Transcription
Okay, we got to go.
All right. Well, thank you very much for, uh, for coming out for this very important media event. Um, first of all, I want to welcome, uh, to Parliament House, uh, the, uh, key members of the Orcus Public Inquiry. Uh, in particular, the commissioners, uh, excuse me if I use my notes. We've got the Honorable Peter Garrett, the Honorable, uh, uh, sorry, Admiral Chris Barry, retired, Karina Lester, uh, Miss Leanny Mishell. We've also got Major General Mike Smith, uh, retired. Regrettably, Carman Lawrence was to join us but had to pull out at the last minute.
Look, I'm not going to, uh, I'm not going to have really anything at all to say other than, uh, it's, it's an absolute honor to help launch the Orcus Public Inquiry. Um, Senator David PCO will, uh, will join us once he finishes in committee. David and I are happy to be associated with this because, like all of the commissioners, we share a passionate interest, a commitment to proper process, uh, transparency, and also the effective defense of our country. Um, and I know David and I, you know, we have similar concerns about the Orcus project. I mean, this is the largest defense project in Australia's history, but yet it was foisted upon the community with no notice, uh, no consultation, no socializing. It wasn't taken to an election. Uh, and it, and it motors on at the expense of billions of dollars, but yet much of it is in secret. We don't know the answer to so many questions. Uh, there clearly is a need to shine a light on it, and that's what the Ocus Public Inquiry promises to do. So on behalf of Senator PCO and myself, uh, it's a delight to welcome the inquiry to Parliament House. It's a delight to help launch it. Um, and I'll now hand on to the commissioners to tell you all about it.
Uh, look, thanks very much, Andrew, and thanks to you and David PCO for helping us with this launch today of the Orcus Public Inquiry. And thank you to the Australian Peace and Security Forum for funding this inquiry and for the Australians who've already provided their support. The Orcus decision is the most momentous and expensive decision ever made by any Australian government in the modern era. It is a decision that asks all of us to fully understand the implications of what is contained in that decision and to provide the opportunity for Australians right across the political spectrum and from all walks of life to be able to ask those questions and to be heard and submit to a public discussion about this massive expenditure.
Now, the irony is that we are launching a public inquiry in Parliament House where there has been no substantive debate about Orcus at all, at all. Uh, and so it's consequent upon us and the other commissioners standing with me that we provide that opportunity for Australians to ask the questions, to have, in a transparent way, their concerns or queries noted, to hear from experts who can provide us with additional information and material, to hear from the government if they so choose to appear before this inquiry, and to provide that information to all Australians in a way that is accessible and understandable and helps inform them about what is happening now and what could happen in the future because the costs are so great. The fact that it relies upon the cooperation into the future of two other sovereign governments raises a degree of risk and complexity that is unlike any other decision taken by Australian governments in the defense realm. I see no evidence at this point in time that either the American submarine building capacity nor the United Kingdom submarine building capacity can deliver orcas to Australians, albeit that we are already committed to paying them to do that. I also hold great concern, standing here on First People's country, about the fact that there is no provision or plan at all in the public domain to identify how the safe disposal of medium and high-level radioactive waste is to be given effect to over the next 40 or 50 years. The United States still does not have a safe and permanent storage solution for high-level radioactive waste such as is generated by nuclear submarines. And then there's the potential and possible impacts on people who have already borne the consequence of decisions taken in the past by governments around nuclear matters.
I want to hand through to my fellow commissioners to welcome, uh, Admiral Chris Barry, not only a retired Chief of the Defense Force but someone who brings eminent experience, uh, to this debate. Uh, and I'm delighted that he is one of our commissioners. We regret that Dr. Carman Lawrence can't join us, again, former Premier of Western Australia and Treasurer, member of the House of Representatives, an eminent West Australian. Uh, Karina Leester, Ynatara woman whose family have experienced nuclear fallout already, a leader in her community, and Leanne Mitchell, uh, Deputy Director of the Australia Institute with considerable background in legal and government matters. I'm going to invite each of the commissioners to make some remarks to you, and then we'll be happy to take a few questions.
