Abbott's Choice of Japan Possibly Influences Defence Testimony

Australia's Senator Nick Xenophon. He comes to Senator Committe meetings well prepared with research. He then asks questions defence officers would prefer he forgot.

--- 

As the Abbott Government has already chosen Japan's Soryu even the most senior defence officials are limited in what they can say to Australian Senate Committees. To provide full and accurate answer to Senators risks being considered disloyal to Australia's (current) Prime Minister Abbott's decision - increasingly know as the Captain's Pick. Put another way accurate information should be avoided if it potentially provides ammunition for politicians who oppose the Japan decision.

Australia has stated a preference for the US submarine AN/BYG-1 combat system (made for US weapons) and US Admiral Thomas is enthusiastic that Australia buy the Soryu. The implication from this is that the US is more likely to supply its combat system with associated US weapons if Australia chooses Japan's Soryu, 

Like many countries Australia has a number of Senate Committees that seek answers from defence civilian and armed services officers. In late February 2015 in a Senate Committee meeting Senator Nick Xenophon (from South Australia) asked questions concerning Australia's known preference in “competitive evaluation process” for a submarine that is highly compatible with, or already uses US weapons. The relevant US weapons include the Harpoon (short-medium range) cruise missile, Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo, and, in future, the Tomahawk (longer range) cruise missile.

More specifically Senator Xenophon asked Australia’s Chief of Navy and the head of the Defence Material Organisation (DMO) whether Australia's defence sector could reply to the Senate Committee's Question on Notice 171. See Committee Meeting transcript 3/4s way down. Question 171, (d)(iii) was:

"Do any German designed submarines carry US weapons (e.g. Mk 48s torpedoes [any variant] or Harpoon missiles)?" 

To this they responded that:

 “Defence is not aware of any German designed submarines that carry US weapons”.

Senator Xenophon then pointed out that a range of Wikipedia articles and official US government documents confirmed that a number of German designed submarines used or can use some US weapons, including those owned by South Korea (in Australia’s region) Greece, Turkey, Israel and Brazil.  

.. Senator Xenophon commented: "Would you understand, Mr King [Head of DMO], that I would be concerned of an error of that nature given the significance? I am concerned that, with such a fundamental error, are you not making decisions on a preferred combat system with US based weapons on the presumption that other combat systems are not compatible with US weapons, which in turn could influence the choice of submarine? You can see my point."

Most have accepted the response to Senator Xenophon as ignorance or oversight, but there is an equally likely explanation.

The head of the Navy and the head of DMO would have been aware that those who oppose "build in Japan" (such as Senator Xenophon) would have been able to use "German built submarines can use US weapons" as an argument for "build German designed submarines in South Australia". 

Naturally Abbott does not want Xenophon or the Labor opposition to be able to say "but the Navy  and DMO have already indicated that "compatibility with US weapons" is a non-argument when claiming Japan's Soryu is preferable to the German contender". 

The defence heads therefore had to rely on seeming ignorance. To provide political ammunition to Senator Xenophon would be entering into the highly political submarine selection issue, after all... 

Another possibility is that the Prime Minister's Office took carriage of the question, provided the wrong answer and the defence heads were forced to live with it. It has already been established that the Prime Minister's Office has taken much of the political carriage of the Soryu issue. After this office handled the Senate Committees questions the defence heads had to wear the acute embarrassment at the Senate committee meeting on the day.

So all this mean's that Abbott's Captain's pick of Japan's Soryu, for the sake of alliance with Japan and the US's advocacy of the Soryu, is influencing otherwise expert testimony on Australia's multi billion (taxpayer) dollar submarine selection.
---

This is the testimony in question given to Senator Xenophon, on US weapons on German designed submarines, at the Senate Committee meeting.

