Burning Forests for Electricity

Loggers and Tree Huggers Agree – Conservative Politicians Don’t

 

The forest peace deal signed by conservation and industry groups late last year still hangs in the balance. The upper house of State parliament, known as the Legislative Council, split evenly on the Bill which was to give effect to the agreement. They will re-consider whether to sign the Bill into law this year.

Meanwhile there has been no moratorium. I wrote in an earlier blog that we should support the deal if it was real. ‘Real’ means lines on 1:25,000 scale maps, time frames, and dollars. Anything less will simply provide political cover for clear felling to continue while isolating conservation concerns. That is precisely what happened with the Regional Forests Agreement where conservation goals were rorted but the agreement was touted as proof that the issue was solved.

How did we get here?

By 1991 everyone who understood the forest industry understood that the wood-chipping industry had around 20 years left in it before it collapsed. It was by then established in the literature that global plantations would provide a cheaper and superior resource in that time frame. Since over eighty percent of all the old growth timber is either wood-chipped or burned, plantation pulp would cripple the old growth logging industry. Heads of industry knew that, management of the (then) Forestry Commission knew that, and as a 17 year old wilderness activist, I knew that.

In 1991 I sat around a table at the Wilderness Society with a group of people and discussed how we could lock-up as much wilderness forests of world heritage significance as possible in the next two decades. There was also some discussion of what a post wood-chip driven industry might look like, and whether there was still a chance to save what remained of the small saw mill sector before the wood-chippers took the lot.

Around that time a very different group of people discussed how to ensure access to as much old growth as possible to make as much money as possible before the game collapsed. The result was Resource Security Legislation which destroyed the first Labor Green accord and government. I discuss this in more detail in my book.

What is now clear is that many saw a pulp mill as the saviour of the status quo. A pulp mill would provide a customer for the old growth wood-chips no one wants, plus plantation timbers that have been established on private land. However, even without environmental objections, this was always a high risk business venture. Eventually the pulp mill proponents made a strategic decision not to take old-growth chips, and to sell-off their wood-chip mill. Conservationists bought the chip mill.

Meanwhile what was predicted in the early nineties has now come to pass and the wood-chipping industry is in its death throes. For some reason no one thought to tell the workers and contractors in the industry that the status quo wasn’t going to last. What the CFMEU were thinking I can only guess.

But there is a plan B for industry. It is to burn the old growth in a furnace to generate electricity and pass it off as renewable energy. Never mind that old growth forests are carbon sinks, wildlife refuges, havens of biodiversity, vital components of an integral wilderness, linkages between different bioregions; or simply that they are ancient, wild and beautiful, free without reference to the needs of man. Maybe that’s the reason some people aren’t comfortable with them. Anyway, according to Forestry Tasmania it’s all OK because they will re-seed with eucalyptus trees and then log them on a 60 year cycle; so it’s all renewable and environmentalists are just being emotional. Burn the forests, turn on the lights.

I wish this was the stuff of conspiracy theorists but it isn’t. Forestry Tasmania detailed this in an article in the local news paper in which they said this was the best way to “out green the greens.” There is a real risk that without a meaningful forest agreement forests that have remained inviolate since the last ice age will simply be burned. The Liberal (read Conservative) party have already given tacit approval to this policy. It creates a neat wedge issue for them, and since they don’t really have a forest policy they may as well have a wedge.

On the other hand a big wood furnace would provide a focal point for protest in the same way that the Franklin Dam did for the South West in 1983. I must be getting old because I remember 1983. The community split down the middle, it became a State’s rights issue, and the Federal Government ended up sending F-111 bombers over Tasmania to take pictures of the Dam site. 1300 people got arrested including (from memory) a blind guy in a wheel chair. Maybe I am middle aged and conservative but I’m getting tired of this conflict. It only takes one vote from an upper house member to shift. The Feds have the dollars on the table. You can find out all about the Legislative Council here: http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ 

and contact all of them here: http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/lc/lclists.pdf

Please do!

 

Note: if these links don’t work copy and paste them into your browser.

Tag line: 1 forest peace deal, Christine Milne, Terry Edwards, Vica Bailey, Bob Brown, Dr Pullinger, old growth forests, high conservation value forests, The Wilderness Society, Tony Burke, Michael Hodgeman.