Chris, >> thanks, Peter. Um, I'm joining this, uh, inquiry to make sure for myself that the Australian community, uh, appreciates and understands what the Augustus project is all about, because what I've been reading and hearing doesn't persuade me that our community has a good understanding of what's involved. I also want to make sure that looking ahead to our defense commitments over the next few years, this project makes sense. And I'm certainly on the record as having said that the events of the last five years are telling me that it is time that we had a thoroughgoing look at what our defense and national security needs are going to be over the next 20 years or so. As I look into the globe, uh, a rising power like China, which is looking like it will dominate world affairs in the near future, uh, and the state of our alliance relationship with the United States and the United Kingdom. I think there are serious concerns about where this all leads. My fear, as a former Chief of the Defense Force, is that the kinds of expenditures and the kinds of workforce and the way in which we would go about supporting something like Orcus might drain, uh, other parts of our defense force and leave us vulnerable in ways that we would not appreciate. And finally, as I look into our region, and I look to our nearest neighbor, Indonesia, which in 2030 will be a country of 285 million people, I ask myself, are we really being sensible about our future, to disregard our relationships in the Asia-Pacific region at the expense of keeping the anglophone society going on this project? I'm looking forward to reading the submissions. I want to read submissions from people who are concerned. I want to hear submissions from people that are involved in the project. And I want to find either a sensible answer for ours or an a further inquiry to make sure that we're doing the right thing.
>> Thank you. >> Uh, thanks very much, Chris. I might ask Karina Lester to make a few comments now. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Um, Peter Garrett, I really appreciate this opportunity to speak and stand as a First Nations representative here from my community who have had a lived experience of testing and of course, a, a lived experience of ongoing pressures for the nuclear waste issue. Um, Peter mentioned it today, this morning, around no plan around nuclear waste and how we're going to manage this as a nation. Um, and these are real fears for First Nations peoples across Australia. Often we are pressured to be the solution to this problem that is yet been resolved. And so there is an opportunity for this public inquiry to lift the voices of First Nations peoples to really have a say in this really important issue around protecting of our, our cultures, um, our waterways, our traditional lands. Um, we are often pressured to be the solutions. And so I got involved to really engage with the First Nations communities to lift their voices up and to be part of this inquiry. Often it is very daunting to, you know, get involved in processes that are very much, you know, written submissions and oral submissions. And I'm wanting to hear from First Nations voices around their concerns that they have for their traditional lands. And I'm looking forward to being a part of, you know, this inquiry, getting out onto country, getting out to the communities, encouraging First Nations peoples to put in their submissions and to, you know, have a say in in something that will impact them. And we need to be involved in those processes as well. You know, we're coming to the end of Reconciliation Week. We've had a theme called "All In." Well, I'd like to encourage that all of us Australians who are concerned about the lack of information and transparency around. We need to get involved. And I want to encourage that to everybody. Get involved. Have your say. This is something for the people of Australia to be involved in this inquiry into what is the real story with Ocus and what is our role as a, as a country in this agreement as well. So thank you, everyone.
>> Uh, thanks very much, Karina. And finally, to Leanne Mshell. I'll ask her to make a few remarks, and then we can take questions. Thanks, Le. >> Thanks, Peter. Hi, I'm Leanne Mchell. I'm co-CEO at the Australia Institute, and I'm really happy to be part of this public inquiry. But I don't understand why we haven't had a parliamentary inquiry. I mean, parliamentary inquiries are a cornerstone of our democracy, and there's about 88 of them underway at the moment in this building, as we speak, from everything from the tire industry to NDIS. Yet, for we are not having one. To me, that makes no sense. I'm particularly interested in looking at the economics behind Orcus. Now, we know that it's going to cost more than 386 billion. A lot of people are talking about, do we need a plan B? I think plan A is over. We've already moved on to plan B, and we've got no plan C. But let's have a look at that, at that first estimate of 386 billion. To put that into context, that would wipe out our entire Future Fund and then some. So if we go back to when Howard was Prime Minister and Costello was Treasurer, and we started a generation of savings, those savings are at 337 million, give or a billion, sorry, dollars, give or take. So Orcus would wipe out all of that generational savings and then some, as I said, and yet we're not having a parliamentary inquiry into it. So I'm really happy that, um, Australian Peace and Security Foundation have got together and opused this commission, the inquiry. I'm really happy that all of the commissioners are going to be giving their time to it, and I really encourage all Australians to go and read the terms of reference, put in submissions, and get involved.