Abbott's "Open Tender" Future Submarine Call Doesn't Go Far Enough

Prime Minister Abbott seems to be the main advocate for "Buy Soryu and Built it in Japan" however his hold on the position of Prime Minister (PM) is still threatened. Yesterday (February 8, 2015) PM Abbott appeared to say that the future submarine issue should go to open tender.  But Abbott was not definite in stating what he meant. He did not say "Build the submarines in Adelaide". It was unclear whether the government owned Australian Submarine Corporations (ASC) would be ordered to ally itself with the Japanese Soryu (KHI and MHI) "bid". It remains likely the Soryus would mostly be built in Japan but as is already anticipated the US-Australian developed combat system might be mostly fitted in Adelaide by ASC.
- The extract in that article "It is understood that France, Germany, Sweden and Japan were to be named in a selective tender process that would allow Australia to solicit bids from other governments, rather than just corporations."  is ambiguous. It may be aimed at the US Government providing the combat system. It may also suggest there will be much weight given in choosing the winning "bid" on what bidding governments have to offer. This would favor Japan in the context of the Japan-Australia free trade agreement . The Japan-Australia strategic alliance issue I wrote about in my previous article would also favor Japan. The other contenders (Germany, France, Sweden) do not bring such economic and strategic benefits to the table.

On February 8, rather than making a serious effort to plan the future submarine build Abbott appeared to be just securing votes from Federal Liberal Party politicians from South Australia to support him in a No-confidence meeting on February 9, 2015.

Although Abbott won enough votes (at the 9am February 9, 2015 meeting in Canberra) from his Liberal Party to stay PM Abbott's survival as PM remains unresolved. This is because there was a split vote, 61 votes he should stay on and a substantial minority of 39 votes that he should stand down. This reflects continuing unhappiness at Abbott's non-consultative leadership style. More no-confidence votes are likely in the months to come.

Now that the immediatte threat to Abbott's PM job is over continuing submarine discontent of politicians in Adelaide is being heard. This more recent article (February 9, 2015) from Australia's ABC indicates: The South Australia State Defence Minister, Martin Hamilton-Smith, believes the newly promised shift to an open tender process for future submarines falls short of the Federal Government's promise that ASC would build the submarines in Adelaide. He believed the open tender process could still result in the ships being built overseas. So he believes that Build 12 submarines in Adelaide should be a definite condition of the tender.

- Independent Federal Senator Nick Xenophon said he was also deeply sceptical about Mr Abbott's new promise for an open tender process. Mr Xenophon said the PM should have announced that the tender process would lead to the subs being built in Australia.

- Federal Defence Minister Kevin Andrews urges caution and patience

Overall Abbott needs to be more explicit that he now supports a truly open tender with most of the build in Adelaide - not a rigged tender that favors a build in Japan. If Abbott remains vague, without Prime Ministerial OR Defence Ministerial Media Releases, Abbott may easily renege-backtrack as his 2014 broken promise of "Build in South Australia". 

In terms of what submarines should be built I think the cost of a totally new or heavily modified 3,000-4,000 ton (surfaced) submarines would be too expensive and involve overly long lead-times. Also since the end of Australia's mining boom, 2 years ago, Australia doesn't have the $20-$25 Billions for 10 to 12 large, possibly orphan, subs. More money towards other voter-popular causes (health, education, welfare) would keep Abbott in his job as PM and the Coalition in power.

Large, heavily modified submarines, built in Australia or overseas, are such a tough choice I think Abbott would describe it as a lose-lose decision. 

If I had my way I'd just buy 6 medium size (Scorpene, HDW 214, Dolphin 2, or Kockums A26) from France, Germany or Sweden for $5 Billion TOTAL price (ie. just over A$800 million per submarine).

Odds on Abbott makes no major decision till 2017 - that is AFTER the next election. - even if the US is applying pressure. Regarding US pressure, note this timely scholarly comment of MIT’s Jonathan D. Caverley “The thumb on the scales that has Australia leaning towards Japan for its submarines has an American fingerprint.” (page 19 of Running Faster to Stay in Place: U.S. Defence Exports in 2030 within RSIS’s  http://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/idss/the-global-arms-industry-in-2030-and-beyond/#.VNhLU_mUen8 )

Pete

Balance of Power Senator Lambie AND Limited Submarine Competition?

