned that medal through an Act of Valour, it’s just wrong.

These people earned it through an Act of Valour, who knows as a result of the torturous and tough regime of cycling in and out of Afghanistan so quickly and so often, if these people weren’t under enormous pressure and they did something, they shouldn’t have done. That’s if they were guilty, let’s assume some of them were guilty.

Why should we strip the medals of these people when they earned it, earned the medals for doing something to protect other Australians or protect their country, or protect even Afghanistan people? So, and then let us strip them because they’ve cracked under pressure, that’s wrong.

[Marcus] I think so.

[Malcolm] They were given a medal and they deserve to keep it.

[Marcus] All right, let’s talk IR reform, we know March 21 is the date when JobKeeper ends, there are some very big concerns amongst some sectors of our community that as of next, well, March, April, you know, there needs to be an extension of some sort, for JobKeeper what do you make of it all?

[Malcolm] What I make of it is that the Morrison Government would yet, again, fiddle around the edges and not do a good job and make it worse. The Morrison Government is about building facades and not getting on with the job properly. Getting back to basics. We need to rebuild our country. There are several lessons from this COVID–

[Marcus] Pandemic.

[Malcolm] Virus that hit our country. And the primary lesson is that we have destroyed our productive capacity and manufacturing. Even our agricultural sector is being destroyed by unelected international bureaucrats that our governments, labour and liberal had put in place.

That’s the first thing we need to restore manufacturing. Marcus we cannot restore manufacturing and our economic sovereignty, our economic security, unless we address electricity prices. Electricity is the biggest cost, component of manufacturing today, greater than labour.

So we need to do a good job in reforming industrial relations. And I can talk about that in a minute, but we must do it with regard to energy prices, taxation, overregulation from the UN. We must do it with regard to where water and other resources and infrastructure. Without that we’re just playing with this stuff. Now, you know, that I’ve done a lot of work in protecting some miners in the Hunter Valley–

[Marcus] Yes absolutely.

[Malcolm] From exploitation with under the hand of BHP and Chandler MacLeod, but also the CFMEU was involved there because they agreed with the exploitation of workers and enabled it. And I’ve done nothing to protect those workers, which raises an interesting point, could these workers sue the CFMEU because they paid dues to be protected and the CFMEU actually in the Hunter Valley I must add actually did not fulfil their responsibilities?

But look at the corruption of some of the union bosses, the Health Services Union, the AWU, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ union. This shows that our system is wrong. And the Hunter Valley has just brought it home to me just how corrupt our system is, we need to get back to basics because people at work feeling frustrated, hurt, literally crippled, painful, afraid of losing their job.

We are right now got people confused. If someone’s working on the job and wants something clarified, they’ve got to go to a bloody lawyer. It’s actually, that’s some of the advice that the Fair Work Ombudsman has given people. I mean who can afford to go to court our system is completely smashed, I’ve said it before.

People want to know that their job is safe. People want to know that they can be safe at work. People want to know that they’re protected, they’ve got protection for their rights. They want to be supported and be in compliance. They want fairness, they want choice. They want simplicity, understanding.

We’ve got to really rejig the whole of our industrial relations system because it’s not serving the people. It’s serving a few union bosses and a few company bosses, and that’s wrong and it’s serving a hell of a lot of lawyers. We’ve got to completely clean that out and do a good job. Get back to basics, to protect workers and honest employers.

[Marcus] Just finally, Malcolm, you’ve been on fire this morning. Are you gonna get that jab?

[Malcolm] That jab mate, I will get a jab when Alan Joyce takes the jab and I’ll watch him do it.

Look–

[Marcus] He probably will.

[Malcolm] He probably – ridiculous. How do we know the impact–

[Marcus] Well, hang on, just back to that, that comments you’ve just made. You’ll get the job when Alan Joyce does. Well, I believe that Alan Joyce probably will get the jab because of he wants to fly overseas, which you probably will for business on his aircraft. And that’s what he calls them, on my airline.

[Malcolm] Well, he’s become a national test guinea pig by the sound of it then, but maybe that’s his new job. But this is disgraceful because even the International Air Transport Association, IATA has distance itself from Qantas’ compulsory vaccination stance, the Prime Minister has done that too.

It’s certainly how do we know the impact of these viruses, which have been tested in minimal circumstances at the moment, very short term? How do we know the impact on these sort of these vaccines with other drugs, with complimentary medicines? How do we know the long-term impact? This is ridiculous. I’m not gonna take the jab, not until it’s proven.

[Marcus] All right, Malcolm. Great to have you on this morning. You been on fire and I love it. I love the passion and thanks as always. Mate, look after yourself, we’ll chat again soon and all that if you catch up with Mathias, make sure we get the window seat, okay.

[Malcolm] Mate. Yeah, we’ll try and make sure that we stop him bringing his OECD policies into this country. Well, I want Australia to be Australian.

/by

Lest We Forget

Today I honour those men and women who willingly answering the call to duty.

Lest We Forget.

Transcript

The men and women of our Australian Defence Force have a history of willingly answering the call for duty to protect our freedoms and our sovereignty. They do so sometimes at huge personal sacrifice, whether that be leaving their families and loved ones, or putting themselves in harm’s way to ensure the safety of others.

It’s all in a day’s work for our men and women of the armed forces. Our Defence Force personnel and our Aussie veterans are important and respected people who have committed to the defence of Australia in so many ways, in many ways, whether they have been deployed to active conflict, on peacekeeping operations, or have actually served without being deployed.

For some of our defence force personnel and our veterans, the battle, though, goes on long after they have returned from operational deployment. We must remember this at all times. The veteran death toll by suicide since 2001, by the most conservative of measures, is 10 times greater than our losses in Afghanistan.

Today, and every day, we need to remember these Aussies, and we must join to stop these preventable deaths of our servicemen and servicewomen. So, I hope you join with us in cherishing our armed forces and cherishing days like today, and that on days like today, help our younger generations to remember why our soldiers are being honoured and appreciated.

/by

New submarine contract should be cancelled

,

Today I supported a Motion to keep the Collins Class submarine extensive maintenance and upgrade refit program in South Australia rather than have it moved to Western Australia. I also took time to condemn the new contract signed to build 12 new submarines.

This order will cost $200 billions. These submarines will be obsolete before they even get delivered. This money would be better spent supporting our economy as we recover from the COVID19 economic crisis.

Transcript

– Mr. President thank you, I’ll seek leave to make a short statement one minute.

– Leave is granted for one minute.

– Thank you, we supported the original motion, the current sustainment model that supports the Collins class submarines works well in South Australia and it is not warranted to move this to Western Australia.

Of greater significance is the absurdly expensive contract, that the government signed to purchase 12 new submarines over the next 20 years. The current cost of building them with all peripherals is now around $200,000,000,000, $200,000,000,000, has this government gone mad?

In the middle of this pandemic we cannot afford to proceed with this contract. This money will be far better spent to support the Australian recovery from the economic pit, that is caused by this pandemic. By the time these submarines are delivered, they will be obsolete.

A complete waste of money that would be far better spent elsewhere. The cost of $400,000,000 to cancel this contract is a pittance compared with proceeding.

We need to dump this new subs contract.

/by