Mr Snowdon said the soldiers were taking part in an induction course to prepare them to be Reserve soldiers in the Army’s North West Mobile Force (NORFORCE), located throughout the Northern Territory and the northern parts of Western Australia.

Thirty of the soldiers are participating in the Defence Indigenous Development Program (DIDP), which provides trainees with Vocational Education and Training (VET), improved literacy and numeracy skills, and specialised career and lifeskills training.

“The training also includes community services qualifications, first aid, leadership, self esteem, cultural and military training. Encouraging these skills in these men and women has flow on benefits to their families and communities,” Mr Snowdon said.

Training through DIDP, develops and encourages pride and confidence in both traditional culture and the broader Australian culture, while providing skills for a career.

“These soldiers will be given the direction and a great headstart towards becoming role models for young people in their communities. These young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander soldiers are continuing a proud legacy of service dating back more than a century to the Boer War and every conflict Australia has participated in since.

“I am aware of the high regard the DIDP is held within the community and am confident the 2013 participants will further enhance the program’s reputation.

“It is heartening to see these young people prepared to push themselves to learn new skills. I know their families will all be proud of them,” Mr Snowdon said.

The DIDP will be held in at the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education from 27 May to 13 September. DIDP participants will undertake community studies or trade based VET courses.

Media contacts:

Minister Snowdon’s office: Marcus Butler (02) 6277 7820

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY AND E & OE  

DATE:  22 May 2013  

TOPICS: Australia-US Alliance; Oklahoma tornado; Defence White Paper; Afghanistan

VIRGINIA TRIOLI: Now, the Defence Minister Stephen Smith is in the United States for high-level talks with his counterpart Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Australia’s Defence White Paper and the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan were on the agenda. The Defence Minister has been in the US for the past week and has described the Oklahoma tornado as a terrible tragedy.

He told News Breakfast a short time ago he says that there’s Australian military personnel on the ground there.

STEPHEN SMITH: Yes, we’ve got a couple of Defence Force personnel at a place called Fort Sill which is an artillery training institution. We’ve got two Defence Force personnel there. They’re both safe and their families are safe, so we’re very pleased and relieved about that. The ongoing advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and is that no Australians have been caught up in it.

Certainly, all Defence personnel are safe, but it’s a terrible tragedy and really, from an Australian point of view, the ferocity of it just takes you aback, and the first thing I did in my meeting with Defense Secretary Hagel was to relay our condolences and that our thoughts are with them on what is a terrible tragedy.

VIRGINIA TRIOLI: You’ve been over there in the United States having some high-level briefings there and of course talking about the newly-released White Paper. What queries did the Secretary of Defence have about that White Paper?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, he was pleased. He thought it was a good strategic document. It underpinned some of United States’ thinking. It also reflected the importance of the alliance that we have, a military alliance that’s served us well for more than 60 years, and I also indicated to him that in the Budget following the White Paper we had a modest increase in defence spending. So in some respects he was quite envious of that because the United States is facing huge fiscal difficulties with the sequestration issue, so he was pleased we were able to get a small respite from our own financial circumstances.

But in the end we both agreed that defence spending at a time of fiscal restraint is about priorities and both of us are making the work that we do together, particularly from the United States’ perspective, the so-called rebalance into the Indo-Pacific, they’re making that a priority and we welcome that very much.

VIRGINIA TRIOLI: Minister, in discussing Australia’s draw-down from Afghanistan with the United States, is there anything that the two countries can look at together with a critical eye and have faith and confidence that the Afghanistan forces, security forces there, are in any fit state to be able to take that responsibility over and keep some sort of stability?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, we’re both of the view that the Afghan National Security Forces are improving every day in terms of their capacity. The Afghan Security Forces, both army and local and national police, will be some 300,000 strong. We believe that they will be in a position to command and effect security over the vast bulk of Afghanistan, particularly the population centres, whether that’s Kabul or the other population centres in the provinces. Afghanistan has been a country where, since inception, there has been limited central or provincial authority in the sparsely-populated outlying districts or areas, but we believe that as we go to transition at the end of 2014 that the Afghan National Security Forces will be in a position to maintain security.

But we want to continue to see the international community give them support, both the Security Forces and the other institutions of state, give them support, and that’s why Australia has said that we will make a financial contribution to the ongoing resources of the Afghan National Army, but also continue to play a role in training, officer training, for example, and we’ve also said that if there’s an appropriate mandate for a special forces contribution, whether that’s counter-terrorism or training, then we would be open to that as well.

VIRGINIA TRIOLI: Stephen Smith speaking to us a short time ago. 

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY AND E & OE  

DATE:  22 May 2013 

TOPICS: Oklahoma tornado; Australia-US Alliance; Afghanistan; Defence White Paper; Same-sex marriage

 
KIERAN GILBERT:      Minister, thank you very much for joining us. First of all, the Oklahoma, devastating tornado there. This is obviously dominating the thoughts and attention of the Obama administration.

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, the first thing I did in my meeting with Secretary of Defense Hagel was to express our condolences. It’s a terrible tragedy. These sorts of tornadoes and hurricanes are not what we experience in Australia, so the images have been very disturbing and quite shocking, from our perspective. Fortunately, the loss of life has been revised downwards. That’s good. At one stage we were looking at between 90 and 100, and because we’ve got Australians throughout the United States, I can again confirm that DFAT advises that no Australians have been caught up in this tragedy.

We’ve also got a couple of Defence officials who work in an area about 80 kilometres or 80 miles south of where the tornado hit. They work in an artillery training school as part of our contingent in the United States. Fortunately, they and their families are safe, so I can also confirm that none of our Defence Force personnel who are here in the United States have been caught up. So that’s good news from an Australian perspective, but a tragedy so far as United States is concerned, and we’ve relayed those views to Secretary Hagel and the other United States officials that we’ve met today.

KIERAN GILBERT:      You’ve mentioned you’ve held your first talks with Secretary Chuck Hagel. The draw-down in Afghanistan was obviously discussed. Is there any more detail, can you be any more definitive, as to what Australia’s role might be post-2014?

STEPHEN SMITH:      No. I’ve repeated the comment or the undertaking that the Prime Minister and I have made, which is we will make a post-2014 contribution, certainly in the training area. We’ll do some officer training. I’ve also, again, made it clear that, if there’s an appropriate mandate, Australia will make a special forces contribution, whether that’s a training contribution or counter-terrorism.

But the United States is still working its way through the – what we would call the Status of Forces agreement with Afghanistan, what Afghanistan calls a bilateral security arrangement, so it’ll be some more time yet before that is finalised. And officials indicated that the United States continues to work its way through the drawn-down of United States troops and how many United States personnel will be left behind after 2014.

But I continued to make the point to Secretary Hagel and his officials that, if there is an appropriate mandate, that we would make a contribution so far as special forces is concerned, because we see that as being a good way, not just of keeping our cooperation going with the United States, but also a substantial contribution to help prevent Afghanistan again becoming a breeding ground or a safe haven for international terrorists.

KIERAN GILBERT:      You obviously also looked at the US rebalance to the Indian-Pacific region. How much focus does the United States have on recent tensions between China and Japan over the Senkaku islands, and also, obviously, a great deal of focus on the recent missile launches on the Korean Peninsula?

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, we discussed all of those issues. Firstly, I took Secretary Hagel and other officials through our White Paper, the notion of the Indo-Pacific and what I also described, in a sense with my tongue in my cheek, an area that now goes from Hollywood to Bollywood. So we’re now looking at that area as a strategic arc, and United States officials agree with that depiction.

We dealt with an array of issues, the United States officials and Secretary Hagel making it clear to me that President Obama has indicated that, irrespective of the financial difficulties that they face through sequestration, they will continue their rebalance. I indicated that we had a modest increase in our defence budget following the White Paper, and we will assuredly continue the work we’re doing with the United States, whether that’s marines in Darwin or enhanced aerial access.

In terms of some of the potential issues of concern, yes we spoke about the provocation we see in North Korea, and so far as the South China Sea and East China Sea are concerned, both the United States and Australia, without wishing to speak on behalf of the United States, want to see those issues resolved amicably, in accordance with international law and the law of the sea and we don’t want to see those maritime or territorial disputes become cause for concern.

So we can – we discussed all of those issues but, most importantly, we discussed the underpinnings of Australia’s ongoing security and strategic arrangements, which is our alliance with the United States, and I think both parties agree that we’re at a higher practical cooperation level than at any time since World War II, and that’s a very good thing, and that will continue despite whatever fiscal difficulties the United States or Australia might [inaudible] in the near future.

KIERAN GILBERT:      The White Paper was fairly positive that Australia could manage the US and China relations concurrently, but obviously there are risks, and one of them is a flare-up between China and Japan. We’ve seen it intermittently over recent months. How real is that risk, and is the pentagon taking it seriously?

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, the United States made it clear to me, through Secretary Hagel and other officials, that the strategic analysis that we put forward in the White Paper, they agree with. They also agree with the view that the most important part of the strategic environment at the moment is making sure that there’s a positive and constructive bilateral relationship between Australia and the United States, and that – between China and the United States, and that China and the United States need to grow the political, strategic, defence and military side of their relationship. They’ve got a highly-developed economic relationship, but we need to grow the strategic and political and military and defence relationship, and we welcomed very much President Obama’s announcement that he’d invited Chinese President Xi to California for a couple of days of informal talks.

It’s that sort of initiative which will help grow that part of the relationship, but all of us understand that, where there are territorial or maritime disputes, that we need to make sure that the countries concerned and the region deals with those matters calmly and in accordance with international law and the law of the sea and both Australia and United States continue to urge China and Japan and other parties, other countries who are involved in territorial and maritime disputes, whether that’s the Philippines or Vietnam, to resolve these matters amicably so that they don’t become causes of concern or causes of possible miscalculation or misjudgement.

KIERAN GILBERT:      And Mr Smith, finally, on a different issue, the gay marriage debate has again be reignited by some comments by Kevin Rudd who’s changed his position. But Penny Wong – I’m going to get your thoughts on this. She’s accused the conservative Australian Christian Lobby of bigotry, of pedalling prejudice by their suggestion that same-sex marriage would create another Stolen Generation. What do you make of that?

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, I think in this area I regard it as a matter of conscience, and if it’s a matter of conscience it’s important that everyone respects everyone else’s view.  I announced in the run-up to the 2011 ALP national conference back in December 2011 that I’d changed my mind on this matter. Six or so months ago I voted for the Private Member’s bill to allow gay marriage. That was resoundingly defeated on the floor of the House. Kevin Rudd voted against that at the time. He’s indicated a change of position. We all come to our views on conscience matters at different times in different ways for different reasons.

The most important thing in this area is that people respect other people’s views and, from time to time when that doesn’t occur, you see the debate descend, and I don’t think that we should see that occurring in these issues and other conscience issues. I think, in very many respects, the most important thing is to simply accept that this will be an area where people have different views, strongly and firmly held, and they should be respected for their own view rather than other people seeking to impose a view upon them.

KIERAN GILBERT:      Defence Minister Stephen Smith joining us from Washington this morning. Thanks so much for that.

STEPHEN SMITH:      Thanks Kieran. Thanks very much.

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY AND E & OE  

DATE:  21 May 2013  

TOPICS: Australia-US Alliance; South Pacific Defence Ministers’ Meeting. 

JIM MIDDLETON: The United States may be shifting its strategic focus from the Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific. As its decade-long military presence in Afghanistan winds down, Australia’s again looking at its own backyard. The recent Defence White Paper focuses on what is termed the Indo-Pacific arc. Australia’s Defence Minister is Stephen Smith, and he’s in Washington for talks with his US counterpart Chuck Hagel. Minister, welcome to the program. 

STEPHEN SMITH: A pleasure, Jim. 

JIM MIDDLETON: Big day in Washington. What are the priorities for you for this particular visit? 

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, we’ll be talking about the absolute importance of the alliance relationship, both to Australia and to the United States, how we’ve enhanced our practical cooperation in the last few years, rotating marines through Darwin and the prospect of a greater enhanced aerial access to our Northern Australian airports and, down the track, greater naval access to our Indian Ocean port in Western Australia, HMAS Stirling.  

It’s a good chance to catch up, the first time that Secretary Hagel and I have met in person, although we’ve spoken over the phone, and also a good chance for me to take United States officials, including the Secretary, through our Defence White Paper and the recent Budget. 

JIM MIDDLETON: President Obama recently announced plans to boost total US spending, and I stress total, in the Asia-Pacific by around seven per cent. That’s quite a jump, especially for a country whose economy’s still struggling. Do you detect any concern in Washington that the US is still shouldering so much of the load in what is an increasingly important strategic area? 

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, US officials were pleased that in the recent Australian Budget we were able to get a modest increase in defence spending. Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, comparable countries have all been facing difficulties on defence spending, and here the talk of the town when it comes to defence spending is sequestration. 

But we’ve made it clear that we, over the last two years, have made sure we’ve quarantined from any fiscal restraint our overseas operations, in particular Afghanistan, but also our capacity to continue to engage with our alliance partner in our region. And the President and officials have made it clear that despite sequestration and despite US fiscal difficulty, they don’t want to do anything to diminish the so-called rebalance, and that’s an unambiguously good thing. 

JIM MIDDLETON: You’ve been talking for some time about the significance of the Indo-Pacific arc. How important is it now for Australia to focus its resources on the growing strategic issues within the region, questions like the growing maritime presence and interest of China in the Indian Ocean, for example? 

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, the White Paper makes it absolutely clear that, in Australian strategic terms, we’ve entered the Indo-Pacific into the strategic lexicon. The arc strictly stretches from the United States Pacific Coastline to the Indian Ocean – as one [indistinct] has put it to me, from Hollywood to Bollywood, and it reflects that – the fact that not only do we see now two great powers, the United States and China, but down the track we’ll see three great powers – United States, China and India, and the key to ongoing prosperity and stability is to make sure that the individual bilateral relationships between those three countries are productive and they have good relations, not just economically but also politically, strategically, and on the military-to-military and defence-to-defence side. 

So it just reflects the fact that economic weight, strategic weight, military weight, political and strategic importance and influence, is moving to our part of the world and, from Australia’s perspective, the White Paper also makes it clear that whilst we obviously have a keen interest in the whole swathe of the Indo-Pacific, our immediate area of responsibility and operation is the South Pacific and Timor-Leste and also South East Asia, and that’s with the draw-down from Afghanistan which, of course, has also been the subject of discussions over here.  

With the draw-down from Afghanistan, we’ve got the chance now to enhance the exercise the exercise, the training, and our collaboration with countries in the South Pacific and South East Asia, and that’ll be very important to us as we go forward. 

JIM MIDDLETON: Speaking of the South Pacific, before this US visit you met Pacific Defence Ministers in Tonga. Isn’t that a tacit and perhaps overdue admission of the importance of addressing the growing influence and power of China within the Pacific, which is also one of the underpinnings, I think, of the White Paper too? 

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I saw that – I’ve seen that reference. I think it’s overstated. I went to Tonga, together with my New Zealand, my Papua New Guinea colleagues. We sat down and it’s the first time that Defence Ministers in the South Pacific, Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, Papua New Guinea – we also invited Chile, which is a Pacific country, and also France because of its interest in the Pacific itself, and met formally for the first time.  

I think it really reflects that, having spent more than 10 years with overseas operations in Afghanistan, the high tempo in Afghanistan and peace stabilisation missions in the Solomon Islands and in Timor-Leste itself, it was a chance to go back, in a sense, to home base. And so we’ve agreed that we’ll meet annually as South Pacific Defence Ministers.  

It’s – again, some people interpret some or all or everything of what we do as aimed at China. It’s not. China is entitled to pursue its interests in the Pacific, just as entitled to pursue its interests in the Indo-Pacific generally. 

JIM MIDDLETON: Better let you get on with it, Minister. Thank you very much. 

STEPHEN SMITH: Thanks Jim, thanks very much. 

JIM MIDDLETON: Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith in Washington.

My visit was a timely opportunity to reaffirm the strength of Australia’s close partnership with the United States, following the release of the 2013 Defence White Paper. 

The Defence White Paper underlines the fact that Australia’s Alliance with the United States continues to be the bedrock of Australia’s defence, security and strategic arrangements.

While in Washington, I had my first official bilateral meeting with United States Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel. 

We reflected on the strength of our Alliance relationship and the importance of our enhanced practical cooperation, including in new and emerging security challenges, such as space and cyber.

We exchanged views on the geopolitical changes occurring in the Indo-Pacific and the opportunities presented by the US rebalance to the region for greater regional cooperation and capacity.

I discussed with Secretary Hagel the progress to date in implementing the force posture initiatives agreed by Prime Minister Gillard and President Obama in November 2011, involving six month rotational deployments of United States Marine Corps personnel to northern Australia and increased rotations of US Air Force aircraft through northern Australia. We noted progress on the agreement at the AUSMIN consultations in Perth last year to undertake a study into enhanced naval cooperation, including through HMAS Stirling.

Secretary Hagel and I discussed the drawdown of operations in Afghanistan, transition to Afghan-led security responsibility and the international community’s post-2014 commitment. 

We also discussed progress in key acquisition programs, including the Joint Strike Fighter and our Defence industry cooperation through the recently brought into effect Australia-US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty.

Secretary Hagel and I discussed events in the Middle East and Africa.

I met the Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan, the Director of the National Security Agency and Commander United States Cyber Command General Keith Alexander, the Director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency Letitia Long and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Mike Vickers.

We discussed longstanding intelligence cooperation between Australia and the United States.

I discussed Afghanistan with Lieutenant General (ret) Doug Lute, the Assistant to the President and Coordinator for South Asia and Ambassador James Dobbins, the US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I discussed progress and Australian industry involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program with the Program Executive Officer for the Joint Strike Fighter, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan and Mr Orlando Carvahlo, Executive Vice President (Aeronautics), Lockheed Martin.

I met with Senator Jim Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the US Senate Armed Services Committee.

I also laid a wreath at the Arlington National Cemetery, the final resting place for over 236,000 United States veterans and their families.

My visit to Washington followed on from my visit to the United Nations in New York.

During my visit I will meet with Minister for Defence, Dr Fabian Pok, to discuss how Australia and Papua New Guinea can consolidate and build on our successes, as well as identify opportunities for enhanced future defence engagement. I will also confirm Australia’s commitment to the Pacific Maritime Security Program, which is designed to strengthen regional capability in maritime security and fisheries protection. 

Australia and Papua New Guinea are longstanding and natural defence partners and our close bilateral defence relationship was strengthened recently with the signing of a Defence Cooperation Arrangement between Prime Minister Peter O’Neill and Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The signing of the Arrangement reflects the evolution of our bilateral defence relationship, and provides a practical set of principles to guide our future cooperation under the Defence Cooperation Program (DCP), our largest with any country. In the coming financial year, we will be spending approximately $7 million more than we have in the current year on our DCP with PNG, at about $27 million.

 I will also call on Commander Papua New Guinea Defence Force, Brigadier General Francis Agwi, and Secretary of Defence Mr John Porti, to emphasise our continued support to the longstanding and mutually beneficial DCP. We will discuss the range of current and future security concerns facing our region, and examine avenues where our respective defence forces can work cooperatively and collaboratively to ensure the security of the Pacific. 

As part of my visit, I will also walk a section of the Kokoda Track from Ower’s Corner to Goldie River in order to honour the Australians, Papua New Guineans and others who died during the Pacific Campaign of World War II. 

Media contacts:

Senator Feeney’s office: Jeffrey von Drehnen 0477 348 476

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

I spoke at the United Nations Security Council Arria Formula Meeting on Implementing the UN Security Council’s Women, Peace and Security agenda. The Forum was co hosted by Australia.

I outlined the steps Australia had taken to help implement United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 to address the disproportionate adverse effect conflict has on women and girls.

This includes preventing and addressing sexual violence; mainstreaming a gender perspective across its missions; and working to ensure women’s full and effective participation in conflict prevention, resolution, and post-conflict peacebuilding.

I met with United Nations Deputy Secretary-General, Mr Jan Eliasson, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous, Military Adviser for Peacekeeping Operations Lieutenant General Babacar Gaye and Assistant Secretary General for Field Support Anthony Banbury. I was accompanied by Australia’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations Gary Quinlan.

These meetings provided an opportunity to discuss issues on the United Nations Security Council’s agenda, in particular Syria and Mali. We also discussed Australia’s ongoing support to United Nations peacekeeping.

Australia has been an active contributor to United Nations peacekeeping for over 65 years and continues to support the United Nations through operation contributions, financial support, and doctrinal and training assistance.

I met with Executive Director of UNICEF, Tony Lake.

I also visited the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, and paid tribute to the nearly 3000 people, including 10 Australians, who died in the terror attacks of 11 September 2001.

I now travel to Washington for meetings with US officials commencing Sunday 19 May. On Tuesday 21 May I conduct formal bilateral discussions with US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

Media contacts:

Minister Smith’s office: Sacha Fenton 0467 784 528

Defence Media Operations: (02) 6127 1999

CEA Technologies Pty Ltd is a Canberra-based company whose world leading technology CEAFAR radar is being fitted to the ANZAC Class Frigates of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) as part of the ANZAC Class Anti-Ship Missile Defence Upgrade project. 

“This tender is for the development of radar systems based on the CEAFAR radar which could support future naval acquisitions such as the Royal Australian Navy’s Future Frigates through Project SEA 5000,” Minister for Defence Materiel Dr Mike Kelly AM MP said. 

“The initial part of this investment is anticipated to be in the order of $4 million dollars.” 

The CEAFAR radar is a focus of the Phased Array Radar element of the High Frequency and Phased Array Radar Priority Industry Capability (PIC). 

The development of a High Power Phased Array Radar based on the CEAFAR radar system will build on the already substantial investment made by the Australian Government in the domestic radar-related industrial research and development and de-risk radar solutions for the Future Frigates.

Media contacts:

Minister Kelly’s office: Robbie Rynehart (02) 6277 7730 or 0459 810 654

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

by 

Stephen Smith MP 

Minister for Defence 

at the 

Arria Formula Meeting

Hosted by Australia and Guatemala 

on 

“Implementing the UN Security Council’s women, peace & security agenda  

United Nations 

New York 

17 May 2013

** Check against delivery**

Thank you Ambassador Rosenthal.

I am very pleased to join you, Security Council members, civil society organisations, UN agencies and other distinguished guests and panelists today. 

I join in thanking Togo as President of the Council for its commitment to this issue, as well as the panelists for participating in what will no doubt be a good discussion, learning from the experience of those actually in the field. 

I also thank Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Affairs Herve Ladsous for his contribution as the Head of the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Affairs. 

Herve is a highly experienced and widely respected French diplomat who started his career as a young diplomat with a posting to Australia in the 1980s. 

Furthering the effective implementation of the UN Security Council’s Women, Peace and Security agenda is a priority for Australia. 

Since the Security Council adopted resolution 1325 in 2000, the UN has been charged with implementing a broad agenda to address the disproportionate adverse effect that armed conflict has on women and girls. 

This includes preventing and addressing sexual violence and working to ensure women’s full and effective participation in conflict prevention, resolution, and post-conflict peacebuilding.

 Australia has been a strong supporter of Security Council Resolution 1325, on Women, Peace and Security, since its adoption in 2010. 

Women are too frequently the victims of appalling atrocities in conflict situations. Evidence shows that violence against women escalates during conflict and remains at high levels in post-conflict situations. 

Sexual violence is now globally recognised as a tactic of war, and is considered a war crime. 

Women in war-affected countries often bear the highest costs of war – they can be destroyed physically, psychologically, economically and socially. 

But women also play a key role in resolving conflict, and are able to lay the foundation for peace and rebuilding their communities in the aftermath of war. 

Resolution 1325 was the first to link women’s experiences of conflict to the international peace and security agenda. 

Australia’s international support of the Resolution 1325 since 2000 has included increasing women’s participation in peace building and rebuilding communities. 

Australia has also supported training for United Nations Peacekeepers in how to protect women from sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations. 

We have helped develop best practice scenario-based training materials to be used in pre-deployment and in-country training programs for military peace keepers. 

In addition, the Australian Government has developed a national action plan to better implement the principles of Resolution 1325, including the full participation of women in peace processes, and the protection of women and girls. 

The plan comprehensively draws together our efforts to support Resolution 1325. It will also build on the excellent work done by our defence personnel and Federal Police to make women and children safer in war-affected regions around the world. 

The UN’s peacekeeping missions are at the forefront of implementing this mandate. The UN has made important strides in these efforts through gender and women protection advisers. 

Australia has seen these efforts firsthand through our currently deployed peacekeepers, rebuilding in the Middle East, South Sudan and Cyprus. 

We have also seen how critical the early participation of women is to achieving enduring peace through our regional experiences in Bougainville, Timor-Leste and Solomon Islands. 

The need for a central role for women from community-level peacemaking, to key partners in peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts, is clear. 

In the Solomon Islands, as part of the Regional Assistance Mission (RAMSI), Australia supported the work of a gender advisor to provide advice across the breadth of RAMSI programs and counterpart government agencies. 

This included work to remove barriers inhibiting women’s participation and representation in Government, and strengthening organisations to foster women’s leadership development through civil society. 

In Timor-Leste, the Australian Federal Police provided training to the Timorese police force on gender-based violence. 

We have also learnt that cultural settings within defence forces themselves are critical to the effective implementation of a gender mandate. 

Comprehensive gender awareness training is one way to further this, but women’s participation in the military is also critical. 

Within Australia, the participation of women in the Australian Defence Force is essential. 

Women have a proud history in the Australian Defence Force. 

The first women to serve in Defence were those in the New South Wales Army Nursing Service, which was established in 1899. 

Army nurses subsequently served in the Boer War in 1901 and the Australian Army Nursing Reserve was created in 1902. 

Women have served in every major conflict Australia has been involved in. 

Today, women represent 14 per cent of personnel in the Australian Defence Force. 

However, the percentage of women in the Australian Defence Force has increased by only two per cent over the past 20 years. 

This progress is far too slow and is very much out of step with other relevant industries, where women’s representation has been steadily increasing. 

It is critical for the future of the Australian Defence Force that we address this recruitment challenge. 

In April 2011, the Australian Government announced the opening up of all roles in the Australian Defence Force to women, including combat roles, on the basis that determination for suitability for roles in the Australian Defence Force should be based on physical and intellectual ability, not gender. 

Prior to this announcement, women were eligible to serve in 93 per cent of employment categories. 

Roles to be open in the future to women from which women were previously excluded include: Navy Clearance Divers, Mine Clearance Diver Officers, Air Force Airfield Defence Guards, Army Infantry and Armoured Corps, Army Artillery roles, Explosive Ordnance Disposal and Combat Engineer Squadrons and Special Forces. 

The Australian Government is also progressing important cultural reforms in Defence to address ongoing concern in relation to failure to meet appropriate standards of conduct. 

This includes the treatment of women in the Australian Defence Force and in Defence generally following reviews into the treatment of women in Defence conducted by the Australian Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Elizabeth Broderick. 

In March last year, the Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley and I released the comprehensive Defence reform program which outlines how these reforms will be implemented: Pathway to Change: Evolving Defence Culture. 

Internationally, Australia has supported the development of training tools and an analytical inventory for peacekeepers on addressing conflict-related sexual violence. 

As the Council seeks to address the many complex and ongoing security challenges before it, including in Mali, Syria and the Democratic Republic of Congo, it is critical that we ensure strong gender mandates are included early, and implemented effectively. 

The breadth of the women, peace and security mandate entrusted by the Council is one that Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and other UN agencies have been making strong progress in implementing. 

I look forward to today’s meeting building greater understanding of the achievements made in this regard and ways to address the challenges that remain. 

Thank you.

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY AND E & OE  

TOPICS: Defence Trade Control Treaty; Afghanistan; 2013 Defence White Paper

DATE:  16 May 2013 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Thanks very much for coming along this morning. We’re very pleased to exchange diplomatic notes to bring the Defence Trade Treaty between United States and Australia into effect. This is a most significant treaty. We’ve been working at this, as alliance partners, for a number of years, but the beneficial effects that this will bring to Australia and United States and our Alliance and our respective defence industries are deeply significant. Australia will be only the second country, following the United Kingdom, which has such a Defence Trade Treaty with the United States, and given our alliance, given our enhanced practical cooperation, given the need for interoperability and cooperation, this is a significant development, a significant achievement, and a significant new treaty brought into effect.            

Ambassador Bleich has worked very hard in his time as Ambassador to bring us to this point in time, so Jeffrey, thanks very much for your personal work, and this is a very good day for Australia and a very good day for the United States. 

JEFFREY BLEICH:      Minister, thank you very much and, as usual, the Minister said it better than I could. But I will say it again anyway, which is that this is a very significant treaty, not only from Australia’s point of view but from the United States’ point of view. It’s a reflection of the extraordinarily deep trust between our two nations, as the Minister said.            

There are only two of these in the world, and so this is a very significant action by both of our countries, in reflection of the fact that we want to maintain the interoperability that we have, and also to ensure that, going forward, Australian companies have the ability to bid on any US contract, can bid with others. They will be able to share information in a much more intimate and collaborative way, and I think it will make both our nations stronger and more efficient, more flexible and more nimble in the coming decades.  

STEPHEN SMITH:      Ambassador, thank you very much. Now, we’re in the Cabinet ante-room, so doorstops are not the order of the day, but we’ll take a couple of questions.            