Senator Nick Xenophon (left) and Senator Jacqui Lambie (right) 

---

Balance of Power Senator Lambie

See February 1, 2015 revisions in Red.

The intervention on January 30, 2015 (see ABC article) of Australian Senator Jacqui Lambie in favour of Build the Future Submarine in Australia is of major significance. On that date Senator Lambie and Senator Nick Xenophon visited ASC in Adelaide, South Australia. The significance of the visit and statements by Lambie and Xenophon have been basically ignored by the international submarine industry and commentariat.

Senator Lambie does not tick all the superficial boxes considered important in the industry. She is not a tall, alpha male in a suit, with long experience as a senior politician or a retired senior military commander. She is relatively new to the Australian Parliament and rose to the rank of Corporal in the Army Reserve (however a certain German, who became powerful, rose to Corporal 100 years ago :)

Independent Senator Lambie, however, is one of the major holders of the balance of power in the Australian Federal Parliament with a record of threatening to block - or actually blocking - major $Billion dollar bills (also called "legislation"). Lambie, with other Senators, could potentially block or hinder the Abbott Government's pro-Soryu policy. 

Balance of power comes by way of the governing Liberal/National Coalition not having a majority of seats in the Australian Parliament’s Upper House – the Senate. There are 76 Senators, including:

- Liberal/National Coalition - 33 seats

- Australian Labor Party the main opposition party - 25 seats

The Minor Parties are:

- Greens (who often vote with Labor) - 10 seats

- Palmer United Party 2 seats

- Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party – 1 seat

- Liberal Democrats – 1 seat

- Family First Party – 1 seat

The Independents are:

- John Madigan – 1 seat

- Nick Xenophon – 1 seat, and

- Jacqui Lambie – 1 seat.

The Coalition requires 6 non-Coalition Senators to pass bills. Labor and the Greens regularly vote against the Coalition. This often leaves a Balance of Power situation where the governing Coalition needs 4 Senators from the other Minor Parties and/or Independents to vote with the Coalition. 

Jacqui Lambie has been the most recent Senator to become an Independent and she is the most unpredictable Senator.

Before voting the Coalition Government often has to "horse trade" on issues to avoid the embarrassing situation of having legislation blocked in the Senate because there are too many Senator votes against the Coalition's piece of legislation.

Senator Lambie is highly principled and represents Australia's smallest State, Tasmania. She might  expect some components for any new submarine would be made in Tasmania.

Senator Nick Xenophon from the submarine building and sustainment State of South Australia is coordinating efforts with Senator Lambie to potentially threaten to block any Submarine Made in Japan moves.

They admit they are coordinating efforts because Prime Minister Abbott's power is declining - making more amenable to the idea of Build in Australia. They recognise the major push for Soryu Made in Japan comes from Abbott's parliamentary office not Defence Minister Andrews' office.

The fall of the Coalition State Government in Queensland on the night of January 31, 2015 has further weakened Abbott's position.

Limited Submarine Competition

Separately in the ABC article is the prediction that: The Abbott government "is expected to announce a limited competition for the new generation submarine project involving firms from Japan, Germany and France in a matter of weeks." 

A limited competition is quite possible, but given a submarine purchase may cost $20+ Billions, the competition and the bids (or re-bids) from Japan, Germany and France would probably be long and comprehensive. The "competition" may also be used by Abbott and Andrews as a false exercise in "due diligence" to confirm that the current choice - the Soryu - has "won" the "competition". Choice of the Soryu, after all, is heavily about alliances - about alliance obligations to the US and by extension Japan - not only about the usual tender technical parameteres.

Pete