If I could ask the Defence Minister questions, what might the truthful answers be

An artist’s impression of the of the Royal Australian Navy’s Future submarine. Image supplied

Around the nation, political commentators are, perhaps unfairly, linking the long, medical-induced absence of Defence Minister Linda Reynolds to her reluctance to answer questions on the Brittany Higgins affair. But now that we have played a significant role in forming the Quad alliance with India, the US and Japan, defence strategies are in focus.

Suddenly, people in high places both here and among our partners are realising that the Australian defence department has made serious errors in committing more than $300bn to three highly speculative defence equipment ventures covering aircraft, submarines and frigates. Already one venture, the Joint Strike Fighter /F-35, has fallen well short of its aims.

The department does not want penetrating questions to be directed to Senator Reynolds because in her current pressured situation she might reveal the truth.

Accordingly, they will be greatly relieved if the defence minister does not have to answer until the defence heat has cooled.

So let me dream up the sort of questions that defence people do not want asked and then provide what, in my view, are “truthful” answers to what are now very embarrassing questions.

And it impossible to answer the questions truthfully without revealing the mistakes in defence. For decades it’s been the job of a succession defence ministers to cover up those mistakes.

Question one: Senator Reynolds, you said the Joint Strike Fighter/ F-35 was on time and on budget. Is it not true that it is at least 10 years late with costs many times over the original estimate?

Truthful answer: You are correct but it meets the budgets set this year.

Question two: Will the JSF / F-35 deliver air superiority in our region?

Truthful answer: No, the Russian and Chinese aircraft are superior. Our aircraft have too many unresolved faults which we must pay to be fixed. It is too complex and costly to fly regularly. However, I alert you to the statement by Gen. Hostage, head of the US Air Force’s Air Combat Command. He said that “If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.”

Sadly we do not have the F-22 and production has been halted. Given the new dangers, the F-22 aircraft needs to be brought back to production and modernised. Japan and ourselves must press the US to undertake this task. Meanwhile, we are looking for alternate aircraft which will help but will not give us air superiority.

Question three. Is it true that in calculating Australian content in the submarine development, defence is able to use contracts with Australian registered French companies, who plan to import the parts, to be counted as local fictitious content to rig the figures?

Truthful answer. That is the way the original contract with the French was framed. I have been on leave and the loophole may have been changed but the French have always aimed to maximise French content. If it were to be the case that the clause has not been changed and/or the French have not changed their attitude then the 60 per cent Australian content will be a total fiction.

Question four: Is the “independent” inquiry into the submarine alternatives actually independent?

Truthful answer: Of course not. You don’t have independent inquiries in matters where defence have made up their mind. We have done the right thing and appointed members of the inquiry who have close links with the current strategy. One was closely involved in selecting the French as the winning tender and another was commander of the fleet at the time. We will call them independent and in theory they are, but their colleagues in defence expect them to do their duty and endorse current strategies.

My comment:

The two officers are first class naval people but should never have allowed themselves to be put forward as being independent because they have a terrible conflict of interest.

Question five: Do you agree that we are taking an unprecedented risk in allowing the French to develop a submarine with new technology systems and old batteries aiming for a weapon that will not be fully available for 20 years? The Quad shows we now see danger much earlier.

Truthful answer: I inherited that decision and given the change in regional outlook that’s what keeps me awake at night especially given the huge cost and the fact that we will have limited submarine defence in the next two decades. And in 2040 our submarine maybe outmoded

Question six: Is it true that if we cancel the French contract now the cost is manageable? We could then have a new tender where the French compete with the Swedes and perhaps others.

Truthful answer: Oh wouldn’t that be wonderful and if we do it now the cost is not exorbitant. But politically that’s simply impossible. It might cost us the election.

My comment:

Scott Morrison you desperately need a strong minister in the defence portfolio, who is not merely an apologist for the defence department. You will address the current issues, but once the true situation of the JSF, submarines and frigates becomes understood this will be your legacy.

Footnote: I again emphasise that the “truthful answers” were devised by me and not Senator Reynolds.