SENATE

80 SENATE Thursday, 13 October 2016
That brings me back again to the Defence Industry Policy Statement. If we accept the fact that air combat
capability has a fundamental input to it, which is design engineering, then rather than looking at this program in
isolation and looking at other programs—for example, something like the replacement for the training aircraft, the
PC-9, in isolation—Defence has the opportunity, in fact the obligation, to look at that fundamental input to
capability from a programmatic perspective. It should say, 'If we do not have enough places within the Joint Strike
Fighter program to provide this training and development of competence for our young engineers then there is no
logical reason, in terms of combat capability, with something like the PC-9 replacement for us not to hold a
systems program office or do that engineering effort.' The rationalist approach to procuring that aircraft would be:
let the OEM or another contractor do it by power by the hour for the aircraft, rather than doing it from an
Australian sovereign perspective.
But if we take the programmatic perspective, perhaps this is actually the lowest cost and most effective way to
provide training opportunities for young engineers, who can develop an understanding of structures, power plants,
engines, airframes, avionics and systems which they can then transfer into our combat capability such as the Joint
Strike Fighter. That is the kind of opportunity that the Defence Industry Policy Statement provides, and I would
certainly encourage Defence, as they look to making sure that we have the sovereign ability to operate this aircraft
into the future, to take the opportunities to grow that workforce.
My final comments are on the test and evaluation for this platform. My background is as an experimental test
pilot in the military and I am aware that many people fall victim to the conspiracy of optimism. If there were one
program in recent military aviation history that has had many people fall victim to a conspiracy of optimism it
would be the Joint Strike Fighter program. Too much reliance has been placed on modelling, computer
simulations, glossy brochures, marketing programs and unrealistic expectations and not enough focus has been
placed on engagement in test and evaluation. I am pleased to see that there has been an increased focus on test and
evaluation but I maintain the position, which I have put to Defence on many occasions, that Australia needs to
invest more in the people we have engaged, not only in operational test and evaluation as the aircraft starts to be
fielded but in making sure we have engineers and aircrew who are involved in the development and certification
flight test activities. That is where we will develop the necessary deep understanding of any flaws, failures,
weaknesses or strengths in the system. We can then adapt that understanding to our doctrine, procedures and
tactics so that we can exploit the capabilities and compensate for any deficiencies in the system to maximum
effect.
The US Office of the DOT&E has highlighted a number of areas where there are ongoing concerns with the
rate of progress through the T&E program. When I hear people talking about thinning out the number of test
points in order to meet schedule, my background means I become nervous about the quality of the final clearances
that are achieved. Again, I would encourage Defence to make strategic and investments into test and evaluation so
that we are not just a receiver of what another country wishes to give us but active participants gaining
information and access to raw data so that we can make our own analysis of what it is telling us about the
capabilities of the platform.
I commend the report to the Senate. The program is something we should continue with. It is, for the short to
medium term, the most likely aircraft to meet our air combat capability needs. But I would make those three
points again: we should expect to need a multiplatform fleet into the future; we should expect that the threats in
our region and beyond will evolve and that the core characteristic of this platform may no longer, in the medium
to long term, be the bulwark that it currently is advertised to be against emerging threats; and that we need to use
the opportunities presented by the Defence Industry Policy Statement to develop sovereign capability, both in our
industry and among our uniformed and civilian defence personnel, in particular in the design support and
engineering network, to assure the continuing airworthiness and combat capability of this platform into the future.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
FIRST SPEECH
The PRESIDENT (16:00): Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Griff to make his first speech and ask that
honourable senators observe the usual courtesies.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (16:00): Thank you, Mr President, and thank you to all in this chamber, to
my colleagues, to the Clerk and her office, and of course to the attendants for the kind welcome and assistance
given to me so far. It is an honour to be here and to give my first speech as South Australian senator 101 since
Federation, which, given Senate school and the steep learning curve I have been on, is a most appropriate number.
That I am able to stand here today in this role in this place was never certain. That is why I would like to begin
this speech by paying respect to my mother, Vilma, who as a 30-year-old found herself alone with a 2½-year-old
CHAMBER