Tag Line 2: biofuel, logging, old growth, clearcut, clearfell, wood-chipping, world heritage, carbon sinks, forest peace deal, environmental protest

Saints and Sustainability

 

Shortly before Christmas I gave a public lecture at the Cathedral on environmental values, deep ecology, creation care and sustainability. The talk considers where the notion of inherent or intrinsic value comes from, how it has played out in Western Civilisation, and where we are positioned currently.

The lecture is too long to repeat the whole text but the text, video and audio can be found here:

http://saintdavids.org.au/event/2012/11/saints-sustainability/

Click on the link or paste into your web browser.

Following is some introductory text from the talk, and some key Bible passages for reference.

Introduction

I am a Christian environmentalist, and until recently a Green voter. While I am now in the season of family life I was at the pointy end of the environmental struggle in Tasmania for much of the 1990’s.  It was such a strange experience that I wrote a book about that and other things.  It’s called Finding Home.  It looks like this, and you can purchase a copy through Fullers, the Hobart Bookshop, Amazon, or Barnes&Noble.

What made the experience strange was that I lived in two camps, one evangelical and one environmentalist. 

I found most Christians, at least the evangelicals I encountered, were hostile to the environmental movement.  It was seen as a distraction from saving souls at best and idolatry and nature worship at worst.  Civil disobedience was frowned upon or seen as rebellion and therefore sinful - a sign perhaps of being socially maladjusted.

For their part many if not most environmentalists were hostile to Christianity – certainly the evangelical brand that I came from.  In short, Christianity was blamed for modernity which was seen as the cause of our over exploitation of the earth.  More importantly perhaps, Christianity was blamed for a set of values that places man at the centre and ascribes value to nature only to the extent that it can be exploited for human use.  In other words, Christianity denies any intrinsic value in nature.  This, it is claimed, has led to unrestrained exploitation of the natural world and the current ecological crisis.

Now I could cite a bunch of proof texts to argue for a Biblical environmental ethic, but I am going to take that as a given.  I want to examine the above critiques from the point of view of where value comes from, and look at how the notion of inherent value has and continues to change the world…..

 

Some Bible Passages:

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 – God declares all creation as good before humans come on the scene.

Genesis chapter 9 verses 9-17 – Post flood God makes a covenant with all creation.

Job – There are numerous passages in which God boasts about creation

Exodus chapter 23 verses 10-12 – Gleanings were left for the poor and for the wild animals. Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow, and all beasts of burden must rest on the seventh day of the week.

Leviticus chapter 25 verses 4-7 – repeats the command to leave the land fallow every seventh year. “You may eat what the land yields during its Sabbath…for your livestock also, and for the wild animals in your land all its yield shall be for food.”

Romans chapter 1 verse 20 – “Ever since the creation of the world His eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made…”

Revelation chapter 11 verse 18 – “The nations raged but your wrath has come, and the time for judging the dead, for rewarding your servants, the prophets and the saints and all who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”

 

In Memoriam - Helen Gee

My editor and friend Helen Gee died on Wednesday of a tumour at the age of 62. Today I and about 200 other people celebrated her life.

Much has been and will be said about Helen – author, poet, teacher, farmer, social historian, musician, extreme bushwalker, environmental pioneer, long term activist, mother, land carer, wife, maker of walking tracks, supporter of the mentally ill, Co-founder of the Wilderness Society, painter, compatriot of Olegas Truchanas…

While Helen will be remembered for her achievements in public life, (of which there are many), I will remember her most for her mastery of the art of living. Helen did not define herself by the environmental cause. She was bigger than the cause, and her activism flowed naturally out of who she was, just as the rest of her life did. Saving the planet was as normal and interesting as cooking home grown food and making music around the fire.

Helen’s genuine warmth and empathy crossed many barriers, and while she remained quietly outraged at the abuse of things wild, beautiful and free, she continued to be positive, seeing opportunity in adversity.

Helen was humble and unafraid. Perhaps this was innate or perhaps it was learned in some of the most remote and rugged country on the planet. You could (metaphorically speaking) stand her up at the gates of hell and she would greet it with a warm and hopeful smile.

