Radio Interview, ABC Adelaide Breakfast

SUBJECTS: Collins Class submarines; ASC workforce; AUKUS.

SONYA FELDHOFF, HOST: A lot of the talk here in South Australia is about the future nuclear submarines. But, of course, the Collins Class submarines have also been made here, they’re maintained here, and we know that their life has been – was hoping to be extended through a new life-of-type extension maintenance work. That has now been scaled back. To find out a bit more about it and why, Pat Conroy is the Minister for Defence Industry. Good morning to you, Minister. 

PAT CONROY, MINISTER FOR DEFENCE INDUSTRY: Good morning. How are you? 

FELDHOFF: Why has this been scaled back, and how? 

CONROY: Well, I wouldn’t calling it scaling back. What I’d say is it’s a different approach. So, the life-of-type extension is necessary for the Collins Class because the last government made three different decisions on submarines in terms of they were going to get Japanese, then they were going to get French and then eventually settled on the nuclear-powered submarines. And that means that there is a 10-year gap between when the Collins Class was due to retire and when the new submarines are going to be delivered. And that means that we need to extend the life of these submarines. And that’s the purpose of the life-of-type extension. The last government also chose to plan for very risky and quite expensive plans to replace the diesel motors and the generators not because it was necessary, potentially, but because they saw it as a way of inserting a new technology that would then flow into the new French submarines. The trouble is that they didn’t change that approach when they cancelled the French submarines and went to the nuclear-powered submarines instead. And so, this Government, the Albanese Labor Government, has had a report commissioned by independent experts who’ve said a less risky and more straightforward approach is just to refurbish the generators and the diesel engines, if we can do that, rather than taking the high-risk approach. 

JULES SCHILLER, HOST: Well, why is it costing $11 billion then? Because didn’t the initial Coalition government estimate it at $4 billion? 

CONROY: Well, yes, they did, and that was woefully under resourced. So they made significant mistakes in how they estimated the cost of this project. So we’re appropriately resourcing it to deliver the life-of-type extension across all six submarines. Importantly, we’re doing significant upgrades to the weapons systems. We’ve already done that so that these submarines are very capable into the 2030s as well as other systems that are important for these vessels. 

SCHILLER: Minister, if you are scaling or changing the scope of the life-of-type extension work, what is it going to mean for the workforce at ASC North that’s charged with doing this work? Are you going to need less workers considering the changed scope of the project? 

CONROY: No, there’s still going to be plenty of work for the ASC workforce because this is quite involved work. But instead of putting in completely new systems that the independent reports have said are unnecessary, we’ll be doing work to refurbish and replace where necessary existing systems. So they’re going to be very busy doing this life-of-type extension as well as the other work on the Collins Class submarines, as well as being prepared or preparing to build SSN-AUKUS. So there’s going to be plenty of work around for these workers. And they are a very skilled workforce and we want to keep them very busy on these important projects. 

FELDHOFF: You say the review that looked at the changed scope to this work, you described it at less risky. How? 

CONROY: Well, it’s less risky than putting in completely new systems. So – 

FELDHOFF: Do you mean time out of the water? 

CONROY: Well, not so much time out of the water; just the technical challenge of cutting open a submarine and putting in completely new systems around diesel propulsion systems and generators. That’s quite a high-risk exercise. You’re effectively putting in a completely new back end on the submarines, whereas the independent report has found that a much more sensible and low-risk approach is when you look through the submarine, work out what needs to be replaced, what can be refurbished and do it that way. So this is about a more realistic low-risk approach that keeps these submarines in the water for another 10 years. They’re very capable submarines, but this is a way that’s doing it that’s pragmatic and will be more effective. 

SCHILLER: I mean, you say they’re very capable submarines. They’re also very old, and, you know, we’re patching them up to get through to the AUKUS program. I mean, are they really capable of defending Australia? 

CONROY: Absolutely. Absolutely. So these are not the same submarines that came off the production line in the late 90s and early 2000s. There’s been significant upgrades done to these submarines. It includes a new combat system, new weapons systems, new sensors. So these are submarines that have been progressively upgraded over the last 15 to 20 years. 

SCHILLER: But they’ve got diesel engines, though, aren’t they – don’t they? 

CONROY: Yes, they’re a diesel electric submarine. 

SCHILLER: So they’re not exactly quiet. 

CONROY: Well, no, they are. They are one of the quietest conventional powered submarines in world. And that will remain the case. So that technology hasn’t changed much in the last 20 or 30 years. What has been upgraded very significantly is the technology around the sensors, the combat systems and the weapons. And that means that these are some of the most effective diesel electric submarines in the world. 

FELDHOFF: Even with diesel engines and generators being replaced, there were question marks over whether these Collins Class submarines would continue to be able to operate to the timeline that you are talking about. Won’t this make it even less able to do that? 

CONROY: No, because we’re taking it lower risk approach. So this will actually maximise the chances of us delivering the life-of-type extension. So this is the Albanese government responding to the engineering challenges in a sensible, pragmatic way. And this should have happened, quite frankly, when the last Government cancelled the French submarine. They should have said, “Righto, when we cancelled the French submarine we don’t need to look at the Collins Class as a pathway to inserting new technology.” That new technology wasn’t relevant when they chose to go to nuclear-powered submarines. So that’s why this approach is better. And the other thing is, I wish I had a time machine. I wish I could go back to 2014 and not have had the chopping and changing that the Liberal government did over those three different decisions. That’s why we’ve got this gap in submarine capability and that’s why we need to extend the life of the Collins Class for another 10 years. 

SCHILLER: Minister, before you leave us, what’s your latest advice out of the United States when it comes to its ability to deliver Virginia-class submarines on time, on budget and to meet the US Navy’s needs? 

CONROY: My latest advice is that we’re still full steam ahead with AUKUS and that they are still on track to hand over the first Virginia-class submarine in the early 2030s. That’s the latest advice I’ve got from that. Now, you hear all these reports about congressional research services and all these other things. That’s the equivalent of the parliamentary library talking about what options governments have. But the latest advice from the US Navy is that they’re still planning for and still in the position to start moving those Virginia-class submarines over in the early 2030s. 

FELDHOFF: All right. Minister, look, thank you for your time this morning. The Minister for Defence Industry, Federally, Pat Conroy. 

CONROY: Thank you.

ENDS