>> Okay, thanks very much, and happy to answer some questions to any of the commissioners. Firstly, to you, given your background, are you open? Well, I'll turn the question around the other way, Andrew, and say that until such time as that process that you've identified, i.e., the safe, permanent, long-term storage of radioactive waste is guaranteed for successive generations, then the answer is no. And that's the right starting point. Uh, see, the problem here is one of social license and the national interest. Um, none of us are going to be here when the bills get paid on, or at the end of the day. Maybe some of the younger journos, the rest of us won't be here. It'll be our kids. It'll be our grandkids. Now, I fail to understand how a major industrial project of this kind can be brought to a sovereign government with the additional requirement that they build a nuclear waste safety infrastructure system that the country that is giving us or selling us the submarines hasn't yet done. I mean, how does that work? So, short answer, I've answered it. No, it's not. And here's the key thing. All of us have got strong opinions about this matter. We've had two former Prime Ministers, two former Foreign Ministers, probably three actually, when I think about it, who've expressed strong views about it. And when I've expressed strong views about it, I've said what needs to happen now is for us to have the conversation, for us to have the questions answered. It's 300 plus billion. It's nearly $400 billion. At what cost will it make us safe? And the terms of reference, to be clear, identify a number of other discrete elements that we need to consider. Employment consequences, issues around regional security, and the like. So, uh, we will look and be absolutely transparent about identifying the information that comes in to the public inquiry, making sure that we hear the views, whatever they may be, and then deliberating as commissioners would do, on the evidence that's in front of us.
>> It's never too late, uh, is the first answer to that question. But the second answer to that question is Australians are under significant cost of living pressures. Um, every dollar that gets spent in this building for whatever program, as I well recall, is a dollar hard-earned by Australians and spent by the representatives here. Yes, there has been commitments of funds already, but there is no guarantee that these submarines are actually going to arrive on time and on budget at all. So it's really important for us to be able to say we'll have a people's inquiry so that we can fully explore those matters.
>> Is anybody involved? >> Anyone can come to this inquiry who thinks that Orcus is a good idea, and we'll listen to them.
>> Well, the biggest, the biggest issue I think for the commission to identify are the matters that are identified in the terms of reference. Have a look at the terms of reference, and you'll see that they're actually comprehensive. They're not a news grab for today. They're real terms of reference. Does Orcus make us safer? Are there prudent alternatives? And you've already heard from Chris Barry that perhaps there are. What are the likely consequences? The opportunity costs foregone. How is the matter of radioactive waste, medium and high-level radioactive waste, to be determined in this process? There are manifest numbers of questions to be resolved, and we come to our conclusions, our findings, and our determinations on the basis of what we hear, questions that are asked, information that comes to us, and our discussions.
>> What chance do you have any weekend? Uh, so look, I'll answer the first part and hand to Chris. We've invited the government to present to this inquiry. We've written to the Prime Minister, and of course, it has to be said, we are very open to hearing from defense, to receive briefings, to receive submissions, to receive presentations. Chris, >> yeah, look, I think they're good questions. Um, and I've got to, uh, say that, uh, between 2004 and 2010, my former colleague in defense, Paul Barrett, and I were chasing the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines for Australia in a context that's very different in that D from now. But we couldn't succeed. But our idea was built on the notion that we would have a nuclear power industry on which to build engineering expertise, make us a smart buyer, and deal with some of the issues that have already been raised in going forward with this project. So at the moment, uh, what I see is we will not be a smart buyer. We haven't solved some of the problems that would have had to be solved, but we could make no headway either in the UK or in the United States back in 2010. So now I ask myself, what's changed? Why suddenly we're now linked with the United States and with the UK on this deal? And both of those countries, which have much more significant populations than ours, are struggling at the moment with their own submarine capability building programs. In the UK, 80 million people. In the United States, 340 million people, and they're in a bit of trouble. Um, so what does it mean for a country of 29 million people like Australia to acquire these kinds of capabilities? Now, I want to hear from the expertise in the Department of Defense because it's 20 years since I was involved. I want to know what's been going on behind some of those closed doors to find out what the deal really looks like. And if, if you wanted to draw a line under it, how does it work out that this weekend we suddenly go from two plus one submarines of the Virginia class to two to three secondhand submarines, and they won't be the best available ones at the time. Uh, from previous experience, I know how that works. They'll be the ones.
>> Well, if we had a nuclear power industry, we would have solved that problem. >> Sure. >> Australian bush. >> No, I didn't ever get to that point. We didn't even get past. We didn't get past go in 2010. >> What would be the best possible alternative if Australia didn't? Where else could we get? >> We could build our own. We used to have the capability. We've just done it. >> No. But why do we need nuclear power especially? I think that's a question that needs to be answered in the context of what kind of defense force do we need for the next 20 years, and I'm not sure that we've done that homework, because a lot of the stuff I've read suggests we already know the answer, it's go to China with the United States. >> Because of the nature of the world in those days, which is now very different from the world we're experiencing. Well, I think we were a more significant power in those days. I think we were doing work with the Collins class that suggested nuclear power submarines were an ideal next step. Uh, and so on. And I'm not sure that's true today.