We talked once or twice about things eternal. Helen had a church upbringing and at one time contemplated becoming a missionary but chose a different path. It seems to me though that her life was a prayer; and there was a sense of vocation in her personal and public quest to place beauty and nature above human greed and above the economic model of ever increasing material consumption.

We fight on for what remains of Helen’s vision. In 1972 the wilderness of Tasmania was not compromised by roads, shrunk by logging, and its heart – Lake Pedder, was still intact. To the end, Helen campaigned for the restoration of Lake Pedder. Helen taught us many things, but one thing surely is that friendship does not need a cause. Many who visit our national parks this summer will enjoy, unknowingly, Helen’s legacy.  Others will remember.

You’ll remember me when the west wind moves…

Tasmanian Forestry Peace Deal - Should we Support it?

 

Yes, yes, yes, that is - if it is real, the parties stick to it, and the Feds back it.

Is it perfect – no.  Are we going to get a better outcome – no. 

First let’s look briefly at what the Tasmanian Forestry Agreement is. 

For the first time since the ill fated ‘Salamanca Talks’ of 1989, environmentalists and industry sat across a table and talked turkey on what they wanted, what they were prepared to give up, and ‘where to from here’ for the forest industry. These talks were not initiated by government but by the parties themselves. On this occasion industry approached the conservation movement.

The Tasmanian forest industry is in serious trouble and has now reached a cross roads. I will explore the reasons for this, how we got here, and what happens if nothing happens, in my next post.

Whatever the ultimate outcome Tasmania can be proud of the talks and of the agreement.  Two groups of people with diametrically opposed objectives and long histories of conflict spanning over three decades, spent two years in talks seeking a way forward. I know of no-where else in the world where similar talks have resulted in agreement.

There were spats, leaks, and walkouts, but that’s the stuff of real life. During that time the State’s biggest timber company collapsed, a former Director of the Wilderness Society ended up managing a (now closed) woodchip mill, lots of logging contractors went bust, some politicians did all they could to undermine any agreement, and forests kept falling.

From the conservation side negotiators continued to talk while timber interests targeted and felled world heritage value forests that were key to conservation concerns. From the industry side negotiators continued to talk while conservationists ran international campaigns to persuade markets not to purchase certain Tasmanian timber products. Again, such is life.

The talks revealed deep divisions within and between different conservation groups, and within and between different industry interests. It is no longer meaningful to talk simply of conservation versus industry. The talks revealed multiple interests with multiple view points. Never-the-less an agreement has been reached and signed by the parties.
 

The agreement has the potential to:

• end thirty years of conflict that has harmed the social fabric of a small community;
• provide certainty for business by better defining the available resource; and
• protect significant tracts of some of the most important wilderness forests on the planet.

The agreement does not  in itself prevent construction of a plantation based pulp mill should a financial backer for this project be found.

The Federal Government has already shovelled out millions of your hard earned to assist logging contractors sans any agreement for conservation. However more funds will likely be needed to buy out some interests.  In the national context these are trivial sums but the Feds are penny pinching in preparation for a tight budget post GFC stimulus spending (although they continue to spend-up big on pet projects like the national broadband network, and amphibious warfare vessels).

Legislation backing the forestry agreement has passed the lower house (House of Assembly) of the State Parliament with the support of the Labor/Green coalition. However it must also pass the upper house (Legislative Council).  The Legislative Council is famously conservative and has already held its own inquiry into these issues. If they throw out the legislation or seriously compromise its outcomes, we are back to the trenches. I will explore what that means in my next post.

Will the agreement hold?  The State Liberal (read conservative) party has reversed its own policy on forest protection.  They want to throw out the agreement in its entirety but have not publicly articulated an alternative forest policy. Oddly, a market based approach to this issue would have seen woodchipping cease on most high conservation value forests a decade ago but public subsidies have extended the carnage.

The mainstream environmental NGOs cannot prevent individuals or small community groups from protesting. Nor can the Green Party. Conservative commentators will jump on this as proof of a conspiracy and ill-will from the ‘never satisfied insatiable extreme greens who want to destroy civilisation as we know it and close down all our industries.’ If a logger stubs their toe in the forest it will be touted as proof of an eco-terrorist conspiracy (yawn). In reality small protest groups are nothing new. Without strong public support, sound leadership, institutional backing, and a clear and compelling cause, they fizzle out. Remember the “Abolish the Family Court Party”?  Of course you don’t! Some people though are going to have to grow up, realise you don’t always get everything you want in life, and that compromise also take courage.

