Tory Shepherd: National security, not just protectionism

POP the champagne corks. No, really. The fact the Government has committed to building the $50 billion Future Submarines in Adelaide is definitely worth a glass clink and a ‘santé!’

• VICTORY: 12 subs to be built in Adelaide
• Subs will kickstart jobs ‘immediately’
• Defence Minister: Deal secures SA’s high-tech future
• Senator: Why are we still treating SA like a charity?

POP the champagne corks. No, really. There may be some details yet to come, some unanswered questions. All our problems will not be sent to Davy Jones’ Locker.

But the fact the government has committed to building the $50 billion Future Submarines in Adelaide is definitely worth a glass clink and a “santé!”. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was right to declare it a “momentous national endeavour”.

After years of talking about the Future Submarines — from Labor’s inertia to the Abbott Government’s backflip — the project is taking shape.

Australia will have the Shortfin Barracuda, a 4500-tonne evolution of France’s nuclear version. Made with fewer baguette ovens but a tiptop super-quiet pump jet propulsion system.

This is not what will save us; but it’s far from nothing. First of all, there is the positioning of SA at the centre of naval shipbuilding with the promise of ongoing work. There are the spin-off industries; what if an SA company working on a crucial component accidentally discovers perpetual motion?

There’s also a lot to be said for morale; for certainty within the supply chain and comfort to workers at ASC.

Most importantly for South Australians, we will have thousands of jobs.

Mr Turnbull and Premier Jay Weatherill pointed out that these will be the jobs of the future.

“This is a massive step forward in the transformation of the SA economy, to meet our vision for an advanced manufacturing (and) hi-tech manufacturing economy,” Mr Weatherill said.

Importantly for South Australian Liberal MPs, they are more likely to keep their jobs. That was no small factor in the pressure that built on the Federal Government to make this decision.

Hindmarsh MP Matt Williams looked set to lose his seat. Industry Minister Christopher Pyne — who looked absolutely chuffed yesterday — was also in danger. With the threat of South Australian Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, almost no one was safe.

This decision defused much of Labor and Senator Xenophon’s outrage. They are theoretically all in furious agreement, although their jobs now will be to pick holes in what is a yet-to-be-signed deal.

We may never know whether politics trounced policy in making this gargantuan decision — the biggest Defence procurement decision in history.

There certainly was unrelenting pressure from Liberal Senators and MPs; from industry; from the community and from The Advertiser. There was a harmful campaign from Labor attacking the Government for its earlier broken promise.

It’s only natural that with a price tag at $50 billion — and maybe twice that in ongoing sustainment — people want to know all the influencing factors.

Politics is certainly one of them; it almost always is.

But be wary of claims that pit the $50 billion against, say, spending on dental care.

Or that it’s too much in austere (ish) times — like tightening your belt then pigging out on truffled foie gras.

The figure needs context. That’s in turnout dollars. As in, what they’ll cost in the years they’ll be delivered in. The project is slated to run to 2057. Back-of-the-envelope calculation says that means it could be around $30 billion, spread over more than three decades. A much more manageable sum, particularly when you take into account the jobs created and the industry boost.

And when jealous states cry that it’s needless protectionism, they should be reminded that national security alters the equation. If you threw the project to the cheapest bidder, we might have jumped in bed with the Chinese rather than the French. (Probably not, but you get the point).

We are facing increasing threats in our region; threats to our lucrative trade routes and to our security. We need eyes in the skies and under the seas; we need deterrents. If the extensive work Defence has done has led to the decision we need 12, submarines, so be it. The deal is done, and dry economic or jealous critics should put a cork in it.