But first, can I just indicate that tonight I’ll leave Australia to travel to the United States. From memory, this will be my fifth visit to the United States as Defence Minister. I’ll travel both to New York, where I’ll have meetings in United Nations about Australia’s peacekeeping role, which, given our membership now to Security Council, are deeply significant, and then travel to Washington for meetings in Washington, in particular my first meeting with new United States Secretary for Defense Chuck Hagel. And I’ll be joined on that with the Secretary to the Department Dennis Richardson and the Chief of the Defence Force General Hurley. I’m also pleased that Ambassador Bleich will also be travelling from Canberra to join Defence Secretary Hagel for the purposes of our formal bilateral.            

So this will be good news that both of us can also take to Washington. But we’re happy to do a couple of questions. 

JOURNALIST:  Minister, can you tell us what practical benefits this treaty will provide to Australia’s defence? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, instead of the defence industry having to apply on every single occasion that they want to do a development with the United States, instead of having to apply every single occasion to get a license, to get a capacity to export, to get the capacity to collaborate, once a general permission, a general authority has been given, then that’s it. So you don’t have to go back to the well on successive occasions, and the Congress regulation so far as defence trade from the United States is concerned, are very rigorous, and to deal through that on every single occasion that you want to develop a project is time consuming.            

So if we have a global authorisation for a particular approved party or a company, but approved party is the terminology in the treaty and the legislation, then it means you’re not bound by those restrictions and those requirements every single time you want to progress a project.  

JEFFREY BLEICH:      That’s precisely right. It’s very streamlined, much more efficient process, and will allow us to work together far more quickly with less red tape. 

JOURNALIST:  While it clearly cuts through a lot of red tape and is very welcome, I gather from the Minister [indistinct] for that reason, but also doesn’t it also – there have been concerns raised that it actually creates red tape in enforcing companies that want to become involved in defence work with the United States to meet much more rigorous security requirements and limit the number of nationalities that could work for a company. Is that correct, or is that [indistinct]? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      These issues were raised in the course of the transmission of our legislation through the Parliament. Our legislation is expected to come into effect in early June, on 6 June, and there are a range of small- and medium-sized companies who raised these issues. There were also a range of universities or science and research and development companies who raised these concerns, and we put in place a very rigorous consultation mechanism, headed up by the Chief Defence Scientist, but also by the Government’s Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, to make sure that all of those concerns were addressed.         

But the ultimate response to that is that, in the end, once you’ve got your general approval, you don’t have to do it every time you front up.            

And the comments you’ve made reflect the very stringent requirements that the Congress applies to United States Defence Trade and to dealing with United States Defence industry capability. So once you get through the first hurdle, you’re essentially set up to then proceed on a range of projects, on a range of capabilities. 

JOURNALIST:  Why has this taken six years? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, because it’s a treaty. We signed up the treaty, from memory, in 2007. In some respects in this area the easiest thing in the world to do is the general agreement. We then had to get legislation through the Congress, and we had to get legislation through our own Parliament. And it has taken a considerable period, but it has been well worth the effort, and the benefits which will flow, as the Ambassador and I have both said, will be significant.         

And the fact that we join the United Kingdom as the only other country with such an arrangement reflects the seriousness with which the Congress deals with these matters, but also reflects the high threshold that the Congress requires.          

So, yes, it’s taken a fair bit of time. I can remember as Foreign Minister, making representations to all concerned about the need to progress this, as the Ambassador himself has done. In the end, we should mark on the result, not the process, and the result is a significant one for Australia, for Australian Defence industry and for Australian Defence. 

JEFFREY BLEICH:      I would just add that there was no precedent for this treaty, there was nothing else like it. And so we were putting both the United States Senate, and the Parliament here, in some uncharted territory and trying to make sure that they had legislation that they were comfortable with, and that takes a little bit more time.            

In addition because the UK was also interested in having this type of an agreement, we worked together to reconcile those agreements among the three nations. So the US agreement with the UK is consistent with the US agreement with Australia. That takes a little bit of time as well. But ultimately what you want is a very good document that you can all live with for the long-term, and that’s what we’ve accomplished. 

JOURNALIST:  On your update on Afghanistan, you raised concerns about the treatment of detainees by Afghan forces, specifically what are those concerns? And given that the ANA is increasingly taking the lead in Afghanistan, are you concerned that we may see problems continuing on as they continue to take more of the control? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well we take our responsibilities very, very seriously, as you would expect and I’ve made the point repeatedly that Australia and the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan conduct themselves in accordance with our international and domestic legal requirements. We comply with not just the laws of armed conflict in a serious way, but also with humanitarian laws.         

So we have a very rigorous regime in place so far as our detention management and framework is concerned. But you’re quite right, as transition occurs, we will be detaining less Afghans, that’s occurred already because we are not out there in the frontline, that role has now been taken by the Afghan National Army, Fourth Brigade Kandaks. We are of course still out there with our Special Forces, and so we are continuing to detain some suspected insurgents, but those numbers are decreasing as you’d expect as transition occurs.         

And I’ve made the point today that our sorting facility, our initial sorting facility, in Tarin Kot will close as the main base in Tarin Kot closes. So the responsibility shifts to the Afghan authorities.         

In addition to making sure that any complaint that we receive about our own conduct is exhaustively investigated, if we receive a complaint about Afghan authorities, or any of our other partners, we put that into the system. And I think the most significant announcement today in my report was our suspension of the transfer of detainees to the National Director of Security facility in Tarin Kot. That was because we received what we regarded as significant complaints of mistreatment, ill treatment, treatment below the standard which should be afforded.         

And in all of our discussions with Afghan authorities, including my own discussions with Foreign Minister Rassoul on his recent trip here, we made the point that part of our collaboration with Afghan authorities has to include respect for the rule of law and respect for humanitarian principles, and that is part of the training and the mentoring that we have done in Afghanistan, and we will continue to do that. 

JOURNALIST:  And what about those reports of quote humiliating search of prisoners by the ADF? Is it acceptable those searches have gone on? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      I’ve seen those reports and I’ve also gone through some of the materials that were handed over under Freedom of Information legislation and I’m not complaining about that, that’s part of our system. But part of the reason you’ve got an FOI application with those materials coming out is because on a regular basis I go into the Parliament and detail the complaints that are made and how investigate those.         

The materials you’re referring to are materials and cables and the like which come from our detainee monitoring group. Officials from Defence and DFAT who track the progress of Australian Defence Force detainees to make sure they are treated properly. And of the bundle of documents that were put into the system, the reports focus on what I regard as complaints about conditions of service, if you like, in the particular facilities.         

Complaints about food, which is a very regular complaint, also complaints about availability of blankets for warmth. These don’t fall into what I regard as the sort of accusations or allegations of ill-treatment that have, for example, caused us to suspend transfer at the NDS facility in Tarin Kot because they go to degrading treatment, they go to humiliation, they go to allegations of torture, and the like. In other words, they go into the area of abusing human rights and not complying with humanitarian law.         

Having said all of that, whenever a complaint is made by anyone, whether it’s about the standard of food or the availability of blankets, we feed that back into the relevant authority, whether it’s the United States, which is one of the instances because the United States until recently has had responsibility for the detention facility in Parwan, or the Afghan authorities.         

Increasingly, that will become the Afghan authorities but there’s a qualitative difference between a complaint about a condition of service and a complaint which falls into an abuse of human rights or ill-treatment, which falls below the humanitarian standard that we apply. 

JOURNALIST:  The specific report though was about searches that were invasive. 

STEPHEN SMITH:      My response to that is you would find comparable searches occurring in police lockups in every jurisdiction in Australia and when those suggestions were made, the response were these are standard searches. Comparable searches would be made in any police lockup in Australia.         

One more and then the Ambassador and I have got to go. Sorry. 

JOURNALIST:  The reason you’ve suspended transfers to NDS at Tarin Kot is because of specific allegations of torture? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      We received allegations in respect of the NDS facility in Tarin Kot in March of this year which we regarded as allegations of falling below humanitarian standards. Falling below the standards that we require in terms of domestic or international laws, respecting the treatment of detainees.         

I used torture as an example. I’m not specifying what those allegations are. And why I’m not specifying them is that we relayed those immediately to the Afghan authorities. Two days after we received them, we respended our transfers and we have been in regular dialogue with Afghan authorities, including the Afghan Foreign Minister about the need for these to be exhaustively investigated for us to be made aware of the results of the investigation and what steps have been taken to ensure that the allegations, if shown to be correct, don’t occur again. 

JOURNALIST:  Sorry, could I just ask the Ambassador, you haven’t had an opportunity I think to talk on our White Paper, the Defence White Paper, since the merge. Are you – is the United States Government happy with the balance on China and United States relationships? 

JEFFREY BLEICH:      We were very pleased with the white paper. We thought it was a very good document that reflected the type of forward thinking and partnership that we’ve come to expect in a great alliance with Australia.          

The discussions about the importance of the US-Australia alliance I think were both expected but also appreciated and I think that the discussion of US relations with China as being important are consistent with our view of the world, which is that we are building a stronger, more mature, more effective relationship with China and we think that’s good for both China and the US and it’s good for the rest of the region. 

JOURNALIST:  Can the US learn anything from Australia on China? 

JEFFREY BLEICH:      We always learn things from Australia. Not just on China, but on other subjects and that’s why we’re such good mates. 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Alright. We’ve gone close to descending from elegant remarks in the engine room to a doorstop. So thanks very much, everyone. 

JEFFREY BLEICH:      Thank you very much. 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Cheers.  

This will be my fifth visit to the United States as Minister for Defence.

In New York, I will meet with senior officials from the United Nations. This will be my first visit to United Nations Headquarters since Australia assumed our seat on the United Nations Security Council in January this year.

I look forward to discussing issues currently before the Council, including Syria and North Korea.

I will speak to the United Nations Security Council Arria Formula Meeting on Implementing the UN Security Council’s Women, Peace and Security agenda. I will also affirm Australia’s ongoing support to United Nations’ peacekeeping operations. Australia has been a longstanding supporter of peacekeeping operations around the world and has contributed 65,000 personnel to around 50 peacekeeping operations since the inception of the UN.

I will also visit the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, a tribute of remembrance and honour to the nearly 3000 people, including 10 Australians, who died in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

In Washington DC, I will lay a wreath at the Arlington National Cemetery which is the final resting place for over 14,000 United States veterans. I will be accompanied by the Secretary of Defence, Dennis Richardson, and the Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley.

I will meet with US Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel. This will be my first meeting with Secretary Hagel since he was appointed US Secretary of Defence earlier this year.

This will be an opportunity to brief the US Administration on the 2013 Defence White Paper, which highlights Australia’s Alliance with the United States as a foundation for our defence, security and strategic arrangements.

I will reaffirm Australia’s strong support for the US’ continued commitment to the Indo-Pacific region and discuss our enhanced practical cooperation with the US, as an essential part of Australia’s contribution to regional peace and stability. We will also discuss the drawdown of operations in Afghanistan, North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and security challenges in the Middle East.

We will discuss progress on the implementation of the force posture initiatives agreed by Prime Minister Gillard and President Obama in November 2011. These initiatives involve rotational deployments of United States Marine Corps personnel to northern Australia and increased rotations of US Air Force aircraft through northern Australia. We also agreed to explore possible increased naval cooperation through HMAS Stirling and other facilities at AUSMIN in Perth last year.

I also look forward to discussing progress in key acquisition programs, including the Joint Strike Fighter, and our enhanced cooperation in the new and emerging security challenges of space and cyber.

Our cooperation in these areas demonstrates the Alliance’s endurance and adaptability to contemporary challenges.

Media contact:
Minister Smith’s office: Sacha Fenton (02) 6277 7800 or 0467 784 528

The Treaty’s entry into force reflects Australia and the United States’ commitment to cooperation in Defence capability and technology.  It is a significant step forward for the Australia-US Alliance. 

The Australia-United States Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty was signed in Sydney on 5 September 2007.  The Treaty creates a framework for the transfer of eligible defence goods, services and technology between approved entities in Australia and the United States, known as the Approved Community, without the need to apply for separate export licences. 

The Treaty will improve delivery times, improve sustainment and give Australian industry better access to technical data to tender for United States contracts.   

Australia is implementing the Treaty through the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012.  Proclamation of that Act is scheduled to occur on 6 June 2013, and on proclamation from that date, companies interested in joining the Australian Community can apply for membership.  The work of the Strengthened Export Control Steering Group, chaired by Australia’s Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, is not affected by the Treaty’s implementation and continues with its two year transition period. 

The Minister thanked Ambassador Bleich for his personal efforts in advancing defence cooperation between Australia and the United States. 

Information on the implementation of the Treaty, including the application process, is available on the Defence website:  http://www.defence.gov.au/ustradetreaty/ 

Companies interested in joining the Australian Community should contact Defence on 1800 00 57 57 or email ustradetreaty@defence.gov.au.  

Media contact:

Minister Smith’s office: Sacha Fenton (02) 6277 7800 or 0467 784 528

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

by the

Minister for Defence 

Stephen Smith MP

on

Afghanistan – Detainee Management

Tabled in conjunction with a Ministerial Statement

on

16 May 2013

Introduction 

The Government is committed to providing regular updates to the Parliament on Afghanistan generally, including detainee management, operational incidents and other issues associated with Australia’s compliance with its legal obligations in Afghanistan. 

As part of a commitment to be open and transparent on these matters, in February this year I provided an update to the Parliament on detainee management, inquiries into civilian casualties and reviews of local source allegations, as part of a wider update on Afghanistan.  I have previously provided updates on these matters as part of my regular updates to the House on Afghanistan.  

Next month, I will update the House on Afghanistan generally, including progress on transition. 

Today, I provide an update on detainee management and Australian Defence Force (ADF) inquiries into civilian casualties and Australian Defence Force Investigative Service (ADFIS) processes as well as local source allegations.

Detainee Management Framework

Australia approaches its responsibility for treating detainees with dignity and respect with the utmost seriousness and is committed to managing detention matters in accordance with our domestic and international legal obligations.

Australia’s detainee management framework for Afghanistan has two priorities:

First, removing insurgents from the battlefield, where they endanger Australian, ISAF and Afghan lives; and 

Second, to ensure the humane treatment of detainees, consistent with Australia’s domestic and international legal obligations. 

Governance

Our detainee management framework aligns with international practice and is implemented in accordance with Australia’s international and domestic legal obligations. 

Australia’s detainee management framework is implemented by the deployment of professional ADF personnel trained both in the Laws of Armed Conflict and in appropriate detainee handling.  It is underpinned by rigorous recording and reporting requirements, and the high priority Australia places on addressing all allegations of mistreatment reported to Australian officials. 

Following their capture, detainees are transferred to a purpose-built screening facility – the Initial Screening Area (ISA) – at Multi-National Base Tarin Kot in Uruzgan. 

The screening facility is under 24-hour closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance and the facility is open to regular inspection by international humanitarian and local human rights organisations. 

Detainees in ADF custody are able to freely practice their religion, and are provided access to exercise, sustenance, suitable sleeping arrangements, medical care, and other amenities. 

Once initial screening is complete, detainees are transferred to Afghan custody, or released if there is insufficient evidence to justify continued detention. 

To support detainee transfers, the ADF provides evidence packs to assist further investigation by local authorities and possible prosecution under Afghan law. 

To ensure we meet our own high standards and continue to improve our systems, Australia’s detainee management processes in Afghanistan are subject to regular audits.

Monitoring 

As part of our detainee management framework, Australian officials monitor the treatment, welfare and conditions of all detainees transferred from ADF custody to Afghan custody.

The Interagency Detainee Monitoring Team is comprised of Australian officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Defence, including ADF members. 

The Interagency Detainee Monitoring Team visits each detainee shortly after transfer, and subject to operational requirements, approximately every four weeks until the detainee is sentenced or released.

Between 1 August 2010 and 15 May 2013, the Monitoring Team has conducted 140 monitoring visits. This includes: 64 visits to the National Directorate of Security facility in Tarin Kot; 24 visits to the Tarin Kot Central Prison; and 52 visits to the Detention Facility in Parwan/ Afghan National Detention Facility in Parwan. 

These visits enable Australian officials to monitor the welfare, treatment and conditions of detainees apprehended by Australian forces after their transfer to Afghan custody (and in the case of Parwan in the past, US custody). 

Audits of the Detainee Management Framework 

Since 1 August 2010, when Australia’s current detainee management framework in Afghanistan was introduced, five comprehensive technical audits of the framework have been conducted. 

In addition, in August 2012, an audit of Australia’s detainee monitoring program was conducted by officials from the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 

As I advised in February, this audit found that Australia’s detainee monitoring program is appropriate and complies with our policy framework and found that the members of the Interagency Detainee Monitoring Team carry out their duties professionally and effectively. 

The fifth comprehensive technical audit of Australia’s detainee management framework was completed in Afghanistan last month.  I will update on the outcome of that audit in due course. 

These audits are an essential governance measure for assessing and, where necessary, further improving Australia’s overall detainee management framework to ensure these high standards are maintained or to adjust to the changing operational environment. 

Numbers of Detainees Apprehended

During the period 1 August 2010 to 15 May 2013, the ADF detained 1898 suspected insurgents. Of these: 158 detainees have been transferred to the National Directorate of Security in Tarin Kot and 105 detainees have been transferred to the Detention Facility in Parwan/Afghan National Detention Facility in Parwan. 

Capture/recapture

Between 1 August 2010 and 15 May 2013, the ADF re-captured 15 people who had previously been captured and were subsequently released. Seven of the individuals in question were released as there was insufficient evidence to warrant their continued detention. 

For eight of these detainees there was sufficient evidence to warrant their transfer and prosecution. Four were subsequently transferred to US custody at the Detention Facility in Parwan, and four were transferred to Afghan custody at the National Directorate of Security detention facility in Uruzgan. 

Since my last statement to Parliament in February 2013, the ADF has not re-captured any previously captured detainees.  

Interrogation 

In February 2012, I announced the deployment of trained ADF interrogators to Afghanistan. 

Interrogation expands the ADF’s ability to obtain information of operational and tactical value to help protect Australian personnel, the ANSF, and the local population. 

Interrogation is conducted by ADF personnel who are qualified in interrogation. Only those personnel who have received specialised training are authorised to conduct interrogation activities. 

Interrogation is a comprehensive questioning process which is aimed at collecting intelligence on the insurgency. It is conducted within strict legal guidelines to prevent physical and mental mistreatment. 

From February 2012, when the ADF commenced interrogation operations, to 15 May 2013 approximately 38 per cent of detainees apprehended by the ADF in Afghanistan, have undergone interrogation within the Initial Screening Area.  

In October 2012, a team led by Headquarters Joint Operations Command conducted an external audit and review of detainee management and interrogation operations in Afghanistan and found that all interrogation activities were compliant with Australia’s Detainee Management Policy and ADF interrogation policy.   

The most recent external audit of ADF detainee management and interrogation operations in Afghanistan was conducted last month.  I will update on the outcome of that audit in due course.   

Allegations of Mistreatment 

Australia takes all allegations of detainee mistreatment seriously. 

Since August 2010, I have provided regular updates on complaints and allegations of mistreatment the ADF has received. 

As I have previously advised the House, the term ‘allegation of mistreatment’ is used to describe any perceived or alleged incident involving an individual who is in Australian or a partner forces’ custody. 

When a detainee is brought into the ISA, they are specifically asked whether they have any complaints regarding their treatment. 

Any complaint received is treated as an allegation. 

This terminology does not imply any wrong-doing on the part of the ADF, simply that an individual has made an allegation or complaint about the treatment they, or another individual, has received or witnessed during the course of their interaction with the ADF or the ANSF. 

During the period 1 August 2010 to 15 May 2013, there have been 198 allegations of mistreatment against Australian forces. Of these, 175 relate to treatment or an incident at the point of capture. To date, 193 of these allegations have been considered and have been assessed as being unfounded.  Five allegations remain under review. 

Every allegation of detainee mistreatment received or observed by the ADF is reported through the Australian Military Chain of Command. 

Once reported, allegations are reviewed or investigated. 

This process may include taking witness statements, examining any medical evidence, as well as reviewing records and CCTV footage.

In addition, ISAF, and human rights and humanitarian organisations are notified of any allegations and the outcomes of any subsequent assessments. 

As I have advised previously, many of the allegations received relate to the circumstances of the detainee’s capture, the point of capture.  It is not unexpected that a detainee may sustain minor injuries such as bruises, cuts and scrapes during their capture as this usually occurs in a complex, dangerous and hostile environment. 

ADF personnel operating in Afghanistan are required to conduct their operations, including in relation to detainees, in accordance with the rules of engagement, the Laws of Armed Conflict, as well as policy direction and guidance concerning the proper treatment of detainees. 

Australia’s detainee management framework is consistent with the Laws of Armed Conflict, including the Geneva Conventions and relevant human rights law. 

I am regularly briefed by the Chief of the Defence Force on any detainee incidents or allegations of mistreatment.

CCTV

I have previously reported to the House on the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) which constantly monitors the ISA to ensure the humane treatment of detainees in Australia’s custody, and to assist in the investigation of any allegations or complaints of mistreatment. 

A review of CCTV footage is standard procedure for any incident in the ISA. 

The CCTV system has continued to be effective, including in protecting ADF members from spurious allegations. 

For example, the ADF was able to refute an allegation of mistreatment made by a detainee through a review of CCTV.  The review of footage confirmed that the detainee was treated in accordance with Australia’s policies and procedures for the treatment of detainees whilst in the ISA.

Treatment of Detainees by ANSF 

Australia is committed to holding our own personnel to the highest standards on detainee treatment.  If ADF personnel become aware of concerns regarding the treatment of detainees by our ISAF or Afghan partners, this is also treated seriously. 

During the period 1 August 2010 to 15 May 2013, 61 allegations of detainee mistreatment have been made against the ANSF at the point of capture. 

As part of the ADF’s mentoring, ANSF personnel receive human rights training and advice on the correct procedures for handling detainees. They are also trained on the applicable international legal obligations for the treatment of detainees and the protection of the local civilian population. 

The ANSF in Uruzgan also receive specific human rights training from the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, which specifically covers the application of those rights when conducting detention operations. 

The ADF also provides Afghan personnel practical advice on these issues during partnered operations. 

If ADF personnel witness any instances of mistreatment of detainees who are under the control of Afghan forces, they are required to report the matter to Australian authorities so it may be raised with Afghan authorities. 

Suspension of transfers to the National Directorate of Security Detention Facility in Tarin Kot 

On 11 March, Australian officials were informed of two allegations of mistreatment raised by non-ADF transferred detainees at the National Directorate of Security detention facility in Tarin Kot.   

The allegations do not involve detainees apprehended by the ADF. 

In light of these allegations, on 15 March the ADF suspended the transfer of detainees to the National Directorate of Security detention facility in Tarin Kot.   

At the time of suspension on 15 March there was one ADF transferred detainee in the NDS detention facility.  He was visited by Australia’s Interagency Detainee Monitoring Team on 12 March and he advised that he had not been mistreated.  That detainee was transferred to the Tarin Kot Central Prison on 19 March, where he is still subject to regular monitoring visits. 

No ADF-transferred detainees remain in the National Directorate of Security detention facility in Tarin Kot. 

Since the suspension has been in place, the ADF has released 14 detainees from the ISA.  

One detainee has been transferred to the Afghan National Detention Facility in Parwan since the suspension has been in place. 

Australia has raised our concerns about this matter with Afghan authorities, Afghan and international human rights organisations and ISAF.  

On 21 March, I advised Afghan Foreign Minister Rassoul of our concerns about this matter during his visit that day to Canberra, the last day before the Parliament rose before Easter.  

Australia has reiterated the importance of the proper treatment of detainees and the need to investigate any allegations of detainee mistreatment in a robust and transparent manner.   

Afghan authorities advise they are taking these allegations seriously and are conducting a thorough investigation, which is ongoing. 

It is appropriate for Australia to await the outcome of the Afghan investigation into this matter, and advice on any action to be taken, before Australia will consider a resumption of the transfer of ADF-apprehended detainees to Afghan authorities in Tarin Kot.   

Afghan detention facilities

It is a condition of Australian transfer that amenities at facilities meet standards suitable to local conditions. 

In my previous update in February, I advised the House about ISAF’s detention facility certification process.  Australia welcomes ISAF’s continued work to certify detention facilities across Afghanistan, including Uruzgan. 

Australia will continue to work closely with ISAF, Afghan authorities, the United Nations and Afghan and International humanitarian and human rights organisations to promote the humane treatment of detainees in Tarin Kot, including at the NDS facility. 

I will provide further updates on this matter.  

In August 2012, I advised the House, that in line with Australia’s desire to ensure appropriate treatment of detainees, the ADF was considering proposed upgrades to Afghan detention facilities, including to the amenities at the National Directorate of Security facility in Tarin Kot.   

These upgrades were being considered to further improve current amenities at the facilities. 

Last month, the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) and the ADF completed upgrades to amenities at both the Juvenile Detention Centre and the National Directorate of Security detention facility in Tarin Kot.  The new structures represent a significant improvement on existing amenities. 

Detainee Management Transition 

In line with the broader transition of lead security responsibility from ISAF to the ANSF, Afghan forces are increasingly taking the lead in detention operations.  

As operations in Uruzgan transition to an Afghan lead, this will inevitably see the ADF apprehending fewer detainees in partnered operations with the ANSF.  The ADF has taken 58 detainees to 15 May this year. 

Closure of the Initial Screening Area

The purpose-built Initial Screening Area (ISA) is the central element of Australia’s current Detainee Management Framework in Afghanistan. 

On 26 March, the Prime Minister and I welcomed the decision by ISAF to close Multi National Base – Tarin Kot in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan at the end of this year.

In line with the broader redeployment and remediation process at Multi-National Base Tarin Kot, the ISA will be dismantled and remediated in the last quarter of 2013. 

Just as Australia reviewed the ADF’s detainee management framework and requirements in the run up to the withdrawal of the Dutch from Uruzgan and put in place the current detainee management framework in August 2010, Australia will review the ADF’s detainee management requirements as the transition process proceeds.   

Transfer of the Detention Facility in Parwan to Afghan Control 

I have previously provided the House with updates on the status of the transfer of the United States-run Detention Facility in Parwan to Afghan responsibility.   

The agreement reached between the US and Afghan Governments to transfer the Detention Facility in Parwan to Afghan control represents a significant milestone in the transition of detention operations.      

During President Karzai’s January 2013 visit to Washington, the US and Afghanistan reiterated their agreement for the US to transfer control of the Detention Facility in Parwan to Afghan authorities. 

On 9 March 2012, the United States and Afghanistan signed a Memorandum of Understanding to commence the transfer of the facility to Afghan control. 

The official ceremony to mark the transfer of the facility to Afghan authorities and the renaming of the facility as the Afghan National Detention Facility in Parwan occurred on 25 March 2013. 

The official transfer is a positive development for the Afghan Government and is a reflection of the transition of security across Afghanistan. 

Australia will continue to transfer ADF-apprehended detainees to the Afghan National Detention Facility in Parwan.  We have received ongoing assurances from the Afghan authorities that our monitoring team access to ADF-transferred detainees at the Afghan National Detention Facility in Parwan will continue under our existing arrangement with the Afghan Government. 

As at 15 May 2013, there are 68 ADF-apprehended detainees in the Afghan National Detention Facility in Parwan.

These detainees are regularly monitored by the Interagency Detainee Monitoring Team and, to date, no concerns have been identified with their treatment. 

Australia will continue to engage with our partners to ensure that ADF transferred detainees continue to be treated humanely in accordance with the applicable law.  

Allegations of Procedural Misconduct 

I first advised in my March 2011 Ministerial Statement to Parliament, that in late January of that year, the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service (ADFIS) had initiated an investigation into allegations of non-compliance with the management and administrative procedures for the processing of detainees at the ADF detainee screening facility. 

As advised in my February 2013 update, four previous members of the first Detention Management Team in Afghanistan, involved in managing the Initial Screening Area (ISA), had been charged with service offences of falsifying service documents which related to the administrative processing of detainees.  

Trials under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 have been concluded and I can now provide the House with a final update.  

The Director of Military Prosecutions charged four members of the first Detention Management Team, including the former officer in command of the team.

The charges alleged that three members placed their own fingerprints on detainee release and transfer forms to conceal the failure by Detention Management Team personnel to obtain detainee fingerprints prior to their release or transfer.  

The former officer in command of the team was alleged to have written false entries into detainee log books.   

The first trial was held on 27 July 2012 and the member was convicted and received a severe reprimand for one count of prejudicial conduct.  

The second member was tried on 23 August 2012 and was convicted of two counts of falsifying a service document. He received a reprimand for each offence.  

The third member was tried on 21 November 2012 and was convicted of four counts of falsifying a service document and one count of prejudicial conduct. He was fined $2000 for each of two offences and awarded a loss of seniority in rank for each of the other three offences.  

The trial of the former officer in command of the first Detention Management Team commenced on 19 March 2013 and concluded in 3 April 2013. The member pleaded not guilty to a range of charges, including suppressing a service document and making false entries in service documents.  

