The State Government is disturbed and disappointed at revelations made on the ABC’s Four Corners program that the Federal Government may have misled the State Government and public about its National Security Committee’s consideration around building the next generation of submarines in Japan.

The Minister for Defence Industries Martin Hamilton-Smith said that he and the Premier were being assured by the Prime Minister and Defence Minister around October last year that no decision had been made on where the submarines would be built.

“It is disappointing to learn that there were secret decisions by members of the National Security Committee to firm up a submarine deal with Japan,” Mr Hamilton-Smith said.

“It would have been a critical mistake for the Prime Minister to announce a secret multi-billion dollar arrangement with Japan without undertaking a competitive tender process.

“Now that the Federal Government has confirmed it will conduct a ‘competitive evaluation process,’ it must be a fair and open process. Swedish defence company Saab-Kockums should be reinstated into the process, alongside other contenders from France, Germany and Japan.

“It is still unclear why these three nations have been privileged over other contenders.
 
“It appears that Sweden may have been excluded because it is a strong and clear competitor who is committed to building in Australia.

“Expert advice suggests that the Swedish, Australian built option is low-risk; economic analysis has also established its benefit to the Australian economy,” Mr Hamilton-Smith said.
 
“Saab-Kockums is the only contender to have designed and built the closest conventional submarine to meet Australia’s current requirements;

“Crucially, Saab-Kockums is ready and willing to work collaboratively with Australian industry. It is also willing to commit to jobs and capability remaining in Australia. The company submitted an unsolicited proposal last year but has been ignored, the reasons why have not been elaborated.

“Saab-Kockums developed the highly capable Collins Class with ASC. An evolved “Son of Collins” design, built in Australia would be the lowest risk and the most cost-effective. It would use effective, historical design philosophies, engineering, and modular construction techniques. This would capitalise on Australia’s well-developed submarine industry and its supporting supply chains.

“The Federal Government has wrongly claimed that Sweden has not continuously designed and built boats for the last 20 years, and this is why it has been excluded.

“Kockums has maintained and advanced its submarine-building capability in that time. In fact, since 1995, it was delivered 11 submarines (17 if you include the Collins Class from 1996-2003). Three of the 11 were the Gotland Class.

“The other eight were extensive modifications and rebuilds, which included new combat systems, tropicalised cooling systems and extra stealth techniques.

“Of the eight, four also had ultra-quiet air independent propulsion systems. These required cutting the submarines into two pieces and inserting a section containing liquid oxygen tanks, control systems and the Kockums Stirling engines which have been sold to the Japanese.

“This work requires a continuum of engineering expertise, from concept design all the way through the building phase to sea trials. It exercises the same skills and competencies required for designing and building new submarines – indeed, the work is more complex since it must be done within the tight constraints imposed by an existing design.

“Sweden’s last submarine was delivered in 2013. Currently, Saab-Kockums is five years down the track with an entirely new design, the A26. The build contract is currently under negotiation between Saab and the Swedish Government. They clearly have confidence in their technology,” Mr Hamilton-Smith said.

“Only a proper project definition study and a transparent competitive tender, which is contingent on construction occurring in Australia, will ensure that this multi-billion dollar project succeeds.

“Any process which appears contrived or lacks transparency puts at risk our industry, jobs and our defence capability.

“All the designs are first class but the Swedish design must be reintroduced beside the Japanese, French and German designs. It must be assessed in an objective and transparent process by a dedicated submarine design authority without bias, created for the express process of guiding the submarine project.

“The submarine acquisition project should be viewed in the context of a sustainable 30-year naval shipbuilding plan, which includes the surface ship construction and a future frigate build. Without both there will be insufficient deal flow for a sustainable national industry.”