Having had some time to digest the news of a continuous shipbuilding plan, I am inclined to ask – what has changed?
Katherine Ziesing | Canberra
From comments that “ASC can’t be trusted to build a canoe” to being company of choice for the next two decades (despite an upcoming review into the company that promises significant change), what has changed in such a short time?
The issues faced by the AWD program have been well covered by ADM and continue to vex many, but the government now seeks to spend billions in national treasure over the next two decades on an industry that has been effectively ignored for some time. This announcement comes from a government that has talked down this national capability, only to turn around now and “[recognise] that the Adelaide shipyards and workforce are strategic national assets” while making no mention of other shipbuilding facilities in WA, NSW or Victoria.
ADM reported last month about the fate of Williamstown. The moral of the story: it’s not pretty. But an apartment redevelopment there might be . . .
The opposition has been little better in their actions during this period. Decision paralysis is not confined to one side of the political spectrum.
The decision to speed up a replacement for the oiler/replenishment fleet by looking at a complete overseas build from either Navantia (Cantanbria class) or Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (Aegir class), based on BMT’s MARS design for the UK’s Royal Navy is barely mentioned.
They won’t be built in Australia because the government didn’t believe that the industrial infrastructure and experience was in place to build 20,000+ tonne ships locally. Again, what has changed?
"The decision to have a long-term shipbuilding industry supported by the federal government is an excellent one."
One could argue that the exchange rate certainly has. With the Australian dollar looking decidedly weaker against the US dollar, supporting a local industry has merit. Upholding the ‘no win, no loss’ approach for Defence spending will become an increasingly costly business for government.
The decision to have a long-term shipbuilding industry supported by the federal government is an excellent one, regardless of how it came about. But as I have said before, the devil is always in the details. And details are hard to come by. One hopes that the raft of high-level policy documentation that is due any day now will provide some clarity on the matter.
The other issue is that surrounding the fate of ASC. Will it be sold or not? And when? Its owner, the Department of Finance, has eased the chronic underinvestment environment ASC previously operated under. It’s hard for a business to invest in its own future, let alone anybody else’s, when all earnings are ploughed back into consolidated revenue rather than into upcoming opportunities.
But what business does government have in being a shipbuilder? Various reports commissioned by the government clearly show that management was at fault when it came to multiple ASC contracts. There are few governments that Australia would like to compare itself to that still operate their own yards; privatisation is the way ahead globally.
The business case for the company to remain under government control is slim to say the least. Rumours about the fate of ASC circulate around Canberra circles every few months. It is time to lay them to rest.
On a more positive note, I was pleased to spend some time with Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Tim Barrett for our From the Source interview this edition. Navy has frequently seemed to be the problem child when it comes to the services; people and capabilities have both had their issues over the last few years. Rarely do you hear the good news stories coming out of the senior service it seems.
But Navy will now be going through the platform transformation process that the Air Force began 5-6 years ago in that the majority if not all of their platforms are being replaced over the coming decade. There is a challenge but also an opportunity to evolve the way Navy thinks and fights as part of the ADF.
VADM Barrett explained that Plan Pelorus is more about ‘backcasting’ than forecasting. He has set out where the Navy needs to be in three years under his leadership and is now empowering his people to think about the steps that need to be taken to actually get there. The culture change encouraged under New Generation Navy is being put into practice, he feels. I wish the RAN the best of luck in this mission.