That doesn’t mean that conversations about how to do forestry better or differently will not continue. My hope though is that people will no longer be sitting up trees for months, getting dragged out from under forestry machinery and thrown into prison, or asking international companies not to buy our products. I don’t want my kids to be part of that kind of conflict 15 years from now.

I am a deep green. I have knelt under the blade of a bulldozder. I am prepared to lose some forests for the sake of peace.  Let’s make this agreement real and move on. Let’s have peace this Christmas.

Update Note: Christmas has passed, the Upper House has amended the Bill and the Lower House is debating the amendments. The Greens are split. Never-the-less the environmental signatories have accepted the amendments in the interests of moving the agreement forward. This is a substantial compromise and puts to bed the notion that greenies are insatiable, extreme and unreasonable. There is more political maturity on display here by the green NGOs than has been shown by some politicians for a very long time. Things are moving very rapidly so keep posted for future blogs on this topic.

Tag line: forest peace deal, Christine Milne, Terry Edwards, Vica Bailey, Bob Brown, Dr Pullinger, old growth forests, high conservation value forests, The Wilderness Society, Tony Burke, Michael Hodgeman.


 

Gay Marriage Bill – where were the children’s rights?

I admire anyone who is good at their craft.  While the religious conservatives remained distracted with internal conflicts on everything from ordination of women priests to the war in Iraq, the gay movement ran a long term strategic, incremental, intergenerational campaign.  As a former campaigner (on other issues) I give them credit.  They came within a handful of votes, and succeeded in framing the issue as one of love and tolerance verses bigotry and hate.  They have captured the agenda, the momentum and the media.  Having done so, they were able to create a wedge issue that forced conservatives into a corner; and then shouted them down.

 

Shouting them down: homosexual activists denying freedom of speech and assembly in Brisbane

For friends finding this site from the USA please note that homosexual couples can register a civil union here.  This provides them legally with all the same rights to financial settlement as heterosexual couples, e.g. assets on separation of death of partner, superannuation, spousal pensions if insured for the death of a partner, probate, etc.  What they cannot do is call the union “marriage” and, as a married couple, adopt children. The marriage bill sought to change that.

I opposed the Bill simply to uphold the principle that children have a right to be raised by a mother and a father.  Both genders contribute different and complimentary things.  Both are necessary for the raising of well adjusted and resilient children.  While that is not always possible in the messiness of real life, the law should as far as possible safeguard that right.  For that reason it should be unlawful for anyone to access IVF who is not a married heterosexual – and yes, we really do need to stop subsidising a culture of intergenerational illegitimacy.  Single parenthood on welfare  is an accepted career option where I grew up.  Having lived with and seen the social consequences of welfare without obligation, I can say that it is high time we put the brakes on. 

Of course some homosexuals can be better parents than some heterosexuals.  Bad parenting and social dysfunction crosses all boundaries of gender, orientation, ethnicity, nationality and religion.  Some kids are better off raised by wolves than by their parents.  That doesn’t change the argument.  It’s not about bigotry, it’s about making society work.  I have married heterosexual friends who have chosen not to have children because, for various reasons, they didn’t feel they could be responsible parents.

 

Key to this debate is the appropriate role of the State.  On the whole laws should not tell consenting adults how to live their lives unless there is an overwhelming public interest argument.  Children, animals, and the intellectually disabled don’t get to choose and we are compelled to choose for them.  The State therefore does have a role in setting boundaries.  The marriage boundary is an appropriate one.  I vote we keep it.

Gay marriage bill and the fork in the road

Greco Roman sexuality was fluid and celebrated in art.

Now that the dust is settling after the defeat of the gay marriage bill it is time for all parties to reflect.  For the record I did not support the bill, about which, more later.  However, before I am written off as a homophobic anti gay bigot allow me to indulge in a little heterosexual bashing.  Whose sexual conduct does the greatest harm over-all?