>> Thanks, Chris. >> There's no guarantee that will at all. Isn't that an argument to maintain defense material projects or impact infrastructure projects like? >> Uh, well, look, I don't think so. But before I take the question, I might, uh, quickly acknowledge Senator David PCO, who's a co-host here today. I don't know whether you want to jump in and make a comment now, David, or right. Um, here's the question. What else would you get for the amount of money that is being expensed for Orcus? You would get a lot. Whether it was social spending, or whether it was building your own submarines. You would get a lot if it was developing a national climate resilience plan. You would get a lot if you wanted to have hospitals in towns right around Australia. So this is not an either-or proposition. And I think that's the important thing to understand. And I think that's what Australians are really conscious of. They understand the need for us to have both peace and security. It's just whether or not this is the right way for us to get it. And importantly for me, having spent time in this place and elsewhere, a proper national conversation, a yarn, the opportunity to ask questions, for people to be respected for their points of view, and for the information to be provided to people in a way that's not only about the experts, although there needs to be expert advice, is absolutely crucial. This is a once-in-a-generation, if not once-in-a-century, serious level decision-making exercise by Australian governments plural. The Australian people need to be a part of it. So, David, I might ask you to say a few words. You were late. Not your fault.
>> Well, thank you to the Australian Peace and Security Forum, um, for helping put this together. It shouldn't take citizens actually standing up in inquiry, but here we are because of the total lack of transparency. And that is my biggest concern when it comes to walkers. There is a government and an opposition that until recently didn't want to talk about the details of why we've gone down this path, the details of what this actually means, uh, for Australia and our defense future. And so I really welcome, um, this inquiry. I thank the commissioners for for giving up their time to actually hear from Australians, to hear about the concerns, to speak to defense experts about, um, concerns about Augustus, the, the concerns that even are now being raised by the opposition about the lack of plan B. And I find it very frustrating as an independent senator how hard it is to actually get information out of this government. And you know, their recent announcement at an overseas conference that we're now buying second, second-hand subs, I think goes to the core of the lack of accountability and transparency with the Australian people. No, I haven't compared it to a parliamentary. >> That's right. >> Yeah. >> Why should Australians look at your inquiry and think this is going to be fair?
>> So I think the answer to that is that they get the opportunity to put their view. It's public. It's transparent. It's accessible. And the fact of the matter is that when the facts change, uh, prudent and sensible people change their minds. Maybe about one detail, maybe about more. So the fact that you've got people with opinions about this issue is not unremarkable. The main question is the discharge of responsibilities that the commissioners will give effect to by actually allowing people the opportunity to ask the questions and to speak. And I reckon we will get people from different political perspectives coming, and that's something that we would welcome. Uh, that's the whole idea. It must be welcomed. And I hope that the government will present because if they feel that strongly about the Orcus rationale, let's hear it. Let's get the opportunity to ask those questions. We don't have parliamentary standing. This is not a Royal Commission. This is a people's inquiry, and I'm hoping very much, having entered into it in good faith, that others will too.
>> That I haven't read your terms of references yet. How important is Australia's capacity for sovereign decision-making in the decision you'll make as an inquiry, and how on earth do you weigh that against something as practical as getting rid of neutral? >> Well, I think the, the, the clear answer to quite a number of these questions is, let us go and do this work. Let us see what information, advice, and material comes through to us. Let us see the rationals that are provided to us, and hopefully get some better understanding of the thinking of those who are charged with that decision.
>> Taking sovereign decision-making from Australia as part of this process. Is that a problem? >> Well, I'll make one really basic point about the question that's being asked to me here. You get more information from the Americans and the Congressional Budget Office about their submarine program than anyone in this house or anyone in the public can get about ours. One more question, and then I think we had a break.
>> We regularly hear from officials as well. We're heading into a particularly dangerous period in the United Do you agree with that fundamental principle behind all this that Australia needs to rapidly build? Uh, look, I don't think there's any doubt that in the changing, um, strategic and international environment, Australians are going to be having some very big decisions to make and some big yarns about how we best structure our defense force and what amplification or otherwise it needs within the mix of a security policy, not a defense policy, a security policy. And that is a big discussion for us because at the moment, we've got this thing called Orcus, which raises more questions than it answers. Yes, there's a highly charged political environment there, but is having forward-focused attack submarines to be delivered in 20, 25 or 30 years' time the most effective way for our defense forces to discharge their responsibilities? That's the sort of questions that should be asked, and hopefully, we can help in providing some answers. Thanks, everybody.