He was convicted of two counts of making a false entry in a log book which provides a record of detainee processing, and acquitted of four related charges. The prosecution alleged that the false entries were made to conceal the fact that a detainee was held for four and a half hours longer than is permitted under the Detainee Management Policy and to falsely represent that a subordinate member of the Detention Management Team had made the required entries in the log book.  

The former officer in command was reduced from the rank of major to the rank of captain for both offences. 

Australian Defence Force Investigative Service (ADFIS) 

I first advised in my 24 May 2012 Ministerial Statement to Parliament that a number of matters had been raised in the context of an Inspector General of the ADF (IGADF) Inquiry into allegations of flawed ADFIS processes in the Middle East Area of Operations (MEAO).  

The allegations included: the incorrect orientation of caskets used to repatriate ADF human remains; that ADF human remains were not repatriated in accordance with Defence policy; that the remains of an Afghan local national were handled inappropriately; and that a 16-year-old Afghan minor was detained inappropriately. 

Part 1 of the IGADF Inquiry was completed on 15 October 2012. Part 2 of the Inquiry was completed on 21 December 2012.  I am now providing the House with a final update. 

Allegations of mishandling the remains of Australian soldiers 

With regards to the allegation that the human remains of ADF personnel were incorrectly oriented in their caskets, the Inquiry found that on two occasions in 2011, ADFIS personnel initially placed the remains of ADF personnel in caskets which had been incorrectly inverted.  

At no time were the remains of ADF personnel upside down.  The caskets themselves were incorrectly oriented. The incorrect orientation of the caskets was identified and the caskets were correctly oriented before being flown back to Australia. The soldiers’ remains were treated with utmost respect and dignity at all times, while the caskets were corrected.  

The errors arose due to unfamiliarity of ADFIS personnel with the caskets themselves.  

Instructions on the use of the casket have since been amended to provide clear guidance on the correct orientation.  

With regard to the allegation that medical devices were inappropriately removed by ADFIS personnel from the human remains of ADF personnel, the Inquiry confirmed that ADFIS personnel had removed medical devices from the remains of ADF personnel prior to their return to Australia. 

The removal of medical devices by ADFIS personnel did not breach criminal or coronial legislation or guidelines, nor was there any requirement for the removal to be approved or undertaken by medical officers. 

Departmental instructions have been amended to provide clear guidance on the management of medical devices in human remains.  

These allegations that the remains of ADF personnel were not repatriated in accordance with Defence policy, the subsequent investigation and attendant publicity would have been distressing for the families of our war dead, and our thoughts are with them.  

Allegations of mishandling of the remains of an Afghan insurgent

With regard to the allegation that the remains of an Afghan insurgent were transported off the Multi-National Base Tarin Kot by taxi, the IGADF Inquiry found that confusion appears to have arisen over two incidents in which the remains of two Afghan insurgents who died after engagements with Australian Forces were removed from the Multi-National Base Tarin Kot.  

In an incident in August 2010, the remains of an Afghan insurgent were transported back to the ISAF Role 2 medical facility at the Multi-National Base Tarin Kot by Australian Forces after an engagement between Australian forces and insurgents. The Afghan insurgent had died prior to his remains being located by ADF personnel. Accordingly this matter was not treated as a death in custody and ADFIS had no responsibility for nor involvement with the remains.  

The Inquiry found that it is probable that the remains were transported by taxi to the local morgue, in accordance with standard operating procedures of the relevant ISAF partner who had custody of the remains and had established local arrangements in place.    

In an incident in October 2010, an Afghan insurgent was wounded in an engagement with Australian forces.  He was treated by ADF personnel and transferred under ADF custody to the ISAF Role 2 medical facility at the Multi-National Base Tarin Kot for further treatment, where he later died.   

As is normal procedure for a such a death, ADFIS personnel conducted an investigation, including a forensic examination.  

ISAF medical staff arranged for the remains to be handed over to the family, and the deceased Afghan insurgent was later buried.  

The remains were handled in accordance with ISAF Role 2 practice at the time.  

The Inquiry found that Defence policy did not provide clear direction on the management of human remains of non-ISAF personnel who die in Australian custody, and recommended amplification and amendment of the policy. 

Allegation of mistreatment of an Afghan minor

With regards to the allegation that an Afghan minor, who entered the Multi-National Base Tarin Kot in October 2010 to locate his father, was arrested by ADFIS and transferred to US custody, the Inquiry found that an Afghan minor did enter the base in October 2010 and was detained by ADF personnel after undergoing standard screening processes by ISAF security. 

The Inquiry found that the juvenile, who was assessed during medical in-processing at the ISA to be 16 years old, was detained for approximately two hours by the ADF before being released. The juvenile was questioned by ADF personnel.  

While in ADF custody the juvenile was provided treatment appropriate to his age in accordance with Australia’s Detainee Management Policy.  

At no time was the juvenile mistreated or transferred to US custody.  

The Inquiry found the processing of the juvenile was conducted in accordance with Australia’s Detainee Management Policy, except for one minor error in completion of the paperwork, which was not found to be significant. 

Inquiry report 

The findings and recommendations of the IGADF Inquiry have been redacted to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988 and are available on the Defence Department website.  

Potential Operational Misconduct

On 8 May 2013, the Chief of Defence Force (CDF), General David Hurley announced that an investigation is underway into a combined operation between ANSF and Australia’s Special Operations Task Group in Zabul Province on 28 April 2013. 

The ADF has confirmed that a combined ANSF and Special Operations Task Group (SOTG) force element conducted a mission in Zabul Province on 28 April 2013 to target an insurgent commander responsible for a key insurgent network operating in and around Uruzgan province. 

During the course of clearing the targeted area, the force element positively identified several armed insurgents moving to gain a tactical advantage and due to the threat posed, the combined ANSF and SOTG force element engaged and killed four insurgents. 

An incident of potential misconduct during the operation has been raised through the internal national command chain. 

The incident is currently being investigated by the ADF in cooperation with ISAF.  The Afghan Government has been advised of the incident and investigation, for which no timeline has been set for completion. 

Civilian Casualties 

Australia remains committed to transparency and providing information on civilian casualties in Afghanistan. 

The ADF takes the question of civilian casualties very seriously. The ADF operates under strict rules of engagement intended to minimise civilian casualties, and deeply regrets any loss of innocent life. 

I provide the following update into the status of Inquiry Officer Reports into civilian casualties. 

In my February 2013 update to the House, I advised on outstanding Inquiries into suspected civilian casualty incidents.  I provide an update on those incidents and one additional incident. 

27 March 2011 incident 

The Inquiry into the incident on 27 March 2011, where an Afghan boy and an Afghan man were killed, has been completed.  

On Sunday 27 March 2011 a partnered patrol involving the Afghan National Police’s Provincial Response Company and soldiers from the SOTG were engaged with small arms fire by a number of suspected insurgents, during a clearance operation in the Chora region. 

At the conclusion of the engagement, the Australian Force Element identified one Afghan male, initially suspected as an insurgent, had been killed and an Afghan boy who was seriously injured. Despite best medical efforts, the boy succumbed to his injuries and died on 2 April 2011. 

On 12 April 2011, the then Chief of Joint Operations, Lieutenant General Mark Evans, appointed an Inquiry into the incident to determine whether it was possible to identify how the child was injured and to better understand the full circumstances of the incident.

The Inquiry is complete and the Report has now been authorised for public release. 

The Inquiry Officer found that the actions of the Australian personnel involved in the incident were lawful and in accordance with Rules of Engagement. 

The Inquiry Officer found that the child’s fatal injuries and the death of the Afghan man were the result of the partnered force being engaged by insurgents. 

The deceased man was originally reported by Defence to have been an insurgent based on the results of a test to ascertain exposure to potential explosive materials.

Based on all the evidence available, the Inquiry Officer found that the deceased Afghan man was a relative of the deceased child and was not actively taking part in hostilities at the time of the incident.  He was, in the Inquiry Officer’s assessment, not associated with the insurgents who engaged the partnered patrol on 27 March 2011.  

The Report raises issues regarding the post-incident analysis in this matter that had initially determined the deceased male was an insurgent as a result of tests for explosive residue. 

The Inquiry Officer recommended:

Processes and procedures be reviewed to ensure adequate mechanisms are in place to check the identity of suspected insurgents.

• Improved training be implemented to ensure adequate understanding of interpretation of chemical testing for exposure to potential explosive materials.
• Patrol medics carry additional equipment to assist in the treatment of small children.
• Family of the deceased male and child being contacted and advised of their rights to make a claim for compensation. 

Lieutenant General Power, the current Chief of Joint Operations, accepted the first recommendation and agreed to the second recommendation in principle. 

The third recommendation was not accepted.  Lieutenant General Power does not believe that we should further burden already heavily laden patrols with paediatric medical equipment when the ADF already has measures in place to treat casualties at the scene and evacuate them to appropriate medical facilities within mandated timings.  It is appropriate that paediatric medical supplies to treat children are held at the Role 2 Medical Facility in Tarin Kot. 

Lieutenant General Power did not agree to the fourth recommendation.  The Inquiry was not able to determine whether the deceased Afghans were killed by insurgents or the partnered force and it remains unclear whether the ADF itself was responsible for the deaths. In the circumstances, to seek out the family and make an offer under the Tactical Payment Scheme is not regarded as appropriate. 

While not dealt with in the Inquiry Officer’s Report, prior to the completion of the Report, the issue of payment had already been raised with the family of the deceased child.  No claims have been received.  

ISAF and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission have been advised of the outcomes of the Inquiry Officer’s Report. 

As I first advised in my 31 October 2012 Ministerial Statement to Parliament, Defence acknowledges and regrets the delay in the public release of reports of inquiries into civilian casualty incidents and is instituting improved governance arrangements for the future management of such Inquiries, comparable to those instituted by the CDF in relation to combat fatality reports. 

The delay in the release of this Inquiry Officer Report is very much regretted.  This delay has not however prevented the ADF from implementing recommendations from the report where appropriate. 

A redacted version of the Inquiry Officer Report is available on the Defence website.  The Report has been redacted in order to preserve operational security and protect ADF tactics, techniques and procedures. 

1 May 2012 incident 

I first advised in my 24 May 2012 Ministerial Statement to Parliament that an Inquiry is ongoing in relation to an incident on 1 May 2012, where an Afghan boy was injured during an engagement between insurgents and Australian Special Forces and elements of the ANSF undertaking a partnered security operation.  I will advise of the outcome of the Inquiry when it is completed in due course. 

1 November 2012 incident

On 2 November 2012, Defence advised that Australian personnel in Uruzgan were investigating an incident the previous day, 1 November 2012, involving Afghan civilians at the heavy weapons range at Multinational Base – Tarin Kot.  The incident was alleged to have contributed to the death of a young Afghan male. 

The heavy weapon ranges are well known and have been in use for a number of years.  Locals regularly walk into the range areas.  Procedures are in place to minimize the risk when this occurs.  Range practices are conducted in accordance with strict safety procedures designed to protect the lives and property of the local population.   

The ADFIS investigation into the incident has now been completed.   

In the 1 November 2012 incident, as soon as Australian personnel became aware of the presence of Afghans in the danger area, firing on the range ceased. 

Australian personnel reported that they believed a local may have been injured during their practice.  Local Afghan security guards were dispatched to investigate.  The Afghan security guards reported that a young Afghan male had been injured on the range and had been taken to the local hospital. 

Afghan Provincial authorities in Uruzgan were informed of the incident and an investigation was conducted in cooperation with the local authorities. 

The outcome of the ADFIS investigation indicated there is no direct evidence to suggest that the ADF contributed to cause of death.

ADF personnel, Afghan security guards, the brother of the deceased male and a local doctor were interviewed as part of the investigation. 

Medical examination by a local doctor indicated the injury sustained by the Afghan male was inconsistent with the types of weapons being fired in the range practice. 

The body of the young man was buried in accordance with local custom and could not be further forensically examined due to local sensitivities. 

28 February 2013 incident 

On 28 February 2013, Australian soldiers from the SOTG were conducting a routine liaison patrol in North-West Uruzgan, when an incident occurred that resulted in the death of two Afghan boys.  

Chief of Joint Operations, Lieutenant General Power, has appointed an Inquiry to determine the facts and circumstances of this incident. I will advise of the outcome in due course.  

Local Source Allegations

In my last update, I reported on allegations the ADF had received from local sources about ADF operations. The ADF receives such allegations from local sources such as Non-Government Organisations, local tribal elders and through Afghan security forces. 

Allegations brought to the attention of the ADF are reviewed against operational reporting to determine if the allegation relates to ADF operations. The ADF then determines whether operational reporting and available information contains sufficient information to support a conclusive decision regarding the allegation. 

If there is insufficient information to support a conclusive decision, the Chief of Joint Operations may direct the conduct of a Quick Assessment and, if required, appoint an Inquiry Officer to comprehensively examine the facts and circumstances of the allegation. 

As of 15 May 2013, the ADF has received thirty six allegations since the start of 2012 that have been dealt with in this way. 

Twenty five of these allegations are regarded as resolved by the ADF after a review of operational reporting. The Chief of Joint Operations was satisfied that rules of engagement had been appropriately applied in cases where force was used by ADF personnel. 

Three unresolved allegations are under consideration by the Chief of Joint Operations and eight allegations are under Inquiry. 

In my last update, I reported that four of the allegations that are under Inquiry have been correlated to operations by SOTG on 14 and 15 March 2012 in the vicinity of Sarkum, Afghanistan.  

The allegations relate to civilian casualties, mistreatment of civilians, damage to property and death of livestock. A further allegation of a similar nature has been received by the ADF and has been closely correlated with the previous four allegations. This latest allegation will be dealt with by the same Inquiry. 

In my statement to Parliament on 31 October 2012, I reported on operations conducted by Australian forces with their Afghan and ISAF partners to apprehend the Afghan National Army Sergeant who murdered three Australian soldiers on 29 August 2012.  

Australian forces conducted immediate operations with their Afghan and ISAF partners to apprehend Sergeant Hekmatullah or to locate insurgents who were suspected of assisting his escape. 

During a mission on 31 August, ADF and ANSF personnel conducted a compound clearance in the Tarin Kot district after receiving reporting that a known insurgent facilitator was operating in the area. 

The mission was conducted with the prior approval and full cooperation of Provincial Afghan authorities. 

The SOTG engaged and killed two insurgents during the clearance operation. 

In light of allegations made, a Quick Assessment of the mission was completed.  The 31 August operation and subsequent allegations are now the subject of an Inquiry Officer’s Investigation. 

A further allegation in relation to civilian casualties has been received by the ADF which closely correlates with the previous allegations in relation to the 31 August 2012 operation. This latest allegation will be dealt with by the same Inquiry. 

I emphasise that these allegations do not automatically imply or indicate wrong doing on the part of the ADF. 

I will provide further updates on these matters in due course.  

Conclusion

The rule of law is an essential basis for international relations and for national security policy. 

On the ground in Afghanistan, the law of armed conflict – including the principles of military necessity, proportionality, distinction and discrimination – provides the framework for Australia’s rules of engagement. 

International humanitarian law provides the basis for Australia’s detainee management framework in Afghanistan. 

The ADF has built a reputation over the years for professionalism.   

The ADF has prided itself on its high standards and it has a well regarded international reputation for doing so. 

When, for example, there are incidents involving possible breaches of the rules of engagement, such as in relation to civilian casualties, they are investigated and the results of those investigations are made public. 

Similarly, where there have been possible breaches of the detainee management framework, they are investigated and the results of those investigations are made public. 

These two foundation principles – the rule of law and transparency – have served the ADF and Australia well. 

Australians can rightly to be proud of the professionalism and honour with which the ADF has conducted itself in Afghanistan.

Australia and Sweden have achieved an important milestone in reaching agreement on Australia’s rights to use Swedish technology (Intellectual Property) for advanced submarine design and production.  

In 1987 Australia ordered six submarines of the Collins Class designed by Kockums AB. The submarines were built in Adelaide and will be in service for another 20 years. The Australian future submarine program, known as Project SEA1000, aims to replace the Collins Class.  

The agreement between the Australian Defence Materiel Organisation and the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration provides an opportunity for Swedish engagement in Australia’s future submarine program and also to assist with the maintenance and development of the Collins Class submarines.  

Sweden and Australia have a long-lasting and strong relationship, based on shared values and common strategic interests. Intergovernmental and industrial cooperation has been an important part of this relationship and the agreement opens up further opportunities for enhanced cooperation between the two countries. 

Both Ministers welcomed the agreement and look forward to continuing close cooperation between our two countries.

Following extensive negotiations between the Defence organisations of the two countries, I am confident that this agreement will pave the way for Swedish involvement in Australia’s Future Submarine Program and also assist Australia with the ongoing sustainment of the Collins Class fleet. 

This agreement gives effect to Australia’s rights to use and disclose Swedish Intellectual Property rights for complex submarine design and technology. 

Defence materiel cooperation has been a key feature of the Sweden-Australia relationship, most notably in the area of submarine technology where our collaboration over the construction and support of the Collins submarines has spanned two decades, and more recently, with the vital ‘sense and warn’ capability provided to protect our troops in Afghanistan.  This mutually beneficial relationship is expected to continue into the future. 

The Australian Government had previously announced it was considering four broad options for a fleet of Future Submarines to replace the current Collins Class fleet that is in service with the Royal Australian Navy.  The 2013 Defence White Paper released on 3 May has focussed future work on two of these options, namely: 

- An evolved design that enhances the capabilities of existing off-the-shelf designs, including the Collins Class; and

- An entirely new developmental submarine.  

In May 2012, the Australian Government announced it would engage Swedish ship designer and builder Kockums AB, the original designer of the Collins Class submarine, to undertake initial design studies for the evolved Collins.   

An evolved design would build on the high level of capabilities of the existing Collins Class submarine design, address known deficiencies and obsolescence issues and provide potential capability enhancements. 

A precursor to this engagement with Kockums AB, was the need to reach agreement with Sweden on the use of Collins Class Submarine Technology for the Future Submarine Program, and also to agree a framework and principles for the negotiation of Intellectual Property rights for Australia to be able to utilise other Swedish submarine technology for the Future Submarine Program, if Australia decides to proceed with an evolved Collins solution.  

The ability for Australia to utilise Swedish submarine technology is a critical element not only of the work on the Future Submarine Program, but also in addressing the continuing challenges with the maintenance and sustainment of the Collins Class fleet through to the end of their service life.  This new agreement replaces the Commonwealth’s existing rights as established by the licence agreement struck in June 2004. 

The ability for Sweden to ensure that any arrangement did not compromise its sovereignty and ensured compliance with export control and security legislation was also paramount in the negotiated outcome. 

I acknowledge that the respective agencies responsible for the acquisition and support of military equipment, the Australian Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) have worked hard to reach a satisfactory agreement on these complex Intellectual Property and submarine technology matters.

I welcome the agreement and look forward to continuing close cooperation between our two countries.

Media contact:

Minister Smith’s office: (02) 6277 7800; Andrew Porter 0419 474 392;  Sacha Fenton 0467 784 528

On 26 November 2012, the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce was established as part of the Government’s response to the DLA Piper Review into allegations of sexual and other abuse in Defence.

The Taskforce is responsible for assessing individual allegations of abuse in Defence occurring before 11 April 2011.

The Government has asked the Taskforce to prioritise the serious abuse cases occurring at ADFA in the late 1990s and at HMAS LEEUWIN.

The Taskforce will determine, in close consultation with those who have made complaints, appropriate outcomes in response to allegations of abuse in Defence. These outcomes could include a referral to counselling and possible restorative processes, including apologies from appropriate Defence officers, a reparation payment of up to $50,000, and referral of appropriate matters to police or military justice authorities.

In March, the Government announced that the cut-off for the Taskforce accepting new allegations of abuse that are alleged to have occurred prior to 11 April 2011 will be 31 May this year.

The Government encourages any people who have experienced abuse prior to 11 April 2011 but who have not yet brought their case forward to consider doing so before 31 May.

All that is required by the cut-off date is that a person registers notice of their allegation with the Taskforce.

This may be done by contacting the Taskforce (via the Hotline on 1800 424 991 or at DART@ag.gov.au), providing their contact details and indicating that they wish to bring a complaint to the Taskforce about alleged abuse in Defence prior to 11 April 2011.

Further information is available on the Taskforce website at: www.defenceabusetaskforce.gov.au

Media contacts: 

Minister  Smith’s office:  (02) 6277 7800 or Andrew Porter 0419 474 392; Sacha Fenton 0467 784 528

Minister  Dreyfus’ office: Annie Williams (02) 6277 7300 or 0428 040 522

As outlined in the 2013 Defence White Paper (the White Paper), the Government intends to replace the AP-3C fleet with P-8A Poseidon aircraft, complemented by unmanned aircraft capable of undertaking broad area maritime surveillance and fleet overwatch.

The goal is to provide long-range, long-endurance maritime surveillance and response and an effective anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare capability.

The acquisition of high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft for maritime patrol and other surveillance is being developed under project AIR 7000 Phase 1B.

One of the options being considered for AIR 7000 Phase 1B is the United States Navy MQ-4C Triton Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System produced by Northrop Grumman.

The MQ-4C Triton is a developmental variant of the Global Hawk surveillance aircraft which is being specifically developed for maritime surveillance roles.

To help assess the suitability of the Triton for Australia’s requirements, the Government will establish a Foreign Military Sales Technical Services Case with the United States Navy to obtain detailed cost, capability and availability information to inform future Government consideration of Project AIR 7000 Phase 1B.

The release of a Letter of Request for the FMS Technical Services Case does not commit Australia to the acquisition of the MQ-4C Triton.

Defence will continue to investigate options for a mixed manned and unmanned aircraft fleet to inform Government consideration later in the decade.

As also outlined in the 2013 Defence White Paper, Defence will analyse the value of further investment in unmanned aircraft for focused area, overland intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, including for use in border security operations.

This will include the potential expansion of the role of these assets in the ADF to include interdiction and close air support, subject to policy development and Government consideration.

Media contacts:
Minister Smith’s office: (02) 6277 7800; Andrew Porter 0419 474 392;  Sacha Fenton 0467 784 528
Dr Kelly’s Office: Robbie Rynehart (02) 6277 7730 or 0459 810 654
Defence Media Operations: (02) 6127 1999

As outlined in the 2013 Defence White Paper (the White Paper), the Government intends to replace the AP-3C fleet with P-8A Poseidon aircraft, complemented by unmanned aircraft capable of undertaking broad area maritime surveillance and fleet overwatch.

The goal is to provide long-range, long-endurance maritime surveillance and response and an effective anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare capability.

The acquisition of high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft for maritime patrol and other surveillance is being developed under project AIR 7000 Phase 1B.

One of the options being considered for AIR 7000 Phase 1B is the United States Navy MQ-4C Triton Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System produced by Northrop Grumman.

The MQ-4C Triton is a developmental variant of the Global Hawk surveillance aircraft which is being specifically developed for maritime surveillance roles.

To help assess the suitability of the Triton for Australia’s requirements, the Government will establish a Foreign Military Sales Technical Services Case with the United States Navy to obtain detailed cost, capability and availability information to inform future Government consideration of Project AIR 7000 Phase 1B.

The release of a Letter of Request for the FMS Technical Services Case does not commit Australia to the acquisition of the MQ-4C Triton.

Defence will continue to investigate options for a mixed manned and unmanned aircraft fleet to inform Government consideration later in the decade.

As also outlined in the 2013 Defence White Paper, Defence will analyse the value of further investment in unmanned aircraft for focused area, overland intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, including for use in border security operations.

This will include the potential expansion of the role of these assets in the ADF to include interdiction and close air support, subject to policy development and Government consideration.

Media contacts:
Minister Smith’s office: (02) 6277 7800; Andrew Porter 0419 474 392;  Sacha Fenton 0467 784 528
Dr Kelly’s Office: Robbie Rynehart (02) 6277 7730 or 0459 810 654
Defence Media Operations: (02) 6127 1999

The White Paper outlines the capabilities that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) will need in the coming years to address strategic challenges.

It will ensure that we have one of the most capable military forces in our region to protect Australia’s strategic interests, support regional security and to undertake the four principal tasks required of it by Government: 

• Principal Task One: deter and defeat armed attacks on Australia;
• Principal Task Two: contribute to stability and security in the South Pacific and Timor-Leste;
• Principal Task Three: contribute to military contingencies in the Indo-Pacific region, with priority given to Southeast Asia; and
• Principal Task Four: contribute to military contingencies in support of global security.

Since January 2008, the Government has approved more than 150 proposals for new or enhanced defence capabilities with a total value of over $20 billion.

Defence has taken delivery of a number of major systems over this period, including C-17 heavy lift aircraft, F/A‑18F Super Hornet combat aircraft, Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles and two large amphibious/sea lift vessels. By the end of this decade, the ADF will also take delivery of three Air Warfare Destroyers, two Landing Helicopter Dock amphibious ships and new combat helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

The total value of the projects approved in 2012-13 is more than $3.7 billion to date.

Continuing to approve new projects to enhance the ADF’s capability will be an important focus for Government in 2013-14.

The Budget’s capability activities in 2013-14 will include further consideration of Australia’s Air Combat Capability, P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, land mobility, future armoured vehicles, afloat support vessels, communications and interoperability capabilities, intelligence and surveillance systems, electronic warfare, space and cyber.

The total value of projects proposed to be considered by Government in 2013-14 for progressing amounts to up to $20 billion.

Defence will also continue to progress a number of projects in 2013-14, including:

• Acquisition of the Growler Airborne Electronic Attack capability;
• Acquisition of 2700 medium and heavy trucks for Army as well as continuing delivery of 2150 G-Wagon vehicles;
• Continuing upgrades of the ANZAC Frigates with advanced radars;
• Continuing upgrades to Collins Class submarines and reforms to improve their availability and reliability;
• Preparing for the delivery of MH-60R Seahawk maritime combat helicopters;
• Continuing with the acceptance into service of Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters and MRH-90 battlefield helicopter;
• Progressing the acquisition of C-27J battlefield airlifters;
• Continuing construction of the Air Warfare Destroyers; and
• Commencing acceptance into service of the first Landing Helicopter Dock, HMAS Canberra.  

As well, the Government will continue to develop the Future Submarine capability. 

The White Paper highlights the strategic value and importance of Australia’s submarine capability and confirms the Government’s commitment to replacing the existing Collins Class fleet with an expanded fleet of 12 conventional submarines to be assembled in South Australia.

The Government has approved over $214 million for further detailed studies and analysis, which builds on work already undertaken, to inform the Government’s decision on the design of Australia’s next submarine.

The Government has taken the important decision to suspend further investigation of the two Future Submarine options based on military-off-the-shelf designs in favour of focusing resources on progressing an ‘evolved Collins’ and new design options that are likely to best meet Australia’s future strategic and capability requirements.

The Government has also directed further work on a new Submarine Propulsion Energy Support and Integration Facility in Adelaide.  This land-based facility will substantially reduce risk in the Future Submarine Program by providing the capability to research, integrate, assemble and test the propulsion, energy and drive train systems in all stages of the Future Submarine’s design, build and through-life sustainment.

For more information and access to the Portfolio Budget Statement go to http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/13-14/index.htm

Media contacts:

Minister Smith’s office:  Andrew Porter 0419 474 392 and Sacha Fenton 0467 784 528

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

Australia’s Defence operations will continue to be fully supported with the Budget allocating $1.4 billion across the 2013-14 Budget and Forward Estimates period.

The key measure under this commitment is the support to the Middle East Area of Operations (MEAO), including in particular Afghanistan, as the process of transition to Afghan security leadership in Uruzgan Province concludes by December 2013.

Afghanistan (Operation SLIPPER)

Australia’s contribution to operations in Afghanistan commenced in December 2001.   Since then, Australia’s military contribution in Afghanistan has risen to an annual average strength of around 1550 ADF personnel, with around 800 additional personnel providing support from locations within the broader Middle East Area of Operations.

The process of transition to Afghan security leadership in Uruzgan Province commenced in July 2012 and will conclude by December this year with the closure of Multi-National Base – Tarin Kot. 

As part of this process, Australia’s training and mentoring forces in Uruzgan commenced drawdown and began returning to Australia at the end of 2012.

The Government has allocated $1.3 billion to fund operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East over the 2013-14 Budget and Forward Estimates period.

Timor-Leste (Operation ASTUTE)

The Australian-led International Stabilisation Force (ISF), consisting of military personnel from Australia and New Zealand, commenced operations in Timor-Leste in 2006.

The successful conclusion of the Timor-Leste national elections in July 2012 marked a turning point for the ADF’s contribution.  The ISF concluded its security mission in November 2012 and was drawn down in parallel with the UN mission in Timor-Leste.  The ISF drawdown concluded in March 2013.

Australia retains 24 Defence personnel in Timor-Leste as part of our bilateral Defence Cooperation Program.

The Government has allocated $5.4 million in the 2013-14 Budget for the remediation of equipment returned to Australia following the ADF’s successful contribution to maintenance of peace and stability in East Timor as part of Operation ASTUTE.

Solomon Islands (Operation ANODE)

The Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) was established in 2003.  In view of the progress made in restoring internal security and stability, and following endorsement by the Government of Solomon Islands in November 2011, RAMSI is currently transitioning into a law enforcement mission comprised almost entirely of police. Accordingly, the ADF component of RAMSI is planned to be withdrawn from mid-2013.

The Government has allocated $11.4 million in support of Defence’s role in Operation ANODE, the RAMSI, over the 2013-14 Budget and Forward Estimates period.

Operation RESOLUTE

Operation RESOLUTE, the military contribution to whole of Government maritime security activities, will continue.  The Government has allocated $9.9 million in support of Operation RESOLUTE.

Support to the 2014 G20 Summit

The Government has also agreed to ADF support for Australia’s hosting of the Group of 20 (G20) in 2014.  The Government has allocated $7.1 million in support of the 2014 G20 Summit.

For more information and access to the Portfolio Budget Statement go to http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/13-14/index.htm

Media contacts:

Minister Smith’s office:  Andrew Porter 0419 474 392 and Sacha Fenton 0467 784 528

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

The 2013 Defence White Paper (the White Paper) addresses the range of significant international and domestic developments which influence Australia’s national security and defence settings, including their impact on force posture, future force structure and the Defence budget.

The White Paper outlines the capabilities that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) will need in the coming years to address strategic challenges.  The Government is committed to ensuring that the ADF has the capability and culture it needs to effectively serve Australia’s national security interests.

The Government remains committed to a Defence budget which ensures the ADF can meet the Government’s operational, force posture and preparedness requirements and deliver the core ADF capabilities the Government requires to protect Australia’s national security interests.

The Government has decided that the Defence funding model will be based on the four-year Forward Estimates Budget cycle, determined on an annual basis taking into account contemporary strategic economic and fiscal circumstances and a subsequent six-year general guidance for Defence planning purposes.   

This aligns Defence funding with the Commonwealth’s broader budget process, which provides certainty for planning purposes in the short-term, and is consistent with the historical management of the Defence budget and the inherent difficulty in forecasting fiscal circumstances in the longer-term.

In the 2013-14 Budget, the Government has provided $113.1 billion (including $1.4 billion for Operations) to Defence over the Forward Estimates, with the Budget growing from $25.3 billion in 2013-14 to $30.7 billion in 2016-17.  This compares to $103.2 billion (including $1.9 billion for operations) in the 2012-13 Budget Forward Estimates.

For general guidance for Defence planning purposes, the Government has also provided Defence with funding guidance of around $220 billion over the subsequent six years from 2017-18 to 2022-23.

This six-year funding guidance is based on the need to continue increasing investment in Defence capabilities as outlined in the White Paper and an assessment of sustainable growth in the Defence Budget after 2016-17.

In conjunction with establishing the new funding model for Defence, the Defence budget has been reprofiled over the Forward Estimates for expenditure on priority Capital Investment and Sustainment Programs.  This includes the acquisition of 12 new EA-18G Growler aircraft, as announced in the White Paper, for which the Government will also provide Defence an additional $200 million in 2014-15.

The Government is also committed to increasing Defence funding towards a target of two per cent of GDP. This is a long-term objective that will be implemented in an economically responsible manner as and when fiscal circumstances allow.

Defence funding in the Forward Estimates and general guidance in the following six years will enable Defence to plan and progress the acquisition of important Defence capabilities, including:

• The acquisition of 12 new build EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, at a cost of $2.94 billion;
• Early replacement of the Armidale Class patrol boats, acquisition of Hydrographic Survey Vessels, upgrades to Minehunter Coastal vessels and deferral of the Multi Role Offshore Combatant ship;
• The replacement of replenishment ships HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius;
• Additional funding for investment in Australian-developed phased array radar technology for the Future Frigates;
• Establishment, in partnership with the United States, of a jointly-operated C-band radar space surveillance installation at the Harold E. Holt naval communication facility in Western Australia;
• Acceleration of enhancements to Special Operations capabilities; and
• The consideration of acquisition of P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft.

The reprofiling of funding will also enable Defence to progress a range of additional investment priorities, including:

• $599 million in additional sustainment activities in Navy, Army and Air Force;
• $236 million in additional funding for approved major capital equipment projects;
• $91 million in additional funding for Information Communications Technology;
• $120 million to establish two new industry development funds: the Priority Industry Capability fund and the Defence Innovation Realisation Fund; and
• Early investment in priority major capital facilities works and maintenance of the Defence estate. 

The reprofiling of the Budget will in the usual way involve adjustments to the priority of activities across Defence, including proposed capability acquisitions.  Details will be provided in the next Public Defence Capability Plan, to be published before the end of the 2012-13 financial year.

The Budget will continue to involve:

• no adverse impact on overseas operations;
• no reduction of the number of military personnel in the Army, Navy and Air Force.  The Government remains committed to maintaining an ADF workforce of approximately 59,000 permanent members;
• no adverse implications for equipment for forces about to be deployed or on deployment; and
• no adverse impact on our enhanced practical cooperation with the US. 

For more information and access to the Portfolio Budget Statement go to http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/13-14/index.htm

Media contacts:

Minister Smith’s office:  Andrew Porter 0419 474 392 and Sacha Fenton 0467 784 528

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE:  14 May 2013

NICK CHAMPION, MEMBER FOR WAKEFIELD:  My question is for the Minister for Defence. How does the Government’s Defence White Paper outline a plan to provide for Australia’s future security?

STEPHEN SMITH, MINISTER FOR DEFENCE:  I thank the Member for his question and acknowledge his longstanding interest in national security matters, particularly our maritime security and the capability of Adelaide to be at the heart and centre of that.

The Prime Minister and I released the Defence White Paper on 3 May and that provides the strategic analysis which fits Australia for our future national security challenges. The strategic analysis in the White Paper has been widely regarded as a sensible and careful analysis of those future challenges and risks.

It provides a roadmap for us to protect and enhance Australia’s national security interests.

The White Paper outlines, in the Government’s view, the formation of a new strategic entity which we describe as the Indo-Pacific. This reflects not just the rise of China but also the rise of India. The paper draws attention to the essential need for the United States-China relationship to be a positive and productive one, and particularly for that relationship to grow from an economic relationship to a relationship at the same level in the political, strategic, defence-to-defence and military-to-military area.

We also acknowledged the importance of the United States rebalance and some of the current issues facing Australia: a drawdown from Afghanistan, Timor-Leste and the Solomons, and our own Force Posture Review reflected by the first Force Posture Review in over 25 years.

And so the strategic analysis sets out those challenges. The capability decisions made in the White Paper allow the Australian Defence Force, the ADF, to meet those challenges for the future and to discharge the obligations given to it by the Government. The two primary decisions made in the White Paper so far as capability is concerned are the purchase of 12 off-the-production-line Growler electronic warfare capability aircraft to add to our 24 Super Hornets and to our 71 Classic Hornets and, importantly, a narrowing of our capability decision so far as our 12 submarines to be assembled in South Australia are concerned: to an evolved Collins model or to a brand-new design—in contrast to those opposite, through their Shadow Minister, who look only at an off-the-shelf foreign purchase.

I have seen a lot of comment made about finance in this area. The White Paper does respond to the adverse implications of the global financial crisis. I have also seen reference that the fact that we are not currently at two per cent of GDP spending creates a crisis in Defence spending. We remain the 13^th largest defence spender, and if you think there is a crisis in Defence spending because we are not at two per cent of GDP then I regret to advise the House that we have had that crisis since 1999. We have not had two per cent of GDP since that time. We have an aspiration to go to two per cent, but we have a bipartisanship approach here to defence spending: everyone has an aspiration to two per cent, but that has not been met in reality since 1999.

The report outlines the range of public submissions received, Defence’s response to those issues, and further details and analysis on the options for the crane’s removal.

Of the eight options outlined in the report, the removal of the crane and the salvage of key heritage components for display is the lowest cost option by a factor of three, at $7.4 million. To leave the crane in its current place and therefore build a new wharf east of Garden Island would cost 17 times more than the preferred option, at $123.7 million.

“The Hammerhead Crane is more than 60 years old and hasn’t been used for the past 16 of those years. Even if we did pay to return it to the best condition it was ever in, it would still not deliver a third of the capability that our cranes now deliver,” Senator Feeney said.

“The reality is, it’s a crane that was built in 1951. In its peak, it was lifting 250 tonnes. By 1996 the rust was so bad that the crane was barely lifting 70 tonnes. Compare this to modern cranes that are lifting in excess of 800 tonnes and you can see just how unworkable it is to keep this crane in a working Navy base.

“It limits our Navy’s ability to use the wharf at Garden Island and adjacent berths, as well as adding a layer of complexity when maintaining and repairing ships. This is a problem that will only get worse with the arrival of our multi-billion dollar Landing Helicopter Docks.

“Every centimetre of compromise given to this crane takes away from our Navy’s ability to use Garden Island to its best possible advantage.

“It is a liability that costs over $700,000 just to keep it standing there safely. This is money that comes straight out of our Defence budget. Every year the crane stands, that’s $700,000 or more that our nation loses to real Defence capability. The absurdity of this is reflected by the fact that Defence received an unusually high percentage of submissions in favour of removing the crane,” he said.

The proposal to remove the crane is being assessed under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The decision on the crane’s removal will be made by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, the Hon Tony Burke MP, after considering the report.

The report can be downloaded from www.gml.com.au/hammerhead-crane-public-exhibition or viewed at the following locations from 13 May – 7 June 2013 inclusive:

• Customs House Library, 31 Alfred Street, Circular Quay, NSW
• The State Library of NSW, Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW
• The library of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities at John Gorton Building, King Edward Terrace, Parkes, ACT.

Media contacts:
Senator Feeney’s office: Jeffrey von Drehnen 0477 348 476
Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

Dr Kelly said the purpose of the summit was to review remediation plans of each Project of Concern, discuss progress since the last summit in November 2012 and assess prospects for removal from the Projects of Concern list.

Since February 2011 the Government has held bi-annual face-to-face meetings with Defence and industry to focus on advancing projects towards completion. This week’s summit was the fifth held since 2011.

“We are seeing tangible benefits in having Government, Defence and Industry representatives discussing issues together and working towards remediation of these troubled projects” Dr Kelly said.

“Ultimately results from these summits will deliver real benefits to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force.”

Since the previous summit, held in November 2012, two projects have been remediated and removed from the list and two new projects added: JP 2086 Phase 1 (Mulwala Redevelopment Project) and LAND 40 Phase 2 (Direct Fire Support Weapons).

Dr Kelly said all parties are working together to achieve the main aim of the Projects of Concern process in putting the projects back on track and removed from the list.

The Projects of Concern process was established by the Government to focus the attention of the highest levels of Government, Defence and Industry on remediating problem projects.

Since the Projects of Concern process was established, 21 projects have been put on the list. Fifteen have since been removed – 13 due to remediation and two due to cancellation.

The current Projects of Concern list is attached.

Projects of Concern List:

Projects removed from Projects of Concern list:

Media contacts:      

Dr Kelly’s office: Robbie Rynehart (02) 6277 7730 or 0459 810 654

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

Dr Kelly said L-3 Oceania was selected through an open tender process for a military-off-the-shelf solution that was certified for use on the Wideband Global Satellite System. 

“The JP 2008 Phase 3H Acquisition Contract will acquire 51 terminals, 30 deployment kits, spares and test equipment at a value of nearly $32 million,” Dr Kelly said.

“A separate performance based in-service support contract will provide integrated logistics support, engineering services, supply support services, maintenance services and training at a value of around $7 million over three years.”

JP 2008 Phase 3H forms part of a coordinated set of projects seeking to deploy an integrated Wideband Global Satellite communications capability into the ADF.

“This will be achieved by the linking of sensors, weapon systems, and commanders to their respective command and control systems,” Dr Kelly said. 

The project will expand the use of the Wideband Global Satellite system by introducing medium-sized WGS-certified transportable satellite terminals to ADF land forces.

This will allow the earlier use of enhanced satellite communications services in Australia and also in key operational areas where commercial satellite resources are limited.

The capability is scheduled for delivery in 2014.

Media contacts:

Dr Kelly’s office: Robbie Rynehart (02) 6277 7730 or 0459 810 654

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

The MRH90 program is three years late and has experienced a number of technical and commercial challenges and is currently on the Government’s Projects of Concern list. 

The agreement signed today will re-baseline the project’s schedule and settle a number of disputed program issues. 

As agreed last year, Australian Aerospace is already developing and implementing a range of technical fixes that will ensure the MRH90s being delivered to Army and Navy are reliable and effective. 

The agreement signed between the parties today also covers a number of commercial and contractual measures that will make the MRH90 more affordable and increase confidence in the revised delivery schedule. 

Included in today’s agreement is the delivery of a 47th aircraft, at no additional cost, to be used as a live training aid for Army and Navy aviation technicians who undergo MRH90 training at the Army’s Aviation Maintenance school at Oakey, Queensland. 

Overall, this is a good outcome for Defence and Australian Aerospace.  Both parties have worked collaboratively, within the Projects of Concern framework, to reach this positive outcome. 

With continued good progress, the MRH90 program will be considered for removal from the Projects of Concern list by the end of 2013. 

Media contacts:
Minister Smith’s office: Sacha Fenton (02) 6277 7800 or 0467 784 528
Minister Kelly’s office: Robbie Rynehart (02) 6277 7730 or 0459 810 654
Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

The MRH90 program is three years late and has experienced a number of technical and commercial challenges and is currently on the Government’s Projects of Concern list. 

The agreement signed today will re-baseline the project’s schedule and settle a number of disputed program issues. 

As agreed last year, Australian Aerospace is already developing and implementing a range of technical fixes that will ensure the MRH90s being delivered to Army and Navy are reliable and effective. 

The agreement signed between the parties today also covers a number of commercial and contractual measures that will make the MRH90 more affordable and increase confidence in the revised delivery schedule. 

Included in today’s agreement is the delivery of a 47th aircraft, at no additional cost, to be used as a live training aid for Army and Navy aviation technicians who undergo MRH90 training at the Army’s Aviation Maintenance school at Oakey, Queensland. 

Overall, this is a good outcome for Defence and Australian Aerospace.  Both parties have worked collaboratively, within the Projects of Concern framework, to reach this positive outcome. 

With continued good progress, the MRH90 program will be considered for removal from the Projects of Concern list by the end of 2013. 

Media contacts:
Minister Smith’s office: Sacha Fenton (02) 6277 7800 or 0467 784 528
Minister Kelly’s office: Robbie Rynehart (02) 6277 7730 or 0459 810 654
Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill will provide the framework to regulate access to the area, including the development of significant mineral resources. 

The draft legislation implements the recommendations of the Final Report of the Review of the WPA.  Consistent with the Review, Defence remains the primary user of the WPA, which provides an essential capability for Defence testing and evaluation.    

The new framework will also provide greater certainty for the resources sector and clarify user access arrangements.  The legislation contains provisions relating to user access rights, an access permit scheme, compensation and cost recovery arrangements, enforcement provisions and appeals process.    

The draft legislation recognises the needs of users in the WPA, including for Defence purposes, resource and logistics companies, pastoralists, Indigenous groups, the South Australian Government and its agencies, environmental groups, tourists, researchers and residents of the WPA and surrounding areas. 

The Government intends to introduce the Bill to Parliament later this month. The associated rules, which will be jointly agreed by both Ministers, will be released for public consultation following the Bill’s introduction. 

The introduction of legislation is a significant milestone in the development of a workable access regime for the WPA. 

The draft legislation and accompanying information paper is available at http://www.defence.gov.au/woomera.  Interested parties should consider the draft legislation and respond with any comments by the closing date for initial submissions on 13 May 2013. 

The South Australian Government will host a public consultation workshop on the Bill at 9.00am, for 9.30am start, on Friday, 10 May, at the offices of DMITRE, Level 7, 101 Grenfell Street, Adelaide.  To register for the workshop, please email DMITRE.Exploration@sa.gov.au or ph 08 8463 3138 with the number of persons attending from your organisation. 

Media contacts:

Mr Smith’s Office: Sacha Fenton (02) 6277 7800 or 0467 784 528

Mr Gray’s Office: John Arthur (02) 6277 7930 or 0408 991 261

Commander 3rd Brigade Brigadier Shane Caughey updated Senator Feeney on the strategic plans and operational focus of the Brigade, including the progression of Army’s amphibious capability and Plan Beersheba  – Army’s force generation re-structure. The Army amphibious capability and force re-structure have been developed and supported under the direction of the Government.

The 3rd Brigade is currently finalising preparations for its Combined Arms Training Activity (CATA), which will see the majority of the Brigade deployed over the weekend. CATA is one of the final stepping stones prior to the major coalition exercise TALISMAN SABRE in July. TALISMAN SABRE will act as the certification for the Brigade to be declared ‘ready’ to take over planned and contingency operations later in the year.

A briefing was also held with the Commander of Queensland’s Reserve Brigade—11th Brigade, Brigadier Stephen Porter—to discuss 31/42 RQR, 35 Field Squadron, 11 Combat Service Support Battalion and Headquarters 11th Brigade.

“The Australian Government is committed to developing a force which is fully prepared and properly positioned for operations in our immediate region, so that Australia remains strong and secure. Re-structuring the Australian Army and developing an amphibious force will mean that the ADF is capable of operating in regional environments, to not only protect Australia but to offer assistance to neighbouring nations affected by natural disasters, like cyclones and tsunamis,” Senator Feeney said.

“I am pleased to see the progress Army has made on moving to a more sustainable and capable force, and the Government very much appreciates the fact that the community of Townsville plays a huge part in supporting this force, its members and their families,“ he said.

Brigadier Shane Caughey said the visit was a good opportunity to discuss the current and future work of the brigades.

“The visit enabled the Commander of the 11th Brigade and myself to outline the transition that will occur over the coming years as the Army adapts and develops under Plan Beersheba,” Brigadier Caughey said.

Senator Feeney was also updated on the developing 2nd Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment  Land Force Amphibious capability and other elements from the 3rd Brigade. He was also given an overview of international engagement in the region including Exercise OLGETTA WARRIOR, the Army’s enduring bilateral exercise with the Papua New Guinea Defence Force.

Senator Feeney also met with the Mayor of Townsville, Councillor Jenny Hill. They discussed their shared and ongoing commitment to a positive and sustainable Defence presence in Townsville.

Following the visit with 3rd Brigade and 11th Brigade, Senator Feeney met with Army youth Cadets 15 ACU.

“The long-term success of ADF Cadets is a focus of mine. The Cadet organisation is an important part of a community’s assistance toward the next generation,” Senator Feeney said.

“When I speak with Cadets at visits such as this one, I learn what they love about the program and what they would like more of. The more I speak with Cadets the more I know this is a program that will continue to grow with the support it receives from the Government.

“It is a program that embodies values such as honour, honesty, integrity, courage, loyalty, teamwork and citizenship,” he said.

Media contacts:
Office of Senator Feeney: Jeffrey Von Drehnen 0477 348 476
Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

“This is the second of the grouped-asset, long-term, performance-based contracts for the repair and maintenance of the Navy’s major surface ships,” Dr Kelly said.

“It demonstrates the Government’s commitment, through the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), to transform the naval ship repair sector and apply innovative contracting practices to get the best outcome for the Navy, for industry and for every Australian taxpayer.

“The DMO has now received all the technical clearances necessary to release the tender documentation to the three ‘short-listed’ companies: BAE Systems, Rolls Royce/KBR and Thales Australia.”

The contract will be for an initial five-year period, with the potential for rolling year-on-year contract extensions if contracted quality and service level requirements are met and efficiencies are achieved, up until the life-of-type of the Adelaide Class of ships.

Today’s announcement follows the first Group Maintenance Contract, signed in May last year, for the repair and maintenance of the Navy’s eight ANZAC Class frigates.

“Already under the first contract with Naval Ship Management (Australia), a joint venture between Babcock and United Group Infrastructure, Defence is reporting savings on a like-for-like scope of work in the order of 20 percent,” Dr Kelly said.

“We have long recognised that the grouping or ‘batching’ of ship repair and maintenance events offers the potential for real savings by reducing the administrative burden of per-event tender contracting, providing greater certainty of revenue streams and work effort, and promoting better planning.

“This initiative will provide industry with the predictability and stability it needs to achieve efficiencies, to offer job security to its workforce and to invest in capital infrastructure.”

The Group Maintenance Contract model also offers benefits to the Royal Australian Navy through improved forecasting and planning of maintenance localities and duration, and the opportunity to realise lower costs while achieving greater continuity in the repair and maintenance of its ships.

Media contacts:

Dr Kelly’s office: Robbie Rynehart (02) 6277 7730 or 0459 810 654

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

Senator Feeney met with the Commanding Officer of the 9th Battalion, The Royal Queensland Regiment, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Brennan.

“I was privileged to discuss the role the Army Reserve light infantry battalion plays in the Bundaberg region, as well as the support local employers give to our Reservists here,” Senator Feeney said.

“The strong relationship this community has with 9 RQR is best exemplified by the fantastic support provided by these Reservists to the community following the recent floods.

“In Bundaberg I have witnessed such a strong determination to overcome adversity, that I have no doubt whatsoever, this is a community which will not merely survive but thrive,” he said.

In response to flooding in the Bundaberg region earlier in the year, the ADF committed about 350 personnel to the relief effort. Personnel assisted local authorities in search and rescue, initial restoration of utilities and services, route clearance, recovery support and health assessments.

Following his visit to 9 RQR, Senator Feeney met with the local youth AAC unit, 18 ACU.

“18 ACU is a unit Bundaberg should be proud of. It is a vibrant and strong unit with 97 Cadets in a region with many other competitive youth-development programs,” Senator Feeney said.

“The ADF Cadet program offers an understanding of our nation’s military culture and history. It instils in Cadets a sense of community responsibility in a way no other youth program can. The Cadets learn about the values that were demonstrated by previous generations – and originating with our earliest Anzacs at Gallipoli – honour, honesty, integrity, courage, loyalty, teamwork and citizenship.”

Media contacts:

Senator Feeney’s office: Jeffrey Von Drehnen 0477 348 476

Defence Media Operations: (02) 6127 1999

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE:  6 May 2013

TOPICS: 2013 Defence White Paper. 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Thanks very much for coming. I’m very pleased to be back at ASC and Techport at Adelaide and obviously very pleased to be joined by the Premier.         

I wanted to come to South Australia in the aftermath of the publication of the White Paper last week to make some remarks about our maritime capability, in particular, our submarines. There are a range of very important decisions in the White Paper which have implications for submarines, for our maritime surface vessels, and they have very positive implications for ASC, for Techport, and for Adelaide and South Australia.         

Firstly, so far as submarines are concerns, when I was last here back in December of last year, I made the point that we were looking at basing our land based test propulsion system for the new Future Submarine Project here in Adelaide in Techport, and that decision has been confirmed by the White Paper.         

So, that work will start now and so in the future as we do the detailed work on the Future Submarines project and again, the White Paper reconfirms, recommits to 12 new submarines to be assembled in South Australia, the work for the very important land based test propulsion system will occur here. There’ll be some additional work on that system in Melbourne and Western Australia, but the bulk of the work will be here.         

We’ve also announced in the White Paper that the four options which the Government was looking at, an off the shelf model for a future submarine, a modified off the shelf model, an evolved Collins design, or a brand new design has been now narrowed by the government.          

We are now focusing only on two options; an evolved Collins or a whole new design. And because this is the submarine design centre and a key centre for submarine maintenance, all of that work will essentially occur here.          

We have discounted a military off the shelf model so far as submarines is concerned because our analysis shows that it doesn’t give Australia either the operational or the strategic reach that we need for our maritime country and maritime continent to patrol our northern and western approaches and to reach to the Indonesian archipelago.         

So, we are focusing now on an evolved Collins or a wholly new design. The Collins Class submarine is the most capable, conventional submarine in the world at the moment and so to return to a military off the shelf model would see a capability less than the Collins.         

The Collins, as you know, has had its difficulties, but we are very pleased that the work we’ve been doing in a concentrated way over the last two to three years is now seeing a Collins Class maintenance and sustainment in a much better position.         

Today, for example, we’ve got two submarines in maintenance here. One submarine in maintenance in Stirling in Western Australia, but two available for operations and one actually in the water. So, of our six Collins Class submarines, we’ve got three which are available for operations. That’s a substantial improvement on what was available when I first became the Defence Minister.         

So far as surface vessels are concerned, the three Air Warfare Destroyer Projects – work on that will continue here in Techport until 2019 and in the meantime, the White Paper also announces to bring forward of consideration of the replacement for our two supply vessels or our replenishment vessels, HMAS Sirius and HMAS Success, and ASC and Techport will be able to put forward their options for that work. We’ve also announced the bring-forward of our patrol boats. So, both those pieces of work bringing forward from 2018 to consideration now.         

All in all, the combination of the ongoing Collins Class maintenance, the land based test propulsion system here for the Future Submarines Project, the narrowing of the options to an evolved Collins or a brand new design, and the bring forward for our supply ship’s consideration or replacement, the bring forward for our patrol boat for consideration for replacement, all of this is good news for Techport, good news for Adelaide, good new for South Australia.         

One of the issues we’ve been grappling with what has been described as the Valley of Death so far as maritime and Navy ship building is concerned. A document published with the White Paper last week is the Future Submarine Industries Skills Plan. This maps out our Navy, Defence, Defence Materiel, and the defence industry can see a smoother flow of work to retain our skills in the maritime ship building industry. Whether that’s the design and technical skills, or whether that’s when the world has hit the metal.        

And because this is such an important document for ASC, for Techport, for Adelaide, and South Australia, I’d like to present the Premier with his own personal copy.         

Jay. So, there’s your copy of the Submarine Future Skills plan and I’ll hand over to you and then we’re happy to respond to your questions. 

JAY WEATHERILL:     Thank you.         

Well, the decisions that have been made by the Federal Government, announced by Minister Smith, on Friday and the briefing that we’ve had today gives us great confidence in the future for Port Adelaide and not only Port Adelaide but South Australia.         

What they’ve now done is chosen the most important option for South Australia’s skills and capabilities, the option which is most likely to drive an advanced manufacturing future for South Australia. And this document sets out exactly how they’re going to get there.         

We’re about 3000 people down here at the moment working on various elements of the program. The submarines, the Future AWD Project, and also the beginning of the Future Submarine Projects.         

This allows us to sustain that employment into the future. We know we have a good pipeline of work through to 2019. The question becomes what we do after 2019. And all of the decisions and the thinking that’s gone into this document means that we’ll have a continuous pipeline of work.         

What that means is that we can have skills and capabilities stay in South Australia. It means workers here will continue to be able to have a future for themselves. Businesses will be able to invest on the strength of these industries continuing in the future, and that’s important. It’s important that there’s security so that businesses that are making business decisions know that there’s a long term future down here.         

The other thing that the Commonwealth Government has done by backing this in is to back in South Australian skill and capabilities. Backing Australian skills and capabilities for a future making things.          

For me, I haven’t intruded on the Defence issues. They’re matters for the Commonwealth Government about looking at capability. But from an industry development perspective, it is an absolute no brainer for the largest procurement project the Commonwealth is going to undertake to be doing that here in Australia.       

When you can build skills and capabilities for Australian workers that can then be used throughout the whole of industry. This doesn’t just stay in these four walls of this particular facility. It spills out and effects skills and capabilities across the whole South Australian landscape, and that’s exactly what we wanted to achieve when we set up Defence SA and bid for this work.         

We’ve now got about 25 per cent of the nation’s in-country Defence spend. That’s a fantastic achievement for a small state like South Australia and it’s the springboard for an advanced manufacturing future. I want to thank the Commonwealth Government for committing itself to this decision.         

I also want to express grave concerns about the Federal Coalition. Even in today’s paper we hear them – obviously the Federal Shadow Defence Minister’s been off speaking to some Americans. He’s come back from that. It’s managed to find its expression in The Financial Review today where we see at least the American defence analyst seems to be very convinced that the Coalition within the first six months should they be successful in becoming elected will be going straight back to an off the shelf option.         

That is no South Australian skills and capabilities. Not backing in South Australian workers, but wanting to export all of these opportunities offshore. Now, it doesn’t make sense from a Defence perspective, it doesn’t make sense from an industry development perspective, and I call on Tony Abbott and I call on his Shadow Defence Minister to back in the Commonwealth Government’s decision to back South Australian skills and capabilities and commit to the design options which mean South Australians – Australian skills and capabilities stay here in Australia. 

JOURNALIST:  Do you think the Coalition will see sense should they win Government given the fact that the Defence sector is telling you, obviously, the capabilities just aren’t there off the shelf? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      I endorse the Premier’s remarks. The remarks made on Friday afternoon in the aftermath or release of the White Paper by the Shadow Defence Minister are very concerning. They’re very alarming from a strategic point of view and they’re very alarming from a South Australian jobs and development point of view.         

The Shadow Minister for Defence, Senator Johnston, has consistently and repeatedly over the last two years said that he is focusing on a military off the shelf option for replacement submarines. He also said on Friday that he would not touch the Collins Class submarine with a barge pole.          

And so that throws up not just the spectre of the Opposition if they are successful in September – throws up not just the spectrum of an evolved Collins Class design for the Future Submarine being thrown out, work on a wholly brand new Australian design being thrown out, also conjures up notions of whether the Coalition, if in Government, would put the same investment, the same resources, the same effort into maintenance and sustainment of the Collins class submarine, which we’ve been doing to get our submarines back into the water at a sensible operating rate.         

And beyond the Collins Class submarine, it’s quite clear that the Shadow Minister for Defence’s instincts are to buy a military off the shelf model. That’s got two very concerning aspects. Firstly, the Collins Class submarine is the most capable, conventional class submarine in the world, so going to a military off the shelf model would be a lesser capability than the Collins.          

It would not give us the strategic or the operational reach that we need for a maritime country and a maritime continent – insofar as Adelaide, Techport, and ASC is concerned, runs the very grave risk that all of the work that we have referred to – the land based test propulsion system here – would not occur under the Coalition.         

The work on the Future Submarine Project, the design work, all of the technical and skills work on that front would not be done here. So, there are very grave risks as a result of what the Shadow Minister for Defence and the Coalition has said in the response to the White Paper on Friday. And the Premier is quite right. Tony Abbott needs to clarify precisely what would occur if he wins the election in September. 

JOURNALIST:  In terms of the Valley of Death, you mention the possibility of ASC bidding for patrol boats or supply boats, but there’s no guarantee for these Air Warfare Destroyer workers for continuity of work. Is there after 2019? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      The work on the Air Warfare Destroyer Project, our three Air Warfare Destroyer build, and that’ll be ongoing here until about the middle of 2019. And I’ve referred to the ongoing maintenance and sustainment work on the Collins Class submarine and the work that under a Labor Government is and will be done into the future on the design for the Future Submarines Project.         

So, rule of thumb, that’s just under 2000 workers on the Air Warfare Destroyer Project and just over 1000 workers on the submarine project. The Air Warfare Destroyer work will continue until 2019. In the meantime, we are bringing forward consideration of the supply ships or the replenishment ships.          

That’s to bring forward essentially from consideration in 2018 for consideration now and also the patrol boats on the same timetable. And that means that ASC can put forward its suggestions, its views, on both of those projects. There can never be guarantees when it comes to work done in our national security space.         

These all need to be done by way of competitive arrangements, but the very good news for ASC and Techport is you’ve got a guaranteed workflow so far as the Air Warfare Destroyer Projects are concerned until about the middle of 2019. And in the meantime options will be there for ASC and Techport to put their views forward to try and get their views known and heard on the bring-forward of our replacement for the supply ships, and the bring-forward of our replacement for the patrol boats.         

In the meantime, under a Labor Government, there would continue to be considerable work for the land-based test propulsion system, new work on that front, and also new design work – technical work for an evolved Collins design for the future submarine, or a brand new design. 

JOURNALIST:  So when would a decision be made on the bring-forward? And is there any money in the budget currently, if you’re bringing it from out years to within the current budgeting period? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      We have already decided to bring forward consideration of those two projects and that’ll start now. There is money in the forward estimates which will be published in next week’s Budget to cater for that bring-forward. And we will then, in due course, make decisions as to what our replacement ships are on both of those projects. 

JOURNALIST:  So when would you anticipate construction could begin, or work could begin here? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      I wouldn’t put a timetable on that, but the reason we’ve brought it forward five years is because when you look at the Future Submarine Industry Skills Program, what we’re trying to do is to get a smoother flow of work. So we want a smooth flow of work from, for example, the Air Warfare Destroyer Project when that finishes, in the fine print of the Future Submarines Program document, we’re also looking at the possibility of bringing forward for early consideration some aspects of the Future Frigate Program. Now that would be design, that would be technical, that would be systems, for example radar and the like.         

So whether it’s patrol boats, whether it’s Future Frigate, whether it’s supply ships, we’re trying to get a smoother flow of work. Now that doesn’t guarantee that the patrol boats, or the Future Frigates, or the supply ship’s replacement will come here, or Newcastle, or Western Australia or Melbourne, but it does mean that all of those very important naval and general maritime shipyards all know that the potential is there for a smooth flow of work. And that’s the thrust of the Future Submarine Industry Skills Program, and that’s the thrust of the white paper decisions that we’ve made in this space. 

JOURNALIST:  Wouldn’t the smoothest flow of work been to build a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      I’ve seen that suggestion, and the 2009 White Paper opened up the potential for the Government to consider the acquisition of a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer. But there’s no point making a decision for a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer unless it was something that we need strategically and operationally. And the very strong advice from the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Navy was that a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer was not required in a strategic, a tactical, or an operational sense.         

And so on that basis, when you are faced with making a national security decision, you can’t – and I’ve seen one commentator expressing it in the same way, you can’t let the tail wag the dog. You’ve got to make a national security decision, and so the national security decision we made was that there was no requirement for a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer. But then to make sure that we don’t lose the skills that we’ve acquired on the three Air Warfare Destroyer Project build – whether they’re technical skills or whether they’re metal cutting skills, we wanted to, in a sensible way which matched our strategic and tactical and operational demands, make sure there was a smoother flow of work.

We’re bringing forward consideration of our supply vessels because the Success and the Sirius are both ageing platforms, and we don’t want there to be a gap in capability. We’re bringing forward our patrol boats because our patrol boats have been worked very heavily in recent years. So it makes sense from a strategic, tactical and operational point of view, but that also made sense from a smoother flow of work point of view. But you can’t – when you’re trying to fill a skills gap or retain the skills, you can’t make a national security decision which involves billions of dollars, but for which there is no strategic or operational necessity.         

And that also – the strategic and operational necessity, also drove our decision on narrowing the focus on submarines to an evolved Collins, or to a brand new design, because strategically and operationally, none of the off the shelf models give you the strategic reach or the operation reach that Australia needs as a maritime continent with important northern and western approaches, with the growing importance of the Indian Ocean, but also, the need for our submarines to have the capability of engaging in the Indonesian archipelago. 

JOURNALIST:  There’s reports today of an hour long meeting between Ben Roberts-Smith and Tony Abbott which has sparked some speculation that Ben Roberts-Smith may be interested in a career in politics. Are you at all concerned by that? And do you ever have similar behind closed doors private meetings with him yourself? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      I think, frankly, that story’s been over egged. I see reported in the newspaper that he had a secret meeting which was witnessed by all concerned and, as a consequence, there being reports of it. It’s entirely a matter for Mr Abbott and for Ben Roberts-Smith. But from time to time, I have conversations with Ben as I do with the other VC winners, whether it’s Mark Donaldson or Dan Keighran.           

I have no idea what was discussed in the meeting, go off and ask Mr Abbott or Ben if you like. But whenever I see, blazoned all over newspapers, stories of a secret report, I take it with a grain of – secret meeting, I take it with a grain of salt. I think they both happened to be in Geelong at the same time. 

JOURNALIST:  When is construction of the next generation of subs expected to start here Aus Corp? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      We’re not proposing to put a timetable on that. What we know is this: the Collins Class submarine build, all of which occurred here. The build took place and they went into the water between 1996 and 2003. When they want into the water they had an on-paper life of type of 28 years. Part of the work that we’ve been doing to remediate the maintenance and sustainment of the Collins is also to look at the Collins life evaluation. And that has said that there’s no reason why we can’t get one more rotation, or one more cycle, out of the Collins, another seven years.         

So that sees the prospect of the Collins Class continuing to operate until 2031-2038. So the Future Submarines Project is a long-term project. We’re not talking months and years here, we’re talking years and decades. And I have been very assiduous, and I’ve made the point from day one as Defence Minister that I’m not going to be rushed into the Future Submarines Project. When I first became Minister, a lot of people said to me, you should rush off to Cabinet and get approval for the Future Submarine Project, and I said I’m not proposing to do that until we’ve got a very clear handle on the mistakes that we made with the Collins Class submarine, and we’ve got the Collins Class operating better.         

And a lot of the lessons we’ve learned from our last two years work on that Collins Class submarine will be invaluable for this Future Submarine program. All of our experience in defence capability work – are the mistakes you make early in the piece are magnified and maximised later in the piece. And that is particularly true of what will be the largest defence project the country’s seen and the largest capital works project the country’s seen. So I’m not putting a timetable on that, I want to make sure we do everything we can to get all of the detail right. And that’s what we’re doing.         

In the meantime, we are making substantial improvements on our Collins Class submarine maintenance and sustainment. Operational ability is slowly but steadily and surely improving. I rarely make political points when it comes to national security issues, but let me make a couple of political points.         

You would be forgiven for believing, when it comes to the Collins Class submarine, that the Howard Government did not exist. The last of the Collins Class submarines went into the water in 2003, and the first went into the water in 1996. Last time I looked the Howard Government got into office in 1996 and stayed until 2007, 11 years. If you believe the Shadow Minister for Defence you’d think the Collins Class submarine only started to have difficulties in December of 2007. So the Howard Government was on watch during the period of time in which the Collins Class submarine went into the water, and then the first 11 years of their maintenance and sustainment. We have done more work to improve to Collins Class availability, and maintenance and sustainment in the last two to three years than was done in the years 1996-2007 under the Howard Government. So I’ll just make that point.         

So we’re doing better with the Collins Class submarine, and we’re doing all of our methodical planning for the Future Submarine in the manner in which we’ve outlined including the design work which will be done here, including the land-based test propulsion system, the vast bulk of which will be done here. 

JOURNALIST:  That next generation sub – that timeframe, that’s blown out hasn’t it? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      No – It has – No. 

JOURNALIST:  Because it was previously suggested it 2021 we would get a start date – won’t we? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      It has not blown out. I have never as Defence Minister put a timetable on when work would begin in terms of the build, or when they would go into the water. I’ve always made the point, what we don’t want to occur is a gap in capability. We now know that there’s no reason why we can’t see the Collins Class submarines operating until the 2030s. So we want to have a progressive ongoing build, but the most important thing about the Future Submarines is to get all of the planning and all of the detail right, to learn the lessons of the Collins Class submarine. The big mistake with the Collins submarine was not to have a maintenance and sustainment plan from day one. We won’t make the same mistake with the Future Submarine whether it’s an evolved Collins, or a brand new design. 

JOURNALIST:  So the fact you’ve got flexibility with the Collins Class will extend the life of that. What’s the latest construction can start of the next generation? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well again I’m not putting a timetable on it other than to simply say we want to make sure that we get all of our planning right. This’ll be the single biggest capital works program that the Commonwealth has seen. There’ll be any number of Defence Ministers who will be on watch in the course of its preparation and its build. This is a project that will go not for years, but for decades.         

The most important thing is in an assiduous, methodical, careful way, to get all of the planning right, and that’s what we’re doing. And as a result of decisions made in the white paper, that planning and careful work, the vast bulk of it, will be done here. Okay. 

JOURNALIST:  What technologies and capabilities do you want to see in the Future Submarines that are currently in the Collins? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well firstly we need to have a submarine which is as capable as the Collins Class submarine. But given the Collins Class submarine went into the water between 1996 and 2003, obviously we want an advanced and superior design and submarine on that. The big mistake that Senator Johnston and the Coalition are making is that there is no military off the shelf submarine currently available which has the same reach and capability as the Collins.         

So obviously we want a Future Submarine which is fit for purpose and fit for the future, and that’s why we’re doing all the work we are. I think the Premier and I have got to go.         

Thanks very much.

The seminar will include senior representatives from the Australian Civil-Military Centre (ACMC) and the Indonesian Peacekeeping Centre (PMPP).

“The 2013 Defence White Paper reaffirmed the important role international engagement has in maintaining a secure and stable region. This seminar is a practical example of Australia’s commitment to further strengthen and broaden relationships with our neighbours including Indonesia,” Dr Kelly said.

The seminar will feature presentations by ACMC Executive Director Dr Alan Ryan, who will discuss the future of ACMC-PMPP collaboration, and Brigadier John Gould, Head of Australian Defence Staff Jakarta on the Australian-Indonesia bilateral relationship.

The seminar will officially launch a paper by Colonel Achmad Adipati Karnawidjaja, Director of International Cooperation and Information Management, PMPP, titled ‘Enhancing Civil-Military Cooperation and Regional Partnerships in International Peacekeeping Operations’. 

Colonel Karnawidjaja completed his paper whilst on secondment to the ACMC in late 2012.  The ACMC will offer a new secondment opportunity to the PMPP in the latter part of 2013.

The ACMC was established by the Australian Government in 2008 to assist in improving Australia’s civil-military effectiveness for conflict and disaster management overseas. 

The ACMC works with government departments and agencies and partners with international and non-government organisations including the United Nations, on issues related to civil-military engagement. ACMC activities help agencies to develop national capacity to prevent, prepare for and respond to conflicts and disasters overseas.

Media contacts:

Minister Kelly’s Office: Robbie Rynehart (02) 6277 7730 or 0459 810 654

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

Funding of up to $9 million is available in Round One of the Skilling Australia’s Defence Industry (SADI) Program.  The program aims to increase the quality of existing workforce skills and the quantity of skilled workers available to Australia’s defence industry.

“The SADI Program will boost the skills of defence industry workers by financially assisting Australian-based defence companies to participate in eligible training and skilling activities including apprenticeship supervision support, Masters level academic programs and short courses focused on technical and professional skill sets”, Dr Kelly said.

“The program will continue to boost Australia’s defence industry skills base by enlarging the pool of qualified engineers, technicians, tradespeople and project managers.

“I am particularly pleased to announce that additional flexibility is continuing to be introduced to the program to streamline its administration and overall efficiency.

“Applicants are able to bid for activities taking place at any time during the financial year in this first round. I urge companies to take advantage of this opportunity.”

Over $12 million will be available to fund eligible activities in the 2013-14 financial year, with up to $9 million available for Round One. The remainder, plus any funds unspent in Round One, will be available in a second round.

The first round of applications for SADI funding for 2013-14 opens today and will close at midnight (AEST) on Friday 31 May 2013.

To apply for SADI funding, or for more information, please visit http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/sadi or call the SADI hotline on 1800 651 292.

Media contacts:

Dr Kelly’s office: Robbie Rynehart (02) 6277 7730 or 0459 810 654

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE:  5 May 2013

TOPICS: 2013 Defence White Paper; Federal Elections.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  And as mentioned off the top we are joined now by the Defence Minister who has just released the Defence White Paper to end the week.            

Stephen Smith, thanks for your company.

DENNIS SHANAHAN:     Pleasure Peter.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  Can I just ask you about the Defence White Paper and I guess defence issues more broadly. We’ve had the Prime Minister’s diplomatic trip to China. We’ve obviously got an ongoing defence relationship, as well as diplomatic one, with the US. It looks like our relationship with China is growing diplomatically.

Are there any concerns here that we should have from a Defence perspective about there being a blurring of the lines between this emerging diplomatic relationship with China versus the realities of Australia’s sense of its defence policy for the defence of the nation?

STEPHEN SMITH:             No I don’t believe so. We have more than a diplomatic relationship with the United States; we have a military alliance with the United States. That’s served us and our region very well for over 60 years, and our military Alliance with the United States continues to be the bedrock of our defence security arrangements.               

At the same time we have a growing relationship with China, from our early recognition of China back in the 70s by the Whitlam Government and the one China policy. But more recently we’ve seen our Defence engagement with China grow. For the last 15 years we’ve had a high level dialogue with them with the Secretary of our departments and the Chief of our Defence Force with their equivalents, and that will continue. And the Prime Minister’s most recent successful visit saw high level dialogues planned on an annual basis between the leadership and between the Treasury Secretaries and the like.              

So, it’s not a zero sum game. It’s a win-win. And the point of the White Paper, and the point I’ve been making generally and the Government’s been making generally is that we can have an ongoing relationship, military alliance included with the United States, a growing relationship with China. The key to ongoing stability and peace and security and prosperity in our part of the world and the world generally is a positive and constructive relationship between China and the United States. And that’s the key.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  If we’ve got such good relations with both the US and China, diplomatically as well as militarily, what are we spending all this money on? What’s the Defence risk that requires us to have such a large spend on Defence?

STEPHEN SMITH:             In the White Paper I outlined the four priorities of the Australian Defence Force. We have to have a capable Australian Defence Force to protect our national security interests, but there are four levels.              

Firstly there is the Defence of Australia as the first priority. Now there is no immediate of foreseeable threat upon Australia itself, but we need to prepare for that – manage that risk. And that’s why you see more work being done on what we call our northern and western approaches.               

Secondly there’s the area of our region where the world sees us as having primary or lead responsibility. The South Pacific and Timor-Leste, we need to be able to operate there whether it’s stabilisation, as we’ve seen historically in the Solomon Islands or East Timor, or humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. And this week we held for the first time the first meeting of South Pacific Defence Ministers, which reflects that priority.               

Thirdly we’ve got the Indo-Pacific region generally. In particular, from our perspective, being able to operate with our partners, including the United States, in Southeast Asia.              

And finally we have the capacity to join into a global operation, and Afghanistan is the clear and best current example of that. And the White Paper, and our work in defence and national security continues to allow us to have an ADF which can do all of those things and do it effectively and efficiently. 

DENNIS SHANAHAN:     Minister you make the point that there is no direct threat to Australia, no immediate threat – we no longer see Indonesia as a threat to the north. But there is obviously, and the paper makes this point clear, a more fraught tension within the area, within the region. A greater chance of some regional conflict drawing us in or making us have some sort of decision as far as China or the US is concerned.               

But, if the area is more fraught, and if all of the other nations are spending more money on defence, why is there a more benign outlook for Australia? Is that to justify the fact that we are not increasing our spending, as are our regional allies? 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well a range of issues there.                

I wouldn’t use the word fraught. Certainly as you see a new power rise, in this case China, the other global powers, in this case the United States, have to adjust to that, as our region does, as the globe does. And so you’ve got the rise of China; the international community has to manage that, and that’s part of our strong view that the China-United States relationship is pivotal to that. Not just an economic relationship, which they now have at a very very high level, but growing their political, strategic, military and defence relationship. And we welcome the development of that.               

At the same time we rely upon our regional architecture, whether it’s the ASEAN related forums, or the Indian Ocean related forums. To have a regional architecture which does its best to reduce miscalculation, misjudgement and the like. And so that’s why we strongly argue that the maritime or territorial disputes which don’t involve the United States or Australia but involved China, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and others, are managed peacefully and in accordance with international law.               

Now, it’s not the case that everyone else in our region is increasing their defence spending. The classic example is the United States; going through the process of reducing billions of dollars out of their defence arrangements. 

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  But they’re cutting money out of defence at the same time as putting more focus on our region, nonetheless. 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Which is precisely what we’re doing. We had a tough fiscal time in the last budget, we reduced expenditure but we protected our priorities. No reduction in our overseas arrangements, particularly Afghanistan, no reduction in the money going to our growing practical cooperation with the United States.               

And in this White Paper, and in this Budget you’ll see a modest increase in our budget arrangements. But this White Paper, and I’ve seen it described by some commentators, does show, if you like, a re-balance to Australia and our region as we draw down, in particular from Afghanistan.               

The United States is going through a tough fiscal time, reducing expenditure in defence, as is the United Kingdom. So we have to manage that, and we’re managing that by protected our priorities which we did in the last budget, and which the white paper continues to do. Whether it’s core capability, whether it’s our practical cooperation with the United States, or whether it’s our intense engagement in our key areas of responsibility and interest; the South Pacific or South East Asia.               

Sorry Simon. 

SIMON BENSON:              You’ll probably repeat a bit of what you’ve just, but I wanted you to be specific, if you could. You mentioned one of the reasons being your fiscal realignment, one of the other reasons that has been quoted in the report as further reason to why it’s being brought forward was a change in the strategic landscape.               

Could you be specific about what has changed in the strategic landscape, not only more recently to bring the paper forward, but since 2009, since we had the last White Paper? 

STEPHEN SMITH:             In 2009 we said that we would have White Papers at least once every five years, we essentially set up a five year timetable. That was because the previous White Paper was 2009, and so the Coalition Government under John Howard did a White Paper in 2000, and then with the change of Government at the end of 2007 we had White Paper nearly two years later, 2009.               

That was too long a gap. And because it was too long a gap we said you’ve got to have it every five years. About a year ago, almost to the day, the Prime Minister and I said there are a range of reasons why we should bring forward the current White Paper from what would have been April of next year, 2014, to April, May or June of this year, we said the second half of this year.                

And that was for a range of reasons. It was clear that the transitional draw-down from Afghanistan was occurring, and so for the first time in a decade we would have the opportunity to see what the implications were in the absence of a very high tempo 1,550 commitment to Afghanistan. We didn’t want to make the same mistake that we made after Vietnam which was a draw-down from Indo-China which, just by way of digression, was much less elegant than the draw-down we’re seeing now, the so-called embassy roof withdrawal.               

We didn’t want to make the same mistake which was to not say well what do we do now, what’s our strategic focus for the future. And we also didn’t want to reduce military numbers.               

At the same time you had the rebalance of the United States, including our enhanced practical cooperation in the Northern Territory, whether it’s Marines, or aerial access, and in the future Naval operations out of HMAS Stirling. We had the ongoing deleterious and adverse implications of the global financial crisis, which had impacted severely on our Budget arrangements.                

And you also had, for the first time in a quarter of a century, I affected what’s called a Force Posture Review. Which is, how do we position our own Defence Force in Australia. That was the first time we’d done that since the mid 1980s. 

SIMON BENSON:              But when you talk about a change in- 

STEPHEN SMITH:             You bring all of those elements together, plus – if you like the starting point of your question – plus, the ongoing consolidation of strategic weight, economic weight, political weight and military weight in our part of the world. Not just the rise of China, but also the rise of India, which is why I’ve been describing the arc now of our interest as the Indo-Pacific, or, as I’ve seen it described, from Hollywood to Bollywood.               

So it was that consolidation which caused us to say it makes sense for us to do it now. There was no further bring-forward of it. I always had in mind that we’d publish the White Paper some time in the run-up to, or in, or shortly after, the Budget.               

So whilst we were saying June, my view was always May. 

SID MAHER:       Minister that brings me to a question on the timing of the White Paper. Why release the White Paper two weeks before the Budget, why not release the White Paper after the Budget when it can have some numbers in it? And, you know, one of the big criticisms of this White Paper has been the fact that it doesn’t have any numbers in it and it’s leading people to question whether you can pay for what you’re saying you’re going to do. 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well let me give you, if you like, a snapshot of history. The 2000 White Paper published by the Coalition had about four or five pages on budget and finance, it’s not a budget document it’s a White Paper, and said that its ambition, its pledge, was 1.9 per cent of GDP spending over the 2000s.               

The 2009 White Paper, our White Paper, had about two or three pages on budget and finance, it’s not a budget document. But set out what I describe as the budget rules, or the budget approach to defence; a guaranteed share of Defence spending into the future and ambition for two per cent. And that wasn’t met because of the global financial crisis. 

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  But multiple wrongs don’t make a right on this, and fiscal prudence is a huge issue at the moment. 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Fine, that’s fine. But I’ve seen people say that because we haven’t met two per cent of GDP it’s the worst day for Australian Defence since the fall of Saigon.                

The 2000 White Paper by the Coalition Government said 1.9 per cent of GDP. We didn’t see 1.9 per cent of GDP from all of the year 2000 until now, that’s the first point               

We haven’t had-

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  But I think the difference is people would have looked at that in the context of their budgets and said the funding’s definitely coming. Whereas people look at this in the context of an eroding Budget, and wonder whether or not the two per cent’s going to get hit. 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Firstly, both political parties now say – the Government and the Coalition say that they have an aspiration for two per cent of GDP. That’s not the only measure, but just to ensure and placate you that Defence funding is not in crisis, the 2000 White Paper by the Liberal Government said we’ll have 1.9 per cent of GDP; that wasn’t met.               

The 2000 White Paper from us said two per cent of GDP, that wasn’t met. We haven’t seen two per cent of GDP since 1999, right? And there’s not been a crisis in defence spending.              

Currently, if you look at the budgets and if you open up the Budget papers in a week or so time, you’ll see defence spending in the order of between 1.55 and 1.6.               

Now, I’d prefer it was higher, but we’re still able to do the things that we need to do to keep the ADF capable, efficient and effective, and to do the objectives that – those four objectives I outlined earlier, that Government needs and wants it to do. 

DENNIS SHANAHAN:     Minister accepting your point that it’s a White Paper and not a budget paper. Still, it remains that your Secretary of Defence, while Secretary of Foreign Affairs, made the point that Australia could not sustain a strategic outlook on Defence while its budget was less than two per cent.               

Now, that was his position going into it, the Coalition has indicated it wants to aspire to two per cent, the White Paper contains an aspiration to two per cent. So clearly this Budget issue of two per cent for defence funding is a legitimate strategic issue as well as a Budget issue, and when can we expect to see some return to that level of strategic spending? 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well, I think you’ve over-egged Dennis Richardson’s speech quite frankly- 

DENNIS SHANAHAN:     I- Well- 

STEPHEN SMITH:             No, I think you’ve over-egged his speech. I’ve read that speech, he committed himself to giving that speech when he was Secretary for Foreign Affairs- 

DENNIS SHANAHAN:     I made that point- 

STEPHEN SMITH:             -and he announced it when he’d been announced as Secretary of Defence. 

But Dennis is- 

DENNIS SHANAHAN:     No there was a previous speech Minister where he gave that while he was still the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and he made the point it was not sustainable in the long term for Australia to have less than two per cent. 

STEPHEN SMITH:             You’ve over-egged his speech firstly. Secondly, everyone is out there saying we’d prefer to be spending closer to two per cent of GDP than 1.5 or 1.6. Australia, under two successive Governments, the Howard Government from 2000 to December 2007, and the current Government from December 2007 until now, we have not seen two per cent of GDP spent on defence by either of those two Governments. 

That’s called an outbreak of bi-partisanship in defence spending. It’s 50 per cent of time each. They’ve out there with an aspiration which can’t be met in the short-term, and so are we.                

In the meantime, when you are under financial pressure you have to make sure that the things you can spend on are your priority areas. Since 2009 we’ve been spending over $100 billion over the four year forward estimate period in defence.                

Irrespective of our difficulty in terms of short or medium or long-term fiscal difficulties, we are still in the top 15 defence spenders in the world. We are still regarded as one of the most capable and effective defence forces.                

And so when you’re under pressure you’ve got to pick your priorities, and we pick our priorities. Our core capability will continue; whether it’s electronic warfare capability Growler, whether it’s the Joint Strike Fighters down the track, whether it’s Super-Hornets, whether it’s continuing with our submarine program, whether it’s replenishing Army with a new fleet of nearly 3,000 trucks, whether it’s making sure that our air combat capability continues to be superior in our immediate region, whether it’s the transformation of our Navy with Landing Helicopter Docks, Air Warfare Destroyers and a new submarine fleet in the decades ahead- 

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  Well can I ask you about that submarine fleet- 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Our core capability continues to be developed, and our capability and capacity continues to be efficient, effective, and more than enough to give us the ongoing superiority in our immediate region that we’ve always wanted to have.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  Minister can I ask you about the submarines? Now it strikes me that this is more – as I understand it both sides are supportive of this, but why build-

STEPHEN SMITH:             I’m not sure about that- 

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  Okay, well let me ask this question; why build submarines in South Australia for defence reasons only. We know that the Collins-class submarines, to put it lightly, have had their problems. We’ve now got a situation where we’re going to rely on them until their 50 year used by date, or at least from when they were first produced, and we’re building them in South Australia which strikes me as a sock to the manufacturing industry in a state that’s struggling rather than best decision making around best submarine warfare practice. 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well let’s go right back to basics. You either say that it’s important strategically for Australia to have a fleet of submarines or you say we don’t need them. We’re a maritime country, we’re a maritime continent, and our sea lines of communication – our northern and western approaches, the Indonesian archipelago, the Indian Ocean which will grow in importance, these are all absolutely essential strategic sea lines of communication. 

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  But I’m not questioning having subs, I’m questioning having subs that work. 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well that’s good, I’m glad you’re not because some people are. 

SID MAHER:       Minister- 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well I’ve been asked a question, let’s give us a go. 

Some people, including the Shadow Minister for Defence, are out there saying he wouldn’t touch the Collins-class with a barge poll. So does that mean if he became the Minister the Collins-class would shut down, we wouldn’t continue to do the work that we’ve been doing over the last two years to get them back into the water?              

I’ve been out there saying when you get the Collins-class in the water it’s a very effective capability and will continue to be a very effective capability. Tony Abbott said that the other day as well, but his Shadow Defence Minister is out there saying he won’t touch them with a barge poll.               

Adelaide happens to be our submarine building, designing and maintaining centre, with some work done in Western Australia where the subs themselves are based.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  But why not just buy proven submarines from our allies like the United States? 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well because the United States runs a nuclear submarine fleet and if we were to buy nuclear submarine fleets that would essentially mean outsourcing the entire submarine fleet to a different nation, irrespective of whether it was our military ally.               

But we have, in this White Paper, narrowed the options from four, which we had out there previously, and off the shelf submarine, a modified off the shelf submarine, and evolution of the Collins submarine, or a brand new design.                

We’ve done an exhaustive assessment of off the shelf, and the problem we have is this. You can’t find an off the shelf submarine which gives you the reach and the operational and strategic distance to meet our strategic requirements. It’s all well and good to have a European submarine which traverses the Baltic Sea or the North Atlantic; we have to have a submarine which traverses our northern and western approaches, particularly as the Indian Ocean grows in importance, has the capability of dealing with the strategic maritime demands of an island continent, not a small country in Europe.               

That’s why we’ve had to say we either evolve the Collins-class submarine or we have a brand new design. Or you accept, you either don’t have submarines, which may or may not be the Shadow Minister for Defence’s position, or you have a submarine which is inadequate for the strategic purposes that we need. 

SID MAHER:       Minister- 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Sorry Sid.

SID MAHER:       No. The problem with the Collins-class though is there was significant problems in building and operating the Collins-class. What is to say that going down this path again won’t produce the same problems?

STEPHEN SMITH:             When I came to office as Defence Minister, a number of people said to me Minister you must go right now to National Security Committee and Cabinet and start the future submarines project. To which I said no; we’ve got six submarines, at this stage my advice is that at any given day we either have zero or one or on a good day two able to go into the water. The first thing we’re going to do is to get the Collins-class submarine fleet back into a reasonable shape.              

So I got UK experts to go through it with a fine tooth comb. The problem with the Collins-class submarine was from the first moment there was never a proper maintenance and sustainment program.               

Now, despite the fact that the Liberal Party would have you believe that the Collins-class submarine problems only started in 2007, the first Collins-class submarine went into the water in 1996. The last one, the sixth, went into the water in 2003. And we’ve had difficulties with them from that moment, including 11 years of the Howard Government.               

The truth is we’ve done more over the last two years to get the Collins-class maintenance sustainment back under control and in a better shape than has been the case for a long time. Currently we’ve got three available for operations and one actually on operations. That’s a good thing, and so that – getting the subs in the water is improving.               

Meanwhile, there are very significant lessons that we learnt from that which we can put into the planning of the Future Submarine program, and that’s what we’re doing.

SID MAHER:       And what about manning the submarines? Because for a long time we’ve only been able to get a couple of submarines into the water because of manpower shortages.

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well it’s a very good point, and the Chief of Navy has been doing a very good job of building and growing the crewing availability for the Collins-class submarine. We know that as we move from the Collins-class submarine to the Future Submarine program, and we’re not talking months or years here, we’re talking decades, the Collins-class submarine when it went into the water has an on-paper life of 28 years.              

As part of work we’ve done on the Collins-class submarine we’ve done a life evaluation program which says there’s no reason why we can’t get seven more years out of the Collins. That takes you to an on-paper span of 2031 to 2038. And as we go with the future submarine program, it won’t be for some period of time before welders start to hit sheets of metal and the like, but there is a long period of time to do the planning, the development, and make sure that as the new submarines go into the water there’s no gap in capability with the Collins.              

We have learnt a considerable number of valuable lessons with our difficulties with the Collins, and they’re feeding into the Future Submarine program. And the reason I have been so meticulous, so careful, so making sure that we get the Future Submarine program right in its planning stage is that all of the experience of difficult defence projects is the mistakes you make early in the piece magnify exponentially when you go down the track.              

So that’s why – yes we want to have a submarine fleet which matches our strategic requirements and matches the operational requirements of an island continent. And you can’t do that if you simply buy off the shelf from a European model. 

SIMON BENSON:              Minister can I just take you back to the broader questions of the paper; why has the language about China, in this White Paper, been toned down significantly compared to the 2009 White Paper? Is that a recognition that that was unnecessarily provocative? 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well I conceded when I sort of spoke after the launch of the White Paper – I’m probably in a minority of one here, I accept that. But I’ve always been of the view that the Government’s articulation of our relationship with China, China’s emergence as a super power, has been the same from day one.              

But for whatever reason, the 2009 White Paper was interpreted in a particular way, essentially as aimed at China. I don’t believe it was.              

But in the course of- 

SIMON BENSON:              Well the Chinese said that at the time, didn’t they? 

STEPHEN SMITH:             The Chinese did say that at the time, and it’s always a relevant material factor as to how other nations interpret what you do- 

SIMON BENSON:              Exactly, I guess my point is have you taken on board the Chinese concerns? 

STEPHEN SMITH:             I’ve conceded that I’m in a minority of one in terms of the interpretation of that. 

SIMON BENSON:              My point is that, conceding that the Chinese were I guess upset by that, was it a deliberate effort on the part of the Government this time, and the authors of the Defence White Paper, to make sure that you did not repeat that mistake? 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well in the end the Government’s the author of the White Paper- 

SIMON BENSON:              Well I did say that, I said the Government and the authors of the White Paper. 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well it’s the same thing.

SIMON BENSON:              Sure, okay, right well we- 

STEPHEN SMITH:             And I am taking a bit of either credit or responsibility for-

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  But I guess the main point in that Minister is did you decide to tone down the rhetoric?

STEPHEN SMITH:             Look, just because another nation reacts adversely to something you do or say is not of itself a reason to change policy. What is our position on China, which has been reflected I think very well in the White Paper, but also reflected in the National Security Strategy earlier this year and the Asian Century White Paper at the end of last year.              

And indeed Peter Jennings, who is a former Deputy Secretary of Defence involved in the ’09 White Paper, now with ASPI, said publicly after the White Paper that he though that the strategic settings and the strategic commentary in the White Paper was pretty much perfect. And I think that’s right.               

But you get to the substance; what is our view of the rise of China. We want China to emerge in a peaceful way, we want China to be a responsible stakeholder, we want China to abide by international norms. We want China, most importantly, to have a positive relationship with the United States, not just economically, and their economies are now inextricably interwoven, but to grow their political, military, defence and strategic relationship. And that is occurring, that’s a very good thing.               

In our own case, I’ve never been of the school, and some commentators are, where we have to choose between one or the other. It’s not a zero sum game, it’s win-win. And so, as China rises that’s our approach. 

At the same time we will see, not necessarily in the course of the time that the five of us are doing these shows, but in future decades, we’ll also see the rise of India. And the United States and China, and our region and the globe will have to accommodate and adjust to a rising third power. 

SIMON BENSON:              That brings me to another point, and particularly NATO and the UK. We’ve recently signed partnerships with them – new Defence ties with them. They’re way down the list in this White Paper, but the UK and NATO have both expressed a view that they want far more interoperability with us and far closer ties with us for this region.

Was it deliberate to I guess downplay those roles in the White Paper so as not to offend our neighbours? 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well I don’t think they’re downplayed, it’s part of our global reach. We’ve been involved in Afghanistan – Iraq and Afghanistan for more than a decade.  

SIMON BENSON:              But it suggests that we’re going to retreat from that sort of global setting?

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well we’re certainly, and I don’t use the word you’ve used, we’re certainly transitioning or withdrawing from Afghanistan. But what we’ve learnt as a member of an over 50-strong international security assistance force where NATO is the key element with a United Nations mandate.

Our time in Afghanistan has seen that we have more in common with NATO and its constituent countries than just an operation in Afghanistan. There’s a lot that we share in common in terms of values and virtues and a view of the world.                

Now they’re in one part of the world, we’re in another. But their interests are also now starting to look to our part of the world, to the Indo-Pacific. But just because the world is moving in our direction doesn’t mean there aren’t going to be security or strategic issues in NATO’s area of operation or in the Northern Hemisphere or indeed in the Middle East. 

So, it’s not downplayed, on the contrary we have made it clear that we’ve got a strategic partnership with NATO. We’re growing our relationships with a number of NATO countries, not some of our traditional friends like the United Kingdom and Italy and France and Germany, but a growing relationship for example with Spain, which is not just strategic but also in terms of development of a maritime fleet and the like. 

SID MAHER:       Minister just on the priorities in the White Paper; I mean we’ve been doing a lot of peacekeeping – Afghanistan. Is there enough strategic force protection in the White Paper – would we have been better to be buying more C-17s or more helicopters rather than the big ticket Growlers and F35s and submarines? 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well the 2009 White Paper talks about growing the C-130 fleet. What I’ve actually done is to double our C-17 fleet, that’s much more important. So we’ve got a very effective and long-reach C-17 fleet now, which has transformed our capacity for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and logistics.               

We’ve also got now our refuelers, our KC-30s, which you can add to our C-17s.                

We believe that we’ve got the right mix for the priorities that we face. It was very important in our view for us to continue with the acquisition of Super Hornets, and then to move to the electronic warfare capability Growler. Otherwise there was a risk with further delays in the Joint Strike Fighter project of there being a gap as our Classic Hornet fleet aged.               

But we’re confident that we’ve got the right mix for all of the priority obligations that we might have visited upon us into the future. Both the ones that we can see, but also the ones that are out there that you don’t know about. For example, two years ago we would not have been talking about Mali or Syria. 15 years ago we would not have been talking about Afghanistan or Iraq; so we have to prepare for the unknown as well as plan for what we can discern. 

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  Minister we’ve obviously been focusing on the Defence White Paper, but you’re also a West Australian- 

STEPHEN SMITH:             I’m pleased about that. 

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  Not any more though, last question. You’re also a West Australian Member of Parliament, the Federal Government only hold three of 15 seats in WA. During the state election where Mark McGowan was a popular figure personally, yet his opposition did pretty badly at the polls in terms of the seat allocation, including a seat that had overlap with your seat, the state seat of Perth which fell.               

Now, my question at the back of all this is, during your commentary on the night I think you describes the Gillard Government as being a bit of a drag on Mark McGowan’s efforts at that campaign. Presumably, if it was a drag on the efforts of a campaign of somebody that’s not even involved in the Gillard Government but just bares the same Labor brand, it’s going to be one hell of a drag on the chances of the three MPs that are trying to compete at the next election as part of the Gillard Government.               

My question is simple, are you bracing for impact? 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well I’ve always been confident that at the next election Labor would at least hold the three seats it has in the west. So, in order of current sort of – down the pendulum if you like, Perth which is six per cent, Freo which is four to five per cent, and Brand which is three to four per cent.               

More generally, I wouldn’t be making judgements about this election. People made the same judgements about the 1993 election and were surprised in the last week.               

Let me give you a secret of history. On the Sunday night of the last week of the 1993 campaign, Labor Party research in my seat of Federal Perth had it at 55-45, so 55-45 two party preferred. There was only one problem, it was 55 to the Liberal Party. Six days later on the Saturday it was 56-44 my way, because the whole campaign changed in the last week when the community saw the whites of John Hewson’s eyes.                

And I’ve been of the view that when the community in the end see the whites over a four week campaign of Tony Abbott’s eyes- 

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  Is your point that you think you’re behind now but you’ll be in front by the end of the election? 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Well all of the polls in the course of this year have had the Government in a difficult political position. I don’t think that’s the secret, I think you’ve commented upon that yourself on a regular basis.              

So, don’t count out the Government. The Keating Government was counted out and people were surprised and embarrassed as in political commentators.                

So this thing will go down to the wire, first point. Secondly, in the west we’ve had difficulties, there’s no point denying that. But in the 2010 election we were three to four points below the Labor vote in the rest of the country. So we’re coming off a low bus. And before the state election and after the state election I’ve been confident that the least we’ll do is to hold our three seats.               

When you transpose the state figures on the federal seats it’s not a perfect guide. Freo comes in at 56, Brand comes in at 57-58, Perth comes in at 50-50. So we hold three seats. In my seat of Perth there are two state seats which are wholly within Federal Perth. Labor held both of those seats, and I’ve got three seats where they’re half in and half out, State Perth is one of them, and two other seats. We did badly in those three states for particular state reason, my own judgement is that those reasons won’t apply for the federal election. So I’m confident that Labor will hold Perth just as I’m confident we’ll hold Freo and Brand.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  With an answer like that anyone would think you’re a former party director for the Labor Party in WA with that kind of intimate knowledge. 

STEPHEN SMITH:             I do plead I tend to take a close personal interest in the constituency that I’ve represented for 20 years, as well as the interests of my colleagues.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  Fair enough. You’ve been very generous with your time, Defence Minister Stephen Smith thanks very much for joining us on Australian Agenda. 

STEPHEN SMITH:             Thanks Peter, thanks very much.

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE:  3 May 2013

TOPICS: 2013 Defence White Paper.

 SABRA LANE: Stephen Smith, thanks for talking to PM.

STEPHEN SMITH:      A pleasure.

SABRA LANE: This White Paper is a big departure from the last White Paper in 2009. Is it an acknowledgement that the 2009 paper was more of a political document, if you like, designed to make Kevin Rudd sound very tough on China?

STEPHEN SMITH:      I don’t think either document was or is political. They’re both national security strategic documents. The main difference between this document and the 2009 document is the frank, open, and transparent acknowledgement that we’re going through very difficult times.

SABRA LANE: That characterisation they’re the views of Australia’s longest serving ambassador to China, Geoff Raby. He says, very much, that that’s how the 2009 paper was understood.

STEPHEN SMITH:      I might be a minority of one, and the majority of commentators seem to take Geoff’s sort of view or position. I’ve always thought that the Government’s articulation of the rise of China, our relationship with China, the way in which China needed to emerge, the seminal importance of the relationship between China and the United States – I’ve always thought we were entirely consistent on that.

What the White Paper says is China is on the rise. Its economy will continue to grow. It will modernise its military as a consequence. We simply ask for transparency of strategic intention in that respect. But we welcome China’s rise. But the key factor – the starting point will be a positive and constructive relationship between the United States and China – that’s the key to it. And we welcome the fact that in recent times, in addition to a highly entangled and enmeshed economic relationship, they’re now growing their political, strategic, military, and defence relationship. And that’s an unambiguously good thing for us, for our region, and for the world.

SABRA LANE: Is this new document a more realistic plan for Defence? Made after a sober assessment of the international situation and of the capability of the ADF?

STEPHEN SMITH:      I think it’s a sustainable and objective assessment about the fiscal reality and the economic reality that we face, not just domestically, but internationally.

SABRA LANE: The Government says that spending on Defence will be increased to two per cent of GDP when the financial circumstances allow. Got any rough idea as to when that might be?

STEPHEN SMITH:      I’m not putting a timetable on it.  

SABRA LANE: But you’ve got respected analysts like Peter Jennings who say, it just shouldn’t be left to chance. You should be able to give people an idea of when that might be.

STEPHEN SMITH:      I don’t want to shop Peter, but Peter was intricately involved in a former life with the detailed working of the 2009 White Paper. He was one of the people who thought that you could map out, for Defence, a guaranteed share of spending with dedicated growth paths from 2009 through to 2030, over 21 years. Well, life is not like that, and the Global Financial Crisis taught everyone that life’s not like that.

SABRA LANE: Was it a mistake to cut Defence spending back to what is now effectively 1.56 per cent of GDP? Because it’s going to be a massive task now returning it to that two percent figure.        

STEPHEN SMITH:      What we did in last year’s budget, when we, like every other agency or department made a contribution to the Government’s fiscal requirements, was to make sure that what we cut was not adversely impacting on our priorities, and that’s the key.

SABRA LANE: And was it more about the surplus rather than the global financial crisis?

STEPHEN SMITH:      The Government had to respond to the difficult financial circumstance that we found ourselves in.

SABRA LANE: The decision to knock out the off-the-shelf ideas of the submarines and make these submarines in Adelaide, is that a strategic choice, or is it a domestic one? When the Prime Minister was asked about this she point-blank first-up said this is a good announcement for South Australia.

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, it is a good announcement for South Australia. South Australia is our submarine base. But we put four options on the table to examine over 12 months ago; an off-the-shelf purchase, a modified off-the-shelf, an evolved Collins design or a brand new design. We’ve come to the conclusion – and the Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief of Navy, the Secretary of Department, all share this view, which I also have, and the Government has – that there is no off-the-shelf model which gives us the strategic or the operational capability to do the things that we need to do as a maritime country and a maritime continent. To go to anything off-the-shelf now would be a retrograde step and give us a lesser capability than the Collins, at a time when we want to add to the Collins capability.

SABRA LANE: And they’d be cheaper options than what the Government’s now-

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well – but from a strategic point of view-

SABRA LANE: But that’s true, though, isn’t it?

STEPHEN SMITH:      It’s true, but from a strategic and operational point of view, they wouldn’t be much worth having from our perspective. They’re good for the Baltic Sea, but not for the Southern Ocean, or for our northern and western approaches.

SABRA LANE: You haven’t won many friends in Defence. Retired general, Jim Molan, says Defence under the Rudd and Gillard Government’s has been appalling. And he says, of you, as a CEO equivalent, you don’t seem to like the ADF, you don’t trust it, you don’t want to be its CEO, you have no strategic long-term vision, you’re not prepared to pay for defence, you show no interest in its operational effectiveness, you constantly tell half-truths to the Australian people, the shareholders, and he says if the Australian Defence was a business, would you really want to buy shares?

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, he’s a Liberal Party activist. He’s a Liberal Party activist. He’s a party political activist. He turns up to Tony Abbott’s doorstops, he hands out how-to-vote cards for the Liberal Party. He wants to be a staffer in a Liberal Party Government. He’s Liberal Party, of course he’d say those things.

SABRA LANE: He’s not alone in his views. There are a number of senior Defence personnel who agree with what he says.

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, I’m sure there are plenty of Liberal Party supporters who take that view. I’m very happy for the Australian community to make their judgements about what I do as Defence Minister. And they can judge me on the quality of the White Paper, which is strategically, to use Peter Jennings phrase, it is strategically perfect and will stand the test of time as a strategically sensible document in Australia’s national interest. And in terms of budget and finances, will be regarded as a sensible approach in a very difficult fiscal circumstance, not just for Australia, but for all comparable countries from the United States down.

MARK COLVIN:          The Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, speaking with our chief political correspondent, Sabra Lane.

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE 

DATE:  3 May 2013

TOPICS: 2013 Defence White Paper. 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       Stephen Smith, welcome to ABC News 24. 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Pleasure. 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       Your White Paper contains a commitment to return the Defence budget to two per cent of GDP, it’s an aspiration. Have you now also formally abandoned the promise in 2007 to real growth in Defence spending at a minimum of three per cent? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Yes, I made it clear at the press conference today that that had fallen foul of the global financial crisis and the difficult financial position that we find ourselves in. What we’ve- 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       So does that mean it will take longer to get to two per cent of GDP? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      We’re not putting a timetable on it. We want to be spending closer to two per cent than 1.5 or 1.6. I’ve been making that clear for more than 12 months. But the reality is that Australia has not spent two per cent of its GDP on Defence since 1999. So since 2000 until now, we have not met two per cent. It’s an aspiration for us, it’s an aspiration for the Coalition. But the fiscal circumstances in which we find ourselves mean that you’ve got to put forward a sensible, sustainable model.          

We’ve put forward a model of the four year forward estimates period plus six years’ worth of planning. 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       Over that 10 years, can you see a Government getting back to two per cent?

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well time will tell. If you’re having the conversation in 2009 about adverse implications of the global financial crisis, no one would have predicted what we’ve seen, the depth, the longevity. 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       But you also – in the 2009 paper it said that the Government – it demonstrated the premium the Government puts on Australia’s national security by not allowing the impact of the global financial crisis on its budget to affect its commitment to Defence needs. 

STEPHEN SMITH:      No one then – including the Government – foresaw the depth, the extent, the longevity, and the way in which it would impact adversely [indistinct]. Not just on Australia and its overall fiscal position including Defence, but on other comparable countries, none the least the United States or the United Kingdom or Canada or New Zealand. 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       Do you believe that two per cent is necessary to fund Australia’s national security obligations to ourselves and in the region, and if you don’t get there for a while, is the intervening period essentially underfunded? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, a percentage of GDP is a measure. It’s not the only measure. 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       But that does allow you the capability to meet- 

STEPHEN SMITH:      No, what it does- 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       The security- 

STEPHEN SMITH:      What it does is it enables you to have a consistent, domestic benchmark, but also a capacity to make sensible, objective, international comparisons. It’s not the only measure. Despite our difficult financial circumstances, we were the first Government – in 2009 – to bring Defence spending to over $100 billion over the forward estimate period. This year’s budget will see that continue. We’ll have a modest increase on the four year forward estimate position from last year, where – in raw terms – it was 103, 104 billion.          

And to use the expression used by the Chief of the Defence Force, given the difficult circumstances that we face it’s a good outcome. Now the hallmark is are we doing, through the White Paper, the things needed to protect and defend our national security interests? Strategically, yes we are.

LYNDAL CURTIS:       At a time when others in the region are also growing their budgets and increasing their capability. 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well some are and some aren’t. As we see economies grow, China, India, Indonesia, you’ll also see their military capability and modernisation capability grow – modernisation occur. But GDP is not the only measure. As I say, Australia hasn’t seen two per cent of GDP since 1999. And I don’t think, in the year 2000 – or through the years until 2006-07, Mr Johnston was out there saying that Defence and the ADF is in crisis because we weren’t getting to two per cent of GDP.         

We remain in the top 15 defence spenders. We remain, in our immediate part of the world, the most effective and capable defence force. And the White Paper and our budget decisions to be seen in the Budget in a week or so will continue to make sure the Australian Defence Force is an effective and capable military force in our part of the world. 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       You said given the commitment that this Budget won’t see cuts to Defence spending, it will see a small increase, can you explain what the reasons were for the cuts to Defence in recent years? Was it driven by national security considerations or simply the search for a surplus? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well Defence had to make a contribution to the Government’s overall fiscal position, as other agencies did. All other agencies did. And what we did was make sure, particularly in last year’s Budget, that we didn’t have an adverse impact on our core priorities or capabilities. So the main capability continued as you see it continue today. Whether it’s C-17s, Super Hornets, submarines, Bushmasters and the like.         

So the main capability from the 2009 White Paper continues, plus we ring-fenced capability to Afghanistan, ring-fenced those people about to deploy or on deployment, made sure that we could discharge the new enhanced practical operation with the United States under our Alliance. So we did it in a priority way. And that’s what you have to do. And that’s why, despite all the nonsense from the Opposition about a crisis and the worst day since Saigon, the Defence Force is ongoing in its capacity to engage and do the priority tasks that the Government and the nation requires of it. 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       You’ve announced the purchase of 12 new Growler-enabled Super Hornets. Is that a big hedge against the Joint Strike Fighter not being delivered on time, or not being delivered at all? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      I’ve made it clear pretty much from day one since I became Defence Minister that I would not allow a gap to appear in our air combat capability. And that risk of a gap has occurred because of the delays in the Joint Strike Fighter project. The Opposition says that’s down to us, well actually it’s a program in which we are an international partner. But a project in which we have no control over the outcomes. And in last year’s Budget, we put back the purchase of the Joint Strike Fighters onto the same timetable as the United States when the United States, in the run up to our Budget, pushed 170-odd planes to the right.         

In other words, it recognised that there were delays. So we need to make sure that a combination of our classic Hornets, which will see the end of their capability in 2022, a combination of our classic Hornets, our 24 Super Hornets, and now our 12 Growlers give us an ongoing capability edge in our part of the world – in our immediate region – until the Joint Strike Fighters arrive.         

And we’re currently planning – continuing to plan as we have since the last Budget on the first of three squadrons arriving commencing 2020. 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       You’ve also effectively extended the life of the Collins Class submarines by another seven years, that will mean effectively towards the end of their life there’ll be submarines around 35 years old in the water. 

STEPHEN SMITH:      We have done a couple of things. The Collins Class submarine is a good submarine when it’s in the water, despite everything that the Shadow Defence Minister says in contradiction of his leader, Mr Abbott, who takes the same view that I do that the operation of the Collins Class is the challenge we have to meet.         

The Opposition would also have you believe that the operational difficulties of the Collins commenced in December 2007. They’ve been there from day one. And one of the real lessons of the Collins, which we’re incorporating in the Future Submarine program, is you’ve got to work out your maintenance and sustainment from day one. So we’ve done more over the past couple of years to get the Collins back into a sensible maintenance, sustainment and operation regime than was done in the decades before.         

Now so far as the Collins Class is concerned, the Collins fleet went into the water between 1996 and 2003. They had on paper a 28 year life of type. As part of the work we’ve been doing – we’ve done a life expectancy study of the Collins, an objective assessment as to how long they can go, and the analysis of that is – which I announced late last year – is there’s no reason why they couldn’t go seven more years, one more cycle, seven years not counting deep maintenance. So that puts the Collins into 2031 to 2038 in terms of their end of life of type. Which gives us more than enough time for the careful planning we need to do to build the replacement submarine program. 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       On the strategic outlook, the language in this White Paper seems more diplomatic about China than the last White Paper. Has anything underneath changed? Is China being more open or is it the need to couch it in, perhaps, softer language than was used last time? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      I might be in a minority of one so far as the commentators are concerned, but I’ve always had the view that the Government’s articulation of China and the rise of China has been consistent from day one, but I can see that’s not the view of the commentators.         

But I think the strategic analysis of this White Paper will stand the test of time. It makes the point that the single most important emerging factor in ongoing peace, stability, and prosperity in our part of the world is the relationship between the United States and China.         

We welcome the fact that that’s becoming a developing positive story so far as strategic, political, military, and defence engagement is concerned. But all we ask of China is we want China to emerge as a responsible stakeholder.          

We welcome its rise. We welcome its development. We think it’ll be a positive and constructive force. When it comes to military modernisation to simply be transparent about its strategic intentions. 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       The White Paper – and just finally – talks about the situation in the, what you’ve described as the Indo-Pacific arc, be more complex and competitive. Is the strategic outlook more fraught than it was in 2009? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      There’s clearly been a consolidation of the economic, strategic, political, and military influence in our part of the world, but that has now spread from the Asia Pacific to the Indian Ocean Rim. We now call it the Indo-Pacific.         

The rise of China continues to be under appreciated, but in the decades ahead, we’ll have effectively three super powers; the United States, China, and India. And just as China and the United States and the regional international community deal with those shifting strategic sands of China’s rise, then we’ll also have to deal with the shifting strategic sands of India’s rise.         

But we can manage that if we are sensible, if we rely upon the regional architecture, both in the Asia Pacific, the ASEAN related forums, and in the Indian Ocean. And we’re confident about that but the world has always had to deal with these changing strategic shifts.         

But the very clear message in our part of the world is that the relationship – the ongoing presence of the United States is crucial and we welcome that – the relationship with China will be crucial. We see that developing in a positive way. And then we’ll all have to deal with the emergence of India, which will see three powers, potentially of equal weight, in the second half of this century.         

So, the international community has to manage these shifting sands. The White Paper recommends that, but also sets out a sensible way for Australia – both the way forward in terms of finances and capability, but also in terms of our engagement in our part of the world, the South Pacific, but also South East Asia and the Indo-Pacific generally. 

LYNDAL CURTIS:       Stephen Smith, thank you very much for your time. 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Thank you. Thanks very much.

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE:  3 May 2013 

TOPICS: 2013 Defence White Paper.

DAVID SPEERS:        Minister, thanks for your time.

STEPHEN SMITH:      Pleasure.

DAVID SPEERS:        This is a less ambitious document than the 2009 White Paper. Is that because the threat facing Australia has somehow reduced or that we can simply not afford as much?

STEPHEN SMITH:      I wouldn’t describe it as less ambitious in the sense that I think it is a strategic document which will address current circumstances but also stand the test of time. So far as capability and budget, we’re obviously going through a very tough time financially. That’s been the case in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.       

So, in that respect, in my view, it’s a sensible, sustainable document so far as capability is concerned. But-

DAVID SPEERS:        It is more modest, though. That last White Paper had a $200 billion wish list of acquisitions.

STEPHEN SMITH:      The last White Paper essentially set out a dedicated Defence Budget or spend or expenditure from 2009 through to 2029-30. So, it sought to set up a defined Defence Budget over a very long period of time. And it became pretty quickly apparent in the aftermath of the global financial crisis that the deleterious financial circumstances and fiscal circumstances wouldn’t allow and didn’t allow that to occur.        

So, I’ve set up and we’ve set up a model- 

DAVID SPEERS:        So, this is less ambitious? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, you can use that word if you want to. We’ve set up a model which is more sensible, which doesn’t pretend that in very difficult financial circumstances you can ignore economic financial or fiscal circumstances, whether they’re domestic or international.          

So, the model we’ve set up is a four-year Defence Budget based on the forward estimates and then the following six years will have a Defence guide so that we can do the necessary planning. But the notion that we could be the only country in the world in the face of the global financial crisis to have a dedicated Defence Budget for 20 to 30 years is just out the door, as it should be because it’s not sensible planning. 

DAVID SPEERS:        You made a big point today of saying there’s now a bipartisan approach to Defence spending. Both you and the Coalition share this goal of getting back to two per cent of our GDP being spent on Defence and essentially there will be no more Defence spending cuts.        

Isn’t the reality here though that it’s this Labor Government that has cut deeply into Defence, including just last year $5.5 billion? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      We’ve had to respond to difficult fiscal circumstances. And I don’t walk away from that. But the first time I used that expression, an outbreak of bipartisanship on Defence spending, was in January or February of this year after Mr Abbott went to the Press Club – and you might recall he went to the Press Club, his first formal speech, and he said that the Coalition’s commitment on Defence spending was no further cuts to Defence spending, but no commitment or promise to reinstate any cuts in the past and an aspiration for two per cent of GDP.       

And I said that that perfectly mirrored what the Government had done. That they had adopted our forward estimates. And I’ve made that same point today.         

But let me make a point about two per cent of GDP. The Government would like to spend two per cent of GDP, but we recognise – on Defence – but we recognise the financial constraints. The Opposition says it has the same aspiration. Australia has not spent since 1999, so from 2000 on, we have not spent two per cent of our GDP on Defence. So, this has been an aspiration, effectively, under two Governments for 13 odd years. But GDP is not the only measure.        

Despite all of our difficulties, which the former US Secretary of State for Defense describes as the new fiscal reality for defences around the world, we’ll still be in the top 15 of Defence spenders and we will still be able to make the Australian Defence Force an effective and capable organisation which can protect our national security interests. 

DAVID SPEERS:        Okay. The main criticism from the Opposition to this White Paper today, Minister, has been that it lacks detail on the dollars. How much some of your plans are going to cost and where the money’s going to come from? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      There’s pretty much the same detail so far as finance and budget is concerned in the 2013 White Paper, as there was in the 2009 paper, as there was in the Coalition’s last effort in 2000. Leaving a gap from 2000 to 2009 by the Coalition was not a helpful contribution, but there’s enough information there to enable people to make the following judgements; that the acquisitions that we’ve announced, in particular the acquisition of Growler, will be done in the four year forward estimates period. We will purchase the Growlers in the financial years 14-15 and 15-16, and we’ll have, on the advice of the Chief of Air Force, initial operating capability by 2018.          

So the capability issues that we’ve addressed today, whether it’s submarines or the Growler variant of the Super Hornet, are within the forward estimate expenditure realms or guide, which the Budget will show in a week or so time. 

DAVID SPEERS:        What about the submarines though? What about the submarine, what are they going to cost? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Submarines are an enormous project. You’re talking, you know, in the billions. But it’s also a project which we’re in the planning stages of now, and will last through to the 2030s. So successive governments and successive budgets and successive defence capability plans will make the adjustments and the priority for that as we go.          

But we’ve made some significant decisions on the submarine program today. Narrowing to an evolved Collins design or a wholly new design and, indicating we’re proposing to use or adopt for the submarine the US, or a US combat weapons and communication system-

DAVID SPEERS:        And is this a political decision to protect those jobs in Australia? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      Absolutely not. We approached this as we do on every other capability issue, which is we have to make a judgement from our national security perspective. We looked at four options including off-the-shelf and modified off-the-shelf, and the two I’ve referred too. And we came to the conclusion, working through with the Chief of Navy, the Chief of the Defence Force, and Defence generally, that the off-the-shelf variants, generally European, do not give us either the operational or the strategic capability that we need as a great maritime country and continent.  

DAVID SPEERS:        Okay. But on the cost here, you’re saying it’s too early to put down any figure at all, about what these submarines might cost.  

STEPHEN SMITH:      The forward estimates provision contain more than sufficient resources for us to do the planning that we have referred to and for us to do the remediation on the Collins Class submarines that we’ve also referred too. So that’s in the forward estimates, but we’re at the planning stages of Defence’s and the Commonwealth’s largest capital works program ever. The Collins Class will last us anywhere to 2031 to 2038. So we’re talking over the next 10, 20, 30 years, a rolling program of planning and a rolling program of production.         

So it’s billions of dollars, and that’s why we have been so careful, so meticulous, and so assiduous about our early planning, because mistakes made now will be massively magnified into the future. 

DAVID SPEERS:        Just finally, Minister, there was a different tone in this White Paper than the previous one, in relation to China. Did the 2009 White Paper get it wrong, or go too far? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      As I have said previously, I think that the Government has adopted a policy position so far as China is concerned which has been consistent from day one. Namely, we know China is on the rise. China is going to become a significant power, the equal of the United States. It’s growing its economy. It will grow its military. We want China to emerge in a positive and constructive way. We want the relationship between China and the US to be positive and constructive. And we accept that China will modernise its military. We simply ask for transparency.        

Now, I know a different interpretation was taken by the commentators and all concerned in the 2009 White Paper-

DAVID SPEERS:        Not just the commentators, though, Minister. By China too, from all reports.

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, people interpreted the 2009 White Paper in their own way, just as people will no doubt interpret this one in their own ways. I’m sure there’ll be a-

DAVID SPEERS:        But do you stand by the language in it, in relation to China? 

STEPHEN SMITH:      I stand by the fact that in my view, our policy approach to China has been consistent from day one. We welcome China’s rise. We have a positive and constructive relationship with China. We want China to be a responsible stakeholder. We accept that in the short-term we’ll have two super powers, United States and China.          

The key starting point is the positive relationship that they have, not just on the economic front, but on the strategic, defence, military and political front. And in the not too distant future, in the sweep of history, India will also be of the same prominence. And the international community, and India, the United States, and China will all have to adjust to that as well. In the first instance, the bilateral relationship between China and the US is absolutely essential to our ongoing prosperity, and our ongoing peace and stability in our region, and we welcome the efforts that both of them are making in that respect.

DAVID SPEERS:        Defence Minister Stephen Smith, we’ll have to leave it there. Thank you for joining us.

STEPHEN SMITH:      Thanks, David. Thanks very much.

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE:  3 May 2013

STEPHEN SMITH:      Thank you, Prime Minister. Can I acknowledge my Ministerial colleagues, Warren Snowdon and Mike Kelly. Can I acknowledge the Chief of the Defence Force, General Hurley, and the Secretary of the Department, Dennis Richardson. Can I also acknowledge the Service Chiefs and the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, the CEO of the Defence Materiel Organisation, other heads of departments and agencies, members of the diplomatic corp, friends all.         

It’s a fundamental responsibility of any national or Commonwealth Government to protect and defend the national security interests of the Commonwealth. To do that, you need an effective and capable Australian Defence Force. This White Paper sets out a framework to continue to defend the national security interests of the Commonwealth and to have an effective and capable Australian Defence Force.         

The White Paper makes the point that the Government sees four priority tasks for the Australian Defence Force. Firstly, to be capable of the defence of Australia. Secondly, to be capable of operating and taking lead responsibility in our immediate region, the South Pacific and Timor-Leste.         

Thirdly, to be capable of operating with our partners in our region, the Indo-Pacific, in particular, South East Asia. And finally, to be in a position to make a contribution where our national security interest warrant it to a broader operation or a global operation of which Afghanistan is a current examples.         

The White Paper talks in terms of the need for joint force capability and that’s absolutely right. But let me make some remarks about some of the individual service capability decisions in the White Paper.         

Firstly, air combat capability. The Government has made it clear for a number of years that we will not allow a gap to occur in our air combat capability or superiority in our immediate region. We currently have 71 Classic Hornets which are ageing, 24 Super Hornets, and the Government today announces that it will purchase 12 new Growler aircraft. The electronic air warfare combat capability. Potentially, the most significant capability we’ve purchased since the F111.         

There’s no change to our Joint Strike Fighter timetable as published in last year’s budget, which reflects and replicates the timetable for the United States’ Joint Strike Fighter project. And we expect to see, on the basis of no further delays in that project, the first of our three squadrons arrive in 2020, with two planes being handed over to us for training purposes in the United States in 2014-2015.         

This will give us a mixed fleet of 12 Growlers, 24 Super Hornets, and over time into the 2030s, 72 Joint Strike Fighters. In the 2030s, the Government of the day will be able to make a decision whether the 24 Super Hornets can be replaced by Joint Strike Fighters. But in the end, we have always said that to maintain our air combat capability and superiority, we need to draw from a fleet of about 100. That remains the case.         

The Growler, as I say, is a very effective air electronic warfare capability, we’ll be the only country other than the United States to have that. It will be effective either with Classic Hornets, with Super Hornets, or with the Joint Strike Fighter. 

So far as Navy or sea is concerned, we continue to progress carefully, methodically, but determinedly our 12 new Future Submarines. We have now narrowed our consideration to two options. An evolved Collins or a brand or wholly new design. 

This is a significant decision. It accepts our analysis that an off the shelf submarine is not capable of giving us the operational requirement and capacity we need for our maritime country and maritime continent. And that work will now focus on an evolved Collins design or a brand new design.         

Significantly, we have determined that the combat system to be used in our new Future Submarine will be a United States combat, weapons, and communications system. Effectively, a modern version of what we have in the Collins. That is significant for compatibility purposes with our alliance partner, for inter-operability purposes, but also it is a deeply significant decision so far as the design and build of the submarine itself is concerned.        

We’re also continuing to pursue in a detailed way our land based testing system for Adelaide.         

So far as the Collins Class is concerned – you would of course be aware that our Collins Class fleet, the first submarine went into the water in 1996, the last in 2003. On paper, the Collins had a 28 year life of type. On paper, taking us from 2024 to 2031. Part of our very substantial work over the last couple of years to remediate and get better availability and performance from the Collins has also been life evaluation work.         

There’s no reason why the Collins can’t last for a further cycle, a further seven year cycle, seeing the Collins potentially being available to us from 2030 to 2038. That points out to you the period of time over which we have to deal with what will be, so far as Future Submarines are concerned, the largest single capital works program, not just Defence has engaged in, but our nation.         

On other Navy matters, the 2009 White Paper left open the prospect of the build of a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer. On the advice of the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Navy and Defence generally, the Government has come to the conclusion there is no compelling strategic reason why a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer should be constructed.         

There is, of course, so far as our third Air Warfare Destroyer is concerned, a reallocation of blocks for the third AWD to the Williamstown Naval Shipyard, which will see work at that shipyard on the third AWD continuing until at least the middle of 2015. In the meantime, we are bringing forward replacement of our patrol boats and replacement of our supply ships, Success and Sirius.         

We’ve also put off into the future consideration of the so-called multi-role vessel on which not enough work has been done either here or in other jurisdictions.         

So far as Army or land is concerned, we’ve almost come to a conclusion of our deliberations on the replacement of all of Army’s protected and unprotected vehicles. Some 2700 vehicles. We expect to be in a position to make a formal announcement on that in the middle of the year.         

Can I make this point about Army; there are no proposals on the part of the Government to reduce military numbers and that is particularly important so far as Army is concerned. Under appreciated in my view is the very substantial work that has been done by the Chief of Army and I in December of 2011 on the reorientation and reorganisation of Army under Plan BEERSHEBA, giving us three multi-role battalions based in the north and the north east of Australia. Darwin, Townsville, and Brisbane.         

This is a significant reshaping of the modern Army and a deeply significant project. And the re-fleeting of Army is a deeply significant project which is about to come to fruition.         

So far as Army is concerned and the multi-role battalions, that leads me to a most significant part of the White Paper. A part of a White Paper and deliberations which we have not seen for over a quarter of a century, our Force Posture Review. Enhancing our presence and our posture in our northern and western approaches.         

This arises as a result of the strategic need to bring the White Paper forward by 12 months to deal with our draw down from Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, and Solomon Islands; the further consolidation of our part of the world as the place where economic, strategic, political, and military weight is occurring; and the White Paper now refers to our part of the world not as the Asia Pacific of the Indian Ocean Rim, but the Indo-Pacific.        

And so in addition to the Global Force Posture work we have done with our alliance partner, the United States, deeply significant work to enhance our presence and our posture in our northern and western approaches through the Force Posture Review.         

I commenced my remarks by saying that it’s a fundamental responsibility and obligation of a Commonwealth Government to protect and defend the national security interests of the Commonwealth. For that you need a capable and effective Australian Defence Force. But for that, you also need a sensible, clear sighted, forward looking strategy. And the White Paper outlines the consistent course of the Government’s strategy, which we’ve seen reflected in earlier documents, the National Security Strategy or the Asia Century White Paper.         

The rise of China. The rise of India. The emergence of Indonesia as a global influence. The rise of the ASEAN economies combined. All of this sees a consolidation of strategic forces in our part of the world. Central to this will be the bilateral relationship between China and the United States. And that relationship is essential for stability, peace, security, and prosperity in our part of the world and we welcome the ongoing efforts on the part of China and the United States to have a positive, productive military, strategic, political, and economic relationship.         

In addition to the wider strategic changes in our region, the draw down from Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, and the Solomon Islands enables us to also do what Australia is great at doing. Australian diplomacy and Australian defence diplomacy. And the White Paper maps out a substantial re-engagement in our part of the world through bilateral engagement, through regional engagement, and multi-lateral engagement.         

And yesterday, the Chief of the Defence Force and I engaged for the first time in a meeting of South Pacific Defence Ministers in Tonga. Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, and Papua New Guinea with observers from Chile and France, given their interest in the Pacific. That sort of engagement is what the White Paper will not just encourage, but demand, as we re-engage in South East Asia and in the Pacific. Essential in our long term strategic interests.         

So far as our returning soldiers are concerned – the Prime Minister touched upon this – we will see as we draw down from Afghanistan in the coming years and decades a larger number of returned service personnel from Afghanistan and Iraq than we’ve seen since Vietnam. And we need to do – as a Government, as a Defence Force, as a community, and a nation – everything we can to ensure that our wounded warriors are cared for and respected.         

Not just those who suffer from physical wounds, but those who suffer from mental wounds, from post traumatic stress disorder. I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today and I congratulate Warren Snowdon on the good work that he continues to do in this area.         

Finally, so far as finance and budgets are concerned, we live in difficult times. We live in the time that former US Secretary of State for Defense, Leon Panetta, described as the new fiscal reality. Contrary to speculation, which you may have seen, the forthcoming budget will not contain further reductions for Defence.         

The forward estimate years for the forthcoming budget will match, indeed, have a modest increase on the forward estimates for the previous budget. We will continue to provide the Australian Defence Force with over $100 million in the forward estimate years.         

I see a lot of reference to two per cent of GDP as an Australian Defence spend. I would much prefer to be closer to two per cent than to 1.5 or 1.6. But it is the case that this is an aspiration that the Government has and an aspiration that previous governments have also had. Australian Defence spending has not touched two per cent of GDP since 2000. So, we have had an aspiration as a country for two per cent of GDP since the year 2000. We have not met that over those years.       

But despite those difficult circumstances, the decisions made in the White Paper and the capability decisions and purchases, which the Government has effected since the last budget, continue to see a capable, effective, Australian Defence Force continuing to see both air, land, and sea superiority in our immediate region.     

Can I finally, Prime Minister, take this opportunity of thanking the Chief of the Defence Force, the Secretary, the Service Chiefs, my Ministerial and Parliamentary Secretary colleagues for the work that they have done on allowing this White Paper to be published in a timely manner today.

Can I particularly mention Deputy Secretary Brendan Sargeant and his team for the diligent work that they have engaged in over the last 12 months. 

I look forward to you reading and savouring the 2013 White Paper. I look forward to your critique and comments. Thank you very much.

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE: 3 May 2013

TOPICS: Defence White Paper 2013.

PRIME MINISTER: I’m very pleased to be joined here by the Minister for Defence Stephen Smith, by the Chief of the Defence Force, David Hurley, by our Secretary for Defence, Dennis Richardson, and by our ministerial team, including Warren Snowdon and Mike Kelly.

We have just launched the Defence White Paper 2013.

You’ve heard the remarks we’ve made on the launch and we’re very happy to take your questions at this point.

There will have to be a limit to the questions because I am due to see the Sultan of Brunei and cannot run late for that engagement. So over to you.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, does this white paper presume that Australia will not face any credible military threat for the next 20 to 30 years?

PRIME MINISTER: What this Defence White Paper does is it reviews the strategic order of our region, which is of course changing as China rises.

And it recognises that pivotal to the strategic order of our region is the US-China relationship.

Now, we seek to work in our region to bolster habits of cooperation, to have strategic architecture, regional architecture, where nations come together and build the bonds of trust and cooperation that matter for the longer term.

But we’re also very focused on the risks in that changing strategic order and that is canvassed in the white paper too.

For us that means that we have to be prepared and the Defence White Paper outlines how we are prepared for the changing strategic order in our region.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, how much is the change of focus is about [inaudible] China?

PRIME MINISTER: Well in this Defence White Paper what you will see is that our outlook on China is a continuing one.

There is continuity in our perceptions about China. We welcome China’s rise. We seek to have a comprehensive and constructive engagement with China.

We work on that relationship, and of course I was in China very recently working on that relationship.

We also recognise that China’s rise and its subsequent military modernisation is changing the strategic order of our region, and that the US-China relationship is pivotal to our region of the world.

And that’s why, as I indicated in answer to the earlier question, we work on regional engagement and regional architecture.

We also do want to see as China modernises its military, transparency about that military modernisation.

We are here today being very transparent about Australia’s defence posture and outlook, and we press for that kind of transparency.

JOURNALIST: [Inaudible] on China is different than it was in 2009. Is that a recognition that we don’t see China as a threat that the Government did back then?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, our posture here has been one of continuity. We seek to have a constructive engagement with China, and we do.

We also recognise the changing nature of our regional landscape as China moves as a stronger economy than it was in the past, to invest in military modernisation.

And for us, how do you respond to that? Well, you respond by engaging in the region, shaping the work between nations that brings them together and builds habits of trust and cooperation.

We also in this very much recognise how pivotal the US-China relationship is to the future of our region.

JOURNALIST: I do recognise too, Prime Minister, the language has changed substantially from this document to what was produced in 2009 in relation to China?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, we’ve updated. This is an evolutionary document from the last white paper. There has been a fundamental continuity in our policy towards China.

JOURNALIST: What has China specifically done to allay concerns about transparency and so forth regarding its military expansion?

PRIME MINISTER: Well we continue to call for transparency on that military modernisation.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, in these times of fiscal restraint, is it appropriate to have all these expensive props around us here flown in for what is a party political announcement?

PRIME MINISTER: This is a Government announcement about a very important area. Indeed, there is no more important area of government’s work than our Defence and our ability to defend our nation in the world, so this is an important announcement today.

The arrangements that have been made for the launch are comparable to arrangements that have been made for past launches of white papers.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister can you just explain, on the options for future submarines, perhaps you or the Minister, are we looking at the possibility of an evolved Collins, or some other modern advanced submarine. Would that be a submarine we would design, or a foreign design that might be suitable?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I will get Minister Smith to make some comments but if I could just answer your question first up by saying in this white paper there is some good news for South Australia.

South Australia is where our submarine work is focused.

What we are saying in this white paper is that we are now focused on either an evolved Collins Class submarine or a wholly new design. That would bring work to South Australia.

In this white paper too, we are very focused on the skills and capabilities that we would need for that submarine work. I will turn to Minister Smith for some comments on the design question specifically.

MINISTER SMITH: Well thanks very much Prime Minister. You might recall that some time ago I announced that we were looking at four options in terms of progress in the future submarine program: an off the shelf solution, a modified off the shelf solution, an evolved Collins design, or a wholly new design.

We’ve come to the conclusion, as reflected by the white paper, that an off the shelf submarine does not give us the strategic or the operational reach that we need for Australia’s interests as a maritime country and continent.

So we have determined to focus now on either an evolved Collins design – we have recently entered into agreements with Sweden to enable us to together with Sweden have the intellectual property access to the Collins design, so we will progress that.

So far as Brendan’s question, which was what does a wholly new design mean? It means precisely that.

We were also looking not just at an evolution or an evolvement from the Collins, but a brand – or wholly new design.

This is deeply significant because this design work, whether it’s on an evolved Collins or a brand new design, necessarily needs to be done in Adelaide.

It narrows the focus and as I made in my remarks at the launch, the decision to utilise a United States combat weapons and communications system, also is a fundamentally important decision so far as the design is concerned. That very much sets the framework for the submarine itself.

Brendan, we will now engage in those aspects in assiduous detail. We have before us the largest single capital works program or project that the Commonwealth has seen.

We have been methodical, assiduous, careful in the preparation that we do. We have learned some painful lessons from the maintenance and sustainment of the Collins.

It’s the history of such projects that if you make mistakes early in the piece, they are magnified later in the piece, and so we are doing this in an assiduous and methodical way.

That work continues, but there are some fundamentally significant decisions that we’ve announced and are reflected in the white paper.

JOURNALIST: The Super Hornets, the Growlers – what’s the actual total cost of the additional 12, and what’s the timeframe for their delivery?

MINISTER SMITH: Sure, well you might recall that in the context of the 2009 white paper, the Government announced that it would open the possibility or the prospect of the Growler electronic warfare capability by wiring up 12 of the 24 Super Hornets for the Growler capability.

Last year I made an announcement which indicated we were purchasing some long lead items to keep that option open.

And I announced in August of last year that we would purchase the electronic warfare capability Growler, effectively converting 12 of our Super Hornets.

As we’ve looked very carefully at our air combat capability transition, we’ve come to the conclusion that rather than wiring up 12 of our Supers, to leave 24 Super Hornets available for our air combat capability, we’re best off buying 12 Growlers essentially of the production line and that’s what we’ll do.

In terms of the cost – the rule of thumb cost, and this is catered for, the purchase of the Growler is catered for in the forward estimates and you’ll see that in the Budget down the track. Rule of thumb it’s $1.5-$1.6 billion, but that is catered for in the Government’s Budget decisions.

JOURNALIST: That’s all up is it?

MINISTER SMITH: For the 12 Growlers, yes. And capital cost.

And in terms of any previous costs, it costs us, on paper we’ve said we’d allocated $50 million originally to wire up the 12 Growlers, in the event that’s about $30 million.

The purchase of the long lead items will be taken in account by the United States and essentially rolled into as part of the new Growlers.

JOURNALIST: There was a perception that the Defence budget would again be cut. You’re saying there’ll be a small increase in real terms?

MINISTER SMITH: Yes, what the Prime Minister and I have both said in the course of our remarks is that when you go to the budget papers in a week or so’s time, that the forward estimates for this year’s Budget will not just match the forward estimates for last year’s Budget, it will be a modest increase.

So those people who are out there predicting further deep cuts in Defence are wrong.

And I just also say this in passing, as I did in the last couple of days, people should always be wary of trying to discern the tea leaves, or make suggestions about the purchase of this or the purchase of that.

I saw people out there saying we were going to purchase a fourth AWD. There’s never been a recommendation to me by the Chief of the Defence Force or the Chief of Navy to do such a thing.

So in the end, people should just read the white paper and read the announcements, but no further cuts in the Defence budget in the forthcoming Budget, indeed a modest increase.

And even though, Ian, I think that the secretary and the chief might bridle somewhat at the suggestion that this is a party political broadcast, I’ll make a party political point.

What we now have so far as Defence funding and budget is concerned is an outbreak of bipartisanship.

The Opposition Leader has said that his position is no further cuts to Defence spending, and he has an aspiration for two per cent.

When you open the forward estimates you will see no further cuts to Defence spending, and an aspiration for two per cent – it’s called an outbreak of bipartisanship on Defence spending.

JOURNALIST: Why is there no reference anymore to a real growth of three per cent, and do you still hold that commitment?

MINISTER SMITH: No, we have made it clear that in the 2009 white paper we set out some Defence budget rules.

What we discovered over the time since then is that it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to map out precise funding for Defence, or any other area of government when you are facing changing economic and fiscal circumstances. In this case it’s called the global financial crisis.

So we’ve put our Defence budget onto a four year forward estimates model with a six year guide after that.

And those people who pretend to you that in the aftermath of the global financial crisis – the adverse consequences of which remain ongoing – you can commit to three per cent growth, haven’t seen the historic structural changes that have occurred in Australian fiscal circumstance.

JOURNALIST: May I ask of General Hurley, given the issues we have had with the Collins Class submarines, do you have any concerns that it’s entirely within Australia’s hands to both have this transition of the existing Collins Class and also build this entire new fleet? There’s not going to be any sort of capability gap?

GENERAL HURLEY: Thank you, Prime Minister. I think once you see the plans as are laid out in the Defence capability plan, our future development path for the new submarine, and the skills program that has been put out today, and most importantly the skills program is about keeping that white-collar concept, design element into the future for our development programs.  

So we’ll be putting emphasis on maintaining those skill sets. We’ve already got skill sets in Adelaide in existence now that have allowed us to do that.

We understand the Collins, there’s been enormous work done into the Collins over the last couple of years.  

Availability has improved enormously and I think we’re on a good platform to take the project forward.

JOURNALIST: How relieved are you that you’ve not had to take a haircut in the Budget?

GENERAL HURLEY: If you look at my haircut, I’m always taking haircuts.               

JOURNALIST: But on a serious note?

PRIME MINISTER: He actually was serious about that.

GENERAL HURLEY: The Prime Minister should talk about Budget issues but I think this has been a good process where we’ve looked at the reality of the Government’s fiscal position, what we need to do to preserve Defence capability into the future, and I think this has been a good outcome for all.

JOURNALIST: Will the ship building initiatives announced in this document prevent the job losses that the ship building industry has been predicting lately?

PRIME MINISTER: I will just say a couple of words and hand over to Minister Smith.

A decision has been taken to move some of the blocks of the air warfare destroyer to Williamstown.

That means that some of the predictions about there being insufficient work available during the middle of this year won’t be realised, there will be work ongoing there.

Then, embedded in the white paper and in the associated material you now have is a set of considerations and timing of considerations for things like future supply ships and patrol boats, because we do recognise that we need to hold skills and capabilities in our maritime industry.

And so we’ve, in this set of documentation, talked about time-frames for consideration, so we can deal with this problem of the profile of work into the future.

So I will go to Minister Smith for some in-detailed comments on that.

MINISTER SMITH: The Prime Minister’s dealt with the substance of it.

So far as Williamstown and the BAE workshop there is concerned, the Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance has made a commercial decision that four blocks for the third air warfare destroyer, which were destined for the Forgacs shipyard in Newcastle will be allocated to BAE shipyard in Williamstown.

That will see, both in Forgacs in Newcastle and BAE in Williamstown, work on the third AWD proceeding until at least the middle of 2015.

What that does, and work on the AWD in the ASC shipyard in Adelaide will extend beyond that because the integration work is done in Adelaide.

So that work will continue until the middle of 2015. In the meantime, that gives us the opportunity, as we’ve indicated, to bring forward consideration and build or purchase or acquisition of both patrol boats and our, very importantly, our replacement to our supply or replenishment ships, HMAS Success and Sirius.

So, given that we’ve got work in those two shipyards until the middle of 2015, we’ve got, we believe, time to make judgements about patrol boats and the supply ships.

In the meantime, a very important complementary document released with the white paper is the submarine skills study.

That shows that we need to smooth out the workflow, but we also need to, as the Chief of the Defence Force said, to retain, not just for submarines but generally, the skills and the capacity, whether it’s designed, whether it’s white collar, back of house and the like.

What we’re endeavouring to do is, after a peak of ship building activity, three air warfare destroyers and two landing helicopter docks, which has created a spike of work, to smooth out the workflow so that either for submarine future program or for surface vessels like patrol boats, like supply or replenishment ships and, further down the track, future frigates, we retain the skills and the expertise and the workforce to be able to do those jobs.

JOURNALIST: Do you have any idea when we might actually see an operational squadron of JSFs?

MINISTER SMITH: Well, we are proceeding on the basis, if there are no further delays to the JSF and by the way, any delays to date or any future delays in the Joint Strike Fighter project are not something, in real terms, that the Australian Government or Australia itself or the ADF can influence.

We are in the hands of others, and that’s why we’ve made decisions to protect our own air combat capability with the previous acquisition of Super Hornets and now additional Growlers.               

But on the current timetable which we have not disturbed we expect to see two Joint Strike Fighters delivered to us in the United Sates in 2014-15, and the first of our three squadrons arriving from 2020.

You’ll see in the paperwork that we envisage that our ageing classics will be good for 2020 to 2022.

It is quite clearly the case on our own analysis, but also on US analysis, that the Joint Strike Fighter project under Admiral Venlet and now General Bogdan has improved, but there are still risks associated with that and we’re not prepared to take the risk of a gap in our air combat capability or superiority.

But, on the basis of current arrangements, the first of our three squadrons of Joint Strike Fighters would arrive in 2020, and progressively over the years when you got to the 2030s you’d be in a position to make a judgement as to whether the squadron of 24 Supers would be replaced by a further squadron of Joint Strike Fighters.

But a mixed fleet of Joint Strike Fighters, Growler and Super Hornets is precisely what we’ll see in the US Navy, at least until 2030-2035.

I think the Prime Minister has to go. Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER: Thank you very much.

120 military and Defence civilian riders from bases across Australia will join more than 250 other Long Ride participants as they head for north Queensland.

The largest Defence contingent – more than 40 riders – will depart Canberra tomorrow morning. The Vice Chief of the Defence Force, Air Marshal Mark Binskin, will join riders for several days through New South Wales and southern Queensland.

“This is an important health promotion and community engagement initiative. It is crucial that we continue to spread the word on prostate cancer in regional and rural areas. Men in those locations have a 21 per cent higher prostate cancer mortality rate than men in capital cities,” Mr Snowdon said.

“Before The Long Ride has even started, the Defence contingent raised $70,000 for the PCFA. This is an outstanding effort and they are aiming to build on that as they head north.”

PCFA data indicates one in five men is likely to develop prostate cancer by age 85. On this basis, thousands of the current Defence work force could be affected by prostate cancer during their lives.

Approximately 20,000 Australian men are diagnosed with prostate cancer each year. More than 3,000 Australian men die as a direct result of prostate cancer annually.

Media contact:

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

The 2013 Defence White Paper highlights the critical role that Australia’s defence industry plays in supporting the Australian Defence Force (ADF). 

The Defence White Paper further strengthens the Government’s commitment to our defence industry – with a focus on closer connections between strategic policy directions and defence policy for industry, and enhancing innovation, building competitiveness, and developing skills.  

The Government considers Defence industry cooperation and partnerships to be important elements in Australia’s deepening defence partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. 

The White Paper emphasises the importance of the Government’s Priority Industry Capabilities to ensure industry can continue to meet Defence’s critical capability delivery and sustainment needs.  

The Government has a track record of supporting the Australian defence industry, a commitment that was highlighted by the recent announcement of the establishment of a Defence Manufacturing Precinct to be based in Adelaide. 

The Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between Australia and the United States that commences in May 2013 will be an important mechanism that will have substantial benefits for Australian industry.   

The Government has also established a Priority Industry Capability Development Fund, with funding of $10 million per year from the Defence Capability Plan (DCP).  

The Government will provide further assistance to Australia’s defence industry through:

• the establishment of the Defence Innovation Realisation Fund within the DCP funded at $10 million per year, to help mature innovative defence technologies;
• a strengthened Australian Industry Capability Program, to maximise opportunities for Australian industry to participate in domestic and international supply chains;
• continuation of industry assistance and support programs managed by Defence which provide grants and funding to companies to develop new equipment solutions and pursue export opportunities; and
• industry support programs which focus on helping industry to develop skills in critical and new fields, including the Skilling Australia’s Defence Industry Program. 

The Government is committed to providing clear guidance to industry on capability intentions and opportunities for local industry to compete for work.  

We will release an updated public Defence Capability Plan (DCP) and Defence Capability Guide in the coming months. 

The Government will also release an updated Defence Industry Policy Statement in the coming months. It will set out the Government’s vision for how Defence and industry will work together to achieve the priorities of this White Paper.   

Science and technology innovation also underpins this important White Paper and contributes to a strong ADF and an effective defence industry.  The White Paper highlights our pursuit of new international partnerships and continuing investment in our highly skilled and respected Defence Science and Technology Organisation.   

We will continue to enhance the partnership between Defence, industry, and the science and innovation community to deliver results for Australia’s defence capability. 

The White Paper reinforces the Government’s $1 billion Plan for Australian Jobs.  Innovation remains critically important in delivering leading edge capabilities for the ADF and also in applying existing knowledge and technology in new ways to create value in the delivery of new capabilities and reduce both acquisition and sustainment costs.  

CANBERRA

3 May 2013 

PRESS OFFICE (02) 6277 7744
MINISTER SMITH’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7800
MINISTER COMBET’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7920

An effective national security strategy requires effective partnerships across the National Security Community. 

Cooperation between Commonwealth Departments and Agencies will intensify over the next five years, as whole-of-government arrangements are put into place in areas such as cyber security, responses to national disasters and responses to national security events, including the G20 Summit and the Commonwealth Games.

The 2013 Defence White Paper recognises that Defence makes a significant contribution to Australia’s broader national security arrangements. In particular, it recognises the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) and the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation (DIGO) play critically important roles in the support of Australia’s national security.

As outlined in the 2013 Defence White Paper, the Government has decided to rename these agencies the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) and the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation (AGO), to more accurately reflect their national roles.

The renaming of the agencies will see no change to the current functions, powers or accountability responsibilities of the agencies under the Intelligence Services Act 2001.  Both agencies remain in the Department of Defence.

Externally, the compliance of ASD and AGO with legislation and ministerial directions will, as is the case now, be monitored by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

The Government will bring forward legislation to amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to reflect the renaming of the agencies.  The change will take effect on the enactment of the enabling legislation renaming the agencies.

CANBERRA
3 May 2013

PRESS OFFICE (02) 6277 7744
MINISTER SMITH’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7800

The Government is committed to acquiring twelve Future Submarines to be assembled in Adelaide.  The Future Submarine project will be the biggest and most complex Defence project Australia has ever embarked upon. It will involve hundreds of companies and thousands of workers. It will involve Federal and State Governments, Defence, Industry and Universities working together for generations to come.

The Government’s response to the plan also addresses key issues in the long term management of the Australian naval shipbuilding industry.

The Government will assure Australia’s maritime security capability while providing more certainty to Australian industry through consideration of a smoother, coordinated shipbuilding program that will provide a more stable pattern of work for the industry and retain critical skills for the future through a range of specific measures: 

-        In September 2012, Ministers announced a re-baselining of the AWD construction schedule following extensive consultation with Australia’s shipbuilding industry and Navy, involving extending the keel to keel interval to 18 months between each ship.

-        The Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance will reallocate construction of four AWD steel hull blocks from the Forgacs shipyard in Newcastle to the BAE Systems shipyard in Melbourne.  This recognises that BAE Systems has the capacity and skill to successfully take on an increased share of the workload.  Additional work on existing hull blocks is being provided to Forgacs to ensure there is no reduction of work in Newcastle.

-        The Government will at the earliest opportunity replace Australia’s supply ships HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius.  This will include examination of options for local, hybrid and overseas build or the leasing of an existing vessel.

-        The Government has brought forward the replacement of Australia’s Armidale Class Patrol Boats, to be assembled in Australia. 

-        The Government will also give consideration to bringing forward the replacement of the current Anzac Class frigates with a new Future Frigate to be assembled in Australia.This will include further investment in the Australian-developed phased array radar technology already in service in the ANZAC Class frigates.

-        The Government has also made key decisions on the Future Submarine program, including narrowing the options to be considered and has directed further work on a new Submarine Propulsion Energy Support and Integration Facility to be based in Adelaide.

-        The Government will also implement the Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan.

In May 2012, the Government released the terms of reference for a plan to identify what is required to build and sustain the skills required to successfully deliver Australia’s Future Submarine capability.  

The plan was developed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Materiel Organisation and supported by an Expert Industry Panel, headed by Mr David Mortimer AO, that included the CEOs of the major ship construction companies and systems houses, unions, industry bodies and other government organisations.

The development of the plan was informed by research and benchmarking undertaken by the DMO team and expert industry advisers. It was the subject of broad consultation with State Governments, Australian industry, unions, industry associations and Universities.

In December 2012, the Government announced it had received the plan and would release it this year.

The Government has today released the plan which reaffirms its commitment to enhancing and maintaining the necessary skills, expertise and capacity in Australia’s naval shipbuilding industry to ensure successful delivery and sustainment of Australia’s future naval capabilities, particularly the Future Submarine. 

The Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan presents a practical long-term approach to the management of naval shipbuilding in Australia and sets out a new way for Defence to do business.  It uses future naval shipbuilding projects as a way to improve skills and productivity in the shipbuilding industry, through practice and innovation.

The skills needed will include systems design, naval architecture, propulsion and combat system engineering, production engineering, project planning and control, production scheduling, material procurement, risk management, budget control, financial accounting, contract management, systems integration, and trade skills such as welder, boilermaker, and electrician.

The Plan makes eleven recommendations to develop and retain the skills needed to build the future submarines and other warships for the future fleet.

The Government supports the recommendations and is confident that the Australian naval shipbuilding industry will be truly world-class. The Government will implement the Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan as it takes decisions on future naval platforms. In doing so, it will balance carefully the capability, resource, workforce and industry factors, as well as implications for competing funding priorities.

These recommendations include:

-        Naval shipbuilding projects should be planned with the aim of retaining wherever practical current workforce skills to place Defence and industry in the best position possible at the start of the next generation of projects;

-        Defence should structure the Future Submarine Program as a rolling build program, including establishing structured, funded and ongoing engineering and science and technology programs to deal progressively with equipment obsolescence and capability upgrades; and

-        The Defence Materiel Organisation should engage in detailed discussion on a frequent and ongoing basis with companies, unions and industry groups involved in naval shipbuilding. No plan should be approved that is not broadly practical in terms of industry capability and capacity, schedule and budget.

The Government is committed to working with industry so that Australia will have a highly capable and productive naval shipbuilding industry capable of delivering the future warships the Australian Defence Force requires to fulfill the tasks requires of it by Government.

The Plan is available at:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/publications/fsisp.cfm.

Background

Currently, naval shipbuilding in Australia is based in four key areas:

-        ASC in Adelaide, where work on the current Air Warfare Destroyer construction program is expected to complete around mid 2019;

-        BAE Systems in Melbourne, where work on Air Warfare Destroyer and Landing Helicopter Dock construction programs is expected to complete around mid 2015;

-        Forgacs in Newcastle, where work on the Air Warfare Destroyer program is expected to complete in 2015; and

-        Austal in Perth, where construction of Customs Cape Class patrol boats is expected to complete around mid 2015.

CANBERRA

3 May 2013

PRESS OFFICE (02) 6277 7744

MINISTER SMITH’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7800

MINISTER COMBET’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7920

Plan BEERSHEBA will restructure the Army into three ‘like’ multi-role combat brigades to provide the widest range of sustained and effective land forces possible to meet future circumstances. 

These brigades will be based in Townsville, Brisbane and Darwin. Each Multi-role Combat Brigade will include armour, artillery, communication, engineer, infantry and logistic elements. These Brigades will enable more effective training in Australia and rapid operational deployment for sustained periods. 

The multi-role combat brigades will be supported by three enabling brigades providing specialist capabilities based on 6th Brigade (Combat support, Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance), 16th Brigade (Aviation) and 17th Brigade (Combat Service Support).

This restructure will strengthen the Army’s capacity to conduct a range of tasks concurrently and to a consistently high standard for prolonged operations by applying lessons from the past decade of sustained Australian Defence Force (ADF) operational commitments.

The introduction of the ADF’s new amphibious capabilities represents a significant focus for Plan BEERSHEBA. The new Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) ships represent a fundamental shift in how Army will deploy land forces and conduct operations in response to the full spectrum of scenarios in the future.  2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (2RAR) based in Townsville will form the core of Army’s contribution to a future amphibious force capable of conducting humanitarian and disaster relief and other operations, particularly in our immediate region.

Army’s existing armoured units will undergo significant changes and be designated as Armoured Cavalry Regiments. An Armoured Cavalry Regiment will be established in each of Army’s combat Brigades to ensure that they can operate as combined arms teams against the threats anticipated in the future.

This will see, over time, the balanced re-distribution of Army’s armoured vehicle fleets to the multi-role combat brigades.  Light Armoured Reconnaissance vehicles (ASLAV) and Armoured Personnel Carriers (M113AS4) will be integral to the three brigades.  Trials are currently being conducted to examine the efficiency and suitability of placing Abrams tank in each Armoured Cavalry Regiment.  While this will not increase the number of armoured vehicles in Army, the Light Armoured Vehicles and Armoured Personnel Carriers will be replaced over time as part of the Government’s commitment to project Land 400, Army’s future combat vehicle project.

Plan BEERSHEBA recognises the operational capability of the Army Reserve.  The restructure will closely integrate full and part time personnel in order to generate a total force capable of meeting a range of contingencies.  The 2nd Division will assume an even greater focus on operations. Each Multi-role Manoeuvre Brigade will be supported by two Reserve Brigades from 2nd Division.

When fully implemented towards the end of the decade, Plan BEERSHEBA will have delivered a modern, adaptable and modular land combat force. The Australian soldiers that make up this force along with their various platforms will be networked by modern digital communications and battle management systems and be among the best equipped in the world.

The Australian Army is moving into the future with a new perspective and a smarter way of doing business and delivering capability within assigned resources.  Plan BEERSHEBA will ensure that Army can continue to contribute forces to operations as well as successfully transition to a force that maintains high levels of readiness to respond to the range of Australia’s Defence needs in the future. 

CANBERRA

3 May 2013

PRESS OFFICE (02) 6277 7744

MINISTER SMITH’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7800

The Government is committed to acquiring twelve Future Submarines to be assembled in Adelaide.  The Future Submarine project will be the biggest and most complex Defence project Australia has ever embarked upon. It will involve hundreds of companies and thousands of workers. It will involve Federal and State Governments, Defence, Industry and Universities working together for generations to come.

The Government’s response to the plan also addresses key issues in the long term management of the Australian naval shipbuilding industry.

The Government will assure Australia’s maritime security capability while providing more certainty to Australian industry through consideration of a smoother, coordinated shipbuilding program that will provide a more stable pattern of work for the industry and retain critical skills for the future through a range of specific measures: 

-        In September 2012, Ministers announced a re-baselining of the AWD construction schedule following extensive consultation with Australia’s shipbuilding industry and Navy, involving extending the keel to keel interval to 18 months between each ship.

-        The Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance will reallocate construction of four AWD steel hull blocks from the Forgacs shipyard in Newcastle to the BAE Systems shipyard in Melbourne.  This recognises that BAE Systems has the capacity and skill to successfully take on an increased share of the workload.  Additional work on existing hull blocks is being provided to Forgacs to ensure there is no reduction of work in Newcastle.

-        The Government will at the earliest opportunity replace Australia’s supply ships HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius.  This will include examination of options for local, hybrid and overseas build or the leasing of an existing vessel.

-        The Government has brought forward the replacement of Australia’s Armidale Class Patrol Boats, to be assembled in Australia. 

-        The Government will also give consideration to bringing forward the replacement of the current Anzac Class frigates with a new Future Frigate to be assembled in Australia.This will include further investment in the Australian-developed phased array radar technology already in service in the ANZAC Class frigates.

-        The Government has also made key decisions on the Future Submarine program, including narrowing the options to be considered and has directed further work on a new Submarine Propulsion Energy Support and Integration Facility to be based in Adelaide.

-        The Government will also implement the Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan.

In May 2012, the Government released the terms of reference for a plan to identify what is required to build and sustain the skills required to successfully deliver Australia’s Future Submarine capability.  

The plan was developed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Materiel Organisation and supported by an Expert Industry Panel, headed by Mr David Mortimer AO, that included the CEOs of the major ship construction companies and systems houses, unions, industry bodies and other government organisations.

The development of the plan was informed by research and benchmarking undertaken by the DMO team and expert industry advisers. It was the subject of broad consultation with State Governments, Australian industry, unions, industry associations and Universities.

In December 2012, the Government announced it had received the plan and would release it this year.

The Government has today released the plan which reaffirms its commitment to enhancing and maintaining the necessary skills, expertise and capacity in Australia’s naval shipbuilding industry to ensure successful delivery and sustainment of Australia’s future naval capabilities, particularly the Future Submarine. 

The Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan presents a practical long-term approach to the management of naval shipbuilding in Australia and sets out a new way for Defence to do business.  It uses future naval shipbuilding projects as a way to improve skills and productivity in the shipbuilding industry, through practice and innovation.

The skills needed will include systems design, naval architecture, propulsion and combat system engineering, production engineering, project planning and control, production scheduling, material procurement, risk management, budget control, financial accounting, contract management, systems integration, and trade skills such as welder, boilermaker, and electrician.

The Plan makes eleven recommendations to develop and retain the skills needed to build the future submarines and other warships for the future fleet.

The Government supports the recommendations and is confident that the Australian naval shipbuilding industry will be truly world-class. The Government will implement the Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan as it takes decisions on future naval platforms. In doing so, it will balance carefully the capability, resource, workforce and industry factors, as well as implications for competing funding priorities.

These recommendations include:

-        Naval shipbuilding projects should be planned with the aim of retaining wherever practical current workforce skills to place Defence and industry in the best position possible at the start of the next generation of projects;

-        Defence should structure the Future Submarine Program as a rolling build program, including establishing structured, funded and ongoing engineering and science and technology programs to deal progressively with equipment obsolescence and capability upgrades; and

-        The Defence Materiel Organisation should engage in detailed discussion on a frequent and ongoing basis with companies, unions and industry groups involved in naval shipbuilding. No plan should be approved that is not broadly practical in terms of industry capability and capacity, schedule and budget.

The Government is committed to working with industry so that Australia will have a highly capable and productive naval shipbuilding industry capable of delivering the future warships the Australian Defence Force requires to fulfill the tasks requires of it by Government.

The Plan is available at:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/publications/fsisp.cfm.

Background

Currently, naval shipbuilding in Australia is based in four key areas:

-        ASC in Adelaide, where work on the current Air Warfare Destroyer construction program is expected to complete around mid 2019;

-        BAE Systems in Melbourne, where work on Air Warfare Destroyer and Landing Helicopter Dock construction programs is expected to complete around mid 2015;

-        Forgacs in Newcastle, where work on the Air Warfare Destroyer program is expected to complete in 2015; and

-        Austal in Perth, where construction of Customs Cape Class patrol boats is expected to complete around mid 2015.

CANBERRA

3 May 2013

PRESS OFFICE (02) 6277 7744

MINISTER SMITH’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7800

MINISTER COMBET’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7920

The 2013 Defence White Paper highlights the critical role that Australia’s defence industry plays in supporting the Australian Defence Force (ADF). 

The Defence White Paper further strengthens the Government’s commitment to our defence industry – with a focus on closer connections between strategic policy directions and defence policy for industry, and enhancing innovation, building competitiveness, and developing skills.  

The Government considers Defence industry cooperation and partnerships to be important elements in Australia’s deepening defence partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. 

The White Paper emphasises the importance of the Government’s Priority Industry Capabilities to ensure industry can continue to meet Defence’s critical capability delivery and sustainment needs.  

The Government has a track record of supporting the Australian defence industry, a commitment that was highlighted by the recent announcement of the establishment of a Defence Manufacturing Precinct to be based in Adelaide. 

The Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between Australia and the United States that commences in May 2013 will be an important mechanism that will have substantial benefits for Australian industry.   

The Government has also established a Priority Industry Capability Development Fund, with funding of $10 million per year from the Defence Capability Plan (DCP).  

The Government will provide further assistance to Australia’s defence industry through:

• the establishment of the Defence Innovation Realisation Fund within the DCP funded at $10 million per year, to help mature innovative defence technologies;
• a strengthened Australian Industry Capability Program, to maximise opportunities for Australian industry to participate in domestic and international supply chains;
• continuation of industry assistance and support programs managed by Defence which provide grants and funding to companies to develop new equipment solutions and pursue export opportunities; and
• industry support programs which focus on helping industry to develop skills in critical and new fields, including the Skilling Australia’s Defence Industry Program. 

The Government is committed to providing clear guidance to industry on capability intentions and opportunities for local industry to compete for work.  

We will release an updated public Defence Capability Plan (DCP) and Defence Capability Guide in the coming months.   

The Government will also release an updated Defence Industry Policy Statement in the coming months. It will set out the Government’s vision for how Defence and industry will work together to achieve the priorities of this White Paper.   

Science and technology innovation also underpins this important White Paper and contributes to a strong ADF and an effective defence industry.  The White Paper highlights our pursuit of new international partnerships and continuing investment in our highly skilled and respected Defence Science and Technology Organisation.   

We will continue to enhance the partnership between Defence, industry, and the science and innovation community to deliver results for Australia’s defence capability. 

The White Paper reinforces the Government’s $1 billion Plan for Australian Jobs.  Innovation remains critically important in delivering leading edge capabilities for the ADF and also in applying existing knowledge and technology in new ways to create value in the delivery of new capabilities and reduce both acquisition and sustainment costs.   

CANBERRA

3 May 2013 

PRESS OFFICE (02) 6277 7744
MINISTER SMITH’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7800
MINISTER COMBET’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7920

Supporting Veterans

The care of wounded, injured and ill veterans is a high priority for the Government and the Australian community.

One lesson our nation learnt from Vietnam is the need for care and respect for our veterans. In the months and years ahead, veterans’ care will come to be an increasingly important focus of our time in Afghanistan and the next decade will see more young Australian veterans live in our community than since the 1970s.

Since it was elected in 2007, the Government has prioritised the mental wellbeing of our military personnel. Following the 2009 independent Dunt Reviews into mental health issues in the ADF and ex-service community, the Government invested $93 million in the Departments of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs.

In 2011, the Government and Defence released the 2010 ADF Mental Health Prevalence and Wellbeing Study and the ADF Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy. This was the first comprehensive assessment of the overall mental health of serving personnel, and was a world first for this type of study in a defence population.

In February 2013, the Departments of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs introduced measures to better coordinate the delivery of care and support services between Defence and Veterans’ Affairs. Put simply, we need to stop our wounded, injured and ill veterans from falling between the cracks in the system and the Departments will work together to integrate the provision of health services for current and former serving personnel.

In April last year, the Government announced it would provide $14 million to the newly-formed Australian Defence Force Assistance Trust, to assist the families, in particular the widows and the children of Australian Defence Force personnel, killed, incapacitated or adversely affected as a result of their service to our country.

The establishment of the Australian Defence Force Assistance Trust means that enhanced support will now be available for the families of all ADF members who are killed or incapacitated as a result of their service.

The Trust in the first instance has a particular focus on the families of soldiers killed or incapacitated in action in Afghanistan and was established to provide assistance to Australian Defence Force personnel not covered by the terms of existing arrangements such as the Special Air Services (SAS) Resources Trust and the Commando Welfare Trust to which Government also made a capital contribution.

Mental Health and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

As the ADF transitions from a decade of continuous high intensity operations, the Government will ensure our returning service men and women have the physical and mental health care and support they need, including through continued enhancements to Defence’s screening, assessment and treatment of mental health conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety.

The Government is committed to ensuring that comprehensive education and support is offered across all levels of the Australian Defence Force and at all stages of an Australian Defence Force career – from pre-recruitment and recruitment to completion of service. This will help ensure all members of the Australian Defence Force are aware of the risks associated with mental health issues including PTSD and know how to address this risk.

The Government has also decided to provide an additional $25.3 million for enhanced mental health programs, involving:

• Extending the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service coverage to a number of current and former personnel not currently eligible ie: border protection personnel, disaster zone personnel, personnel involved in training accidents, ADF members medically discharged and submariners; partners and dependant children up to the age of 26 of these high risk peacetime groups; and families of veterans killed in operational service.

• Extending mental health non-liability health cover to include access for former ADF members with three years continuous peacetime service after 1994 and expansion of current conditions of PTSD, depression and other anxiety disorders to also include alcohol and substance misuse disorders for veterans.

• Implementing a post discharge GP health assessment, using a specially developed a screening tool, for former ADF members, including regular and reserve forces.

• Additional funding for the Defence resilience platform, LifeSMART (Stress Management and Resilience Training) for veterans and families. Additional modules may include anger management, substance misuse, depression, anxiety, grief and loss.

• Developing and maintaining a Peer-to-Peer Support program to support recovery of veterans with a mental health condition by providing a non-clinical support network.

• Additional funding for improving processing time for compensation claims by veterans and current serving personnel.

• Additional assistance for veterans and current serving personnel making claims for injury.

Defence Families

The White Paper confirms the Government’s intention to make available to all dependants of permanent ADF members and dependants of Reserve members on Continuous Full-Time Service health care arrangements for the provision of basic medical and dental care from 1 January 2014.

The current trial of these arrangements for Defence families living in remote and regional locations will continue until 31 December 2013 until the full program commences.

The Defence White Paper reflects the Government’s appreciation of the considerable, longstanding contributions of ex-service organisations and newer non-government organisations that together provide an important additional layer of effective and reliable support and care to our ADF members and their families.

CANBERRA

3 May 2013

PRESS OFFICE (02) 6277 7744

MINISTER SMITH’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7800

The 2013 White Paper outlines an integrated and comprehensive reform program which will embed in Defence the significant and wide ranging reforms the Government has introduced.

The reform program builds on the Strategic Reform Program (SRP), which was announced in the 2009 Defence White Paper to underpin the modernisation of the Australian Defence Organisation.

This reform program has now been expanded to include the areas of individual personal and institutional accountability, budget processes, procurement and capability and Defence conduct and culture.

The SRP was introduced to comprehensively and fundamentally improve the management of Defence by making the organisation more efficient and effective, whilst delivering savings of around $20 billion over the decade to reinvest in Defence capability.

The SRP has delivered significant improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of Defence’s core activities, including ICT delivery, sustainment, procurement, workforce management and logistics.  This has resulted in savings of $3.3 billion to the end of 2012-13. Important work to further improve the delivery of Defence’s logistics, ICT services and sustainment will continue, with further savings to be made.

The savings delivered so far by the SRP have been achieved under very challenging fiscal circumstances.  This includes a contribution of $5.4 billion across the Forward Estimates from Defence in the 2012-13 Budget to support the Government’s broader fiscal strategy.

That contribution had no adverse impact on operations in Afghanistan, East Timor or the Solomon Islands.  The provision of equipment to Defence personnel on operations was not adversely affected and there was no adverse impact on the number of military personnel in the Australian Defence Force. 

This contribution did increase the level of Defence’s savings in travel, consultancies and the employment of Australian Public Servants, over and above that planned in the SRP. 

Since 2009, the Government has also embarked on a substantially expanded reform program, as outlined in the White Paper.  These reforms build on and enhance the SRP agenda.  They include:
• reforms to strengthen personal and institutional accountability;
• reforms to improve Defence’s budget processes, estimation methods and underlying assumptions;
• personnel reforms, including removal of gender restrictions from combat roles;
• cultural reforms through the Pathway to Change, to ensure the ADF and broader Defence organisation reflects contemporary community standard and attitudes; and
• further procurement and capability reforms to improve the delivery of Defence capability projects.

These significant developments since 2009 mean that Defence’s reform program needs to be refreshed and refocused.

The 2013 Defence White Paper outlines how these new initiatives will be combined with the SRP to create a single reform agenda, so that reform activities are embedded into Defence’s day-to-day business. 

The Government remains committed to ensuring that Defence is an effective and efficient organisation, and that every Defence dollar is spent both wisely and on the Government’s highest defence priorities. 

The reform objectives of the Strategic Reform Program announced in the 2009 Defence White Paper remain current.  This includes the cost reduction measures which have been incorporated into the Defence Budget.

Reform of Defence to support the protection and defence of Australia’s national security interests is a high Government priority. The Government and Defence will continue to work together to deliver the Defence reform program. 

CANBERRA
3 May 2013

PRESS OFFICE (02) 6277 7744
MINISTER SMITH’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7800

Supporting Veterans

The care of wounded, injured and ill veterans is a high priority for the Government and the Australian community.

One lesson our nation learnt from Vietnam is the need for care and respect for our veterans. In the months and years ahead, veterans’ care will come to be an increasingly important focus of our time in Afghanistan and the next decade will see more young Australian veterans live in our community than since the 1970s.

Since it was elected in 2007, the Government has prioritised the mental wellbeing of our military personnel. Following the 2009 independent Dunt Reviews into mental health issues in the ADF and ex-service community, the Government invested $93 million in the Departments of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs.

In 2011, the Government and Defence released the 2010 ADF Mental Health Prevalence and Wellbeing Study and the ADF Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy. This was the first comprehensive assessment of the overall mental health of serving personnel, and was a world first for this type of study in a defence population.

In February 2013, the Departments of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs introduced measures to better coordinate the delivery of care and support services between Defence and Veterans’ Affairs. Put simply, we need to stop our wounded, injured and ill veterans from falling between the cracks in the system and the Departments will work together to integrate the provision of health services for current and former serving personnel.

In April last year, the Government announced it would provide $14 million to the newly-formed Australian Defence Force Assistance Trust, to assist the families, in particular the widows and the children of Australian Defence Force personnel, killed, incapacitated or adversely affected as a result of their service to our country.

The establishment of the Australian Defence Force Assistance Trust means that enhanced support will now be available for the families of all ADF members who are killed or incapacitated as a result of their service.

The Trust in the first instance has a particular focus on the families of soldiers killed or incapacitated in action in Afghanistan and was established to provide assistance to Australian Defence Force personnel not covered by the terms of existing arrangements such as the Special Air Services (SAS) Resources Trust and the Commando Welfare Trust to which Government also made a capital contribution.

Mental Health and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

As the ADF transitions from a decade of continuous high intensity operations, the Government will ensure our returning service men and women have the physical and mental health care and support they need, including through continued enhancements to Defence’s screening, assessment and treatment of mental health conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety.

The Government is committed to ensuring that comprehensive education and support is offered across all levels of the Australian Defence Force and at all stages of an Australian Defence Force career – from pre-recruitment and recruitment to completion of service. This will help ensure all members of the Australian Defence Force are aware of the risks associated with mental health issues including PTSD and know how to address this risk.

The Government has also decided to provide an additional $25.3 million for enhanced mental health programs, involving:

• Extending the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service coverage to a number of current and former personnel not currently eligible ie: border protection personnel, disaster zone personnel, personnel involved in training accidents, ADF members medically discharged and submariners; partners and dependant children up to the age of 26 of these high risk peacetime groups; and families of veterans killed in operational service.

• Extending mental health non-liability health cover to include access for former ADF members with three years continuous peacetime service after 1994 and expansion of current conditions of PTSD, depression and other anxiety disorders to also include alcohol and substance misuse disorders for veterans.

• Implementing a post discharge GP health assessment, using a specially developed a screening tool, for former ADF members, including regular and reserve forces.

• Additional funding for the Defence resilience platform, LifeSMART (Stress Management and Resilience Training) for veterans and families. Additional modules may include anger management, substance misuse, depression, anxiety, grief and loss.

• Developing and maintaining a Peer-to-Peer Support program to support recovery of veterans with a mental health condition by providing a non-clinical support network.

• Additional funding for improving processing time for compensation claims by veterans and current serving personnel.

• Additional assistance for veterans and current serving personnel making claims for injury.

Defence Families

The White Paper confirms the Government’s intention to make available to all dependants of permanent ADF members and dependants of Reserve members on Continuous Full-Time Service health care arrangements for the provision of basic medical and dental care from 1 January 2014.

The current trial of these arrangements for Defence families living in remote and regional locations will continue until 31 December 2013 until the full program commences.

The Defence White Paper reflects the Government’s appreciation of the considerable, longstanding contributions of ex-service organisations and newer non-government organisations that together provide an important additional layer of effective and reliable support and care to our ADF members and their families.

CANBERRA

3 May 2013

PRESS OFFICE (02) 6277 7744

MINISTER SMITH’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7800