It was not long ago that a 12 year old girl in State care was prostituted by her mother and step father.  Perhaps 100 men paid for sex with her.  They got off on a technicality (it was dark apparently).  One prominent politician was prosecuted – the victim came to his home and it was not dark – but he also got off.  Apparently his med’s made him do it.  I like to think that if I took some medication that made me sexually incontinent I would do what every self respecting 15 year old boy in the country does and jerk off with a copy of the Myer lingerie catalogue.  I am fairly confident that no medication would cause me to rape 12 year old girls, but we digress.

The only positive thing about the whole sordid saga is that it is still considered shocking.  It was not always so.  In ancient Rome if you wanted a 12 year old girl or a 9 year old boy you just had to go to the slave market and buy one.  Indulging in prostitution was considered a religious and civic obligation which is why the State provided a temple prostitution service.  Paedophilia was socially acceptable as was bestiality.  Homosexuality was celebrated in art.  Promiscuity was OK and unwanted babies were left out to die.  Cruelty and violence were celebrated at the games – paid for variously by the State or wealthy patrons.  Indeed, so foundational was violence to the Roman identity that arenas were build as far away as Wales.  The entire social hierarchy depended on the crassest forms of class exploitation.

None of the Greco/Roman gods had a problem with any of this, nor on the whole did the classical philosophers so beloved of the new atheists (see Grayling et al).  Only Jehovah, the god of a small oriental cult, had a problem with it for which reason he and his devotees were considered intolerant, uncultured and bigoted.  

Dawkins et al imagine that an enlightened humanism will rise phoenix like from the ashes of Christianity.  Basically he imagines a Christian society without religion and with a more relaxed view of sex and sexuality.  Unfortunately Rome’s social policies were a lot more consistent with Darwin than Dawkins’ are.  Unsurprisingly, as the culture turns its back on Christianity, we are drifting back to the moral and social mores of Rome. 

We are rapidly approaching a fork in the road and it is high time the church stuck a sign in the middle saying ‘wrong way, go back’.  The question is ‘go back to where?’ When people today think of the church and sex they think of paedophile priests, and a social policy that kept women in the kitchen, gays in the closet, denied sex education and contraception to teenagers, then when they got pregnant put a pillow in their face and stole their baby.  Partly informed by these policies rape within marriage did not become a crime in Tasmania until 1986 – because the wife was the property of the husband.  This nonsense didn’t work then, won’t work now, and we can’t go back there.  Somewhere between secular debauchery and 1950’s repression there has to be an answer that results in happy well adjusted people and families.  If we (Christians) are to find it we are going to have to have a frank and (for some) painful conversation, and we are going to have make theology the servant of facts and evidence.  On the other hand, that is the conversation we need to be having with our teenagers anyway.  I intend to begin a conversation - but not on this blog.

Tag line: marriage equality, Greco Roman erotica, Christian responses to LGBT issue

Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010-2011

To the secretariat, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010-2011

Please find attached a submission to this review.  You will note that it takes the form of my previous submission to the Defence White Paper in 2008.  I present it here with comments in brackets to bring it up to date.  Tellingly, all the predictions made in that paper have come to pass and all the observations are still relevant.  Below are some points addressing specific issues that have progressed since 2008.  Accordingly I include this cover letter as part of the submission and ask that it be made viewable on the review website. 

In addition I refer the Committee to my previous submission to the JSCFADT inquiry into Australian Defence Force Regional Air Superiority available here: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub32.pdf

All the statements and observations in that submission are still true and relevant to the current review, excepting that the Joint Strike Fighter performance is now far less than I envisaged in 2006.  You may consider that submission to be part of this submission also.

Both these submissions heavily reference research by Air Power Australia.  I wish to stress that I do not represent Air Power Australia, nor do I have any factional interest in Defence matters.  My concern is solely the security of Australia and her near friends and allies in our arc of influence – PNG, Fiji, New Zealand et al.  I reference Air Power Australia (APA) analysis for the following reasons:

1. APA comprises career engineers, pilots and air power planners, and defence scientists, many of whom have invested their working lives in building Australia’s defence capability from the inside;
2. APA has no financial stake in the outcome of any acquisition program within Defence;
3. No one at APA has a career to protect within Defence;
4. APA is linked to a deep and extensive international network of air power experts;
5. APA analysis takes the form of peer reviewed scientific papers;
6. Taken in total this published material represents much of the analytical work that Defence should have done as a matter of course over ten years and failed to do, or actively supressed;
7. APA has done this work ex gratis and made it available to the world; and
8. APA has made the connections between an understanding of the physical capabilities of air power weapon systems (planes, SAMs, radar systems etc), tactical matters, and strategic policy.  I am not aware of any other open source that has attempted this with similar rigour.

Note that the commercial value of this work would be hard to estimate but Australia owes the APA community a considerable debt.

I have not referenced analysis by the Department of Defence for the following reasons:

1. I could not find any.
2. Public statements by Defence usually take the form of unsubstantiated claims and an appeal to secrecy.
3. In relation to the Joint Strike Fighter and related matters Defence ‘analysis’ often replicates verbatim public statements by the Lockheed Martin publicity office.
4. These statements are not adjusted to reflect known realities, for instance the Department still talks about “affordable stealth” in relation to the JSF.
5. The Department and Ministerial Offices continue to repeat known untruths some of which are addressed below.
6. Defence has never publicly, in closed session with any minister, or else-where, and with evidence, refuted any of the claims of APA that are in direct contradiction to statements by Defence.
7. Defence in their public pronouncements and through the Minister have not acknowledged the existence, let alone the profound strategic shift, brought about by the T-50 and J-20 Russian and Chinese stealth aircraft designs, proliferation of advanced SAM systems, counter stealth radars, or evolution of the Sukhoi design.

F-111 Capability and Availability

Since the attached submission was written the F-111 has been removed from active service and the Sole Operator Program closed.  This was in itself a travesty since at that time the Commonwealth Audit Office had stated that the airframe was safe for another 10,000 flying ours.  Independent testimony stated that with a virtually infinite supply of spare parts in the USA, the F-111 could be maintained almost indefinitely and evolved into a modern interceptor.  This would leverage the significant investment already made in the aircraft and pay significant dividends to Australian industry.  The F-111 represented a third of the strike capability provided by the RAAF.  There is no other aircraft that currently has the same capabilities apart from the Russian SU-34.  This matter deserves attention by the Committee since it goes to the heart of what drives decision making within the NACC program office.  It illustrates the cavalier approach taken to hugely expensive and profoundly important decisions by Defence, and says much about the profoundly dysfunctional imbroglio that air power planning (or non-planning) in Australia has become.

F-22 Capability and Availability

Defence has stated directly and through the Minister’s Office, and in correspondence to me, that the F-22 Raptor has never been available for export, that it is only suited to a niche role and that it is prohibitively expensive.  Further, the F-22 assembly line has closed and some sources have stated that it cannot be re-opened. All of these statements are false. 

An export version of the F-22, dubbed the F-22A, was offered for export to Australia in 2001.  The delegation from the USA was turned back at the airport on arrival in Australia because Defence had already decided on the JSF.  At that time the JSF was a concept program and the F-22 was a proven operational capability.  Defence did not examine the F-22 offer.

The F-22 carries guided DJAMs and operates as a multi-role fighter, bomber and interceptor. 

At the time the assembly line was closed the unit price of the F-22 was circa US$120M.  The final unit price of the JSF is now climbing above US$160M.  On both a unit procurement and cost for capability basis the F-22 is now the more affordable plane even if Australia pays the full cost of re-opening the F-22 assembly line.

The F-22 assembly line has been shut down following a massive and dishonest campaign.  One consequence of shutting down assembly is to increase unit cost of future aircraft and increase pressure Congress to buy the JSF since the better rival is out of production.  

Australia paid US$300M for an option to purchase the JSF.  US$300M is the estimated cost to re-start F-22 production.  It would make good sense in light of a looming A$50 billion JSF purchase to pay the cost of re-starting the F-22 production line and purchase new Raptors for the RAAF.  The manufacturer has photographed and documented every part of the production process in order to ensure that production can be re-started.  The reason for this is clear.  Once the fog of marketing propaganda and diplomatic arm twisting has dissipated that material reality will emerge that the US cannot remain relevant in the Pacific without the Raptor.  The JSF and Superhornet are simply not survivable.  When this reality becomes undeniable the F-22 program will be re-started.  It is a ‘when’ question not an ‘if’ question.  Export of the F-22 requires Congressional agreement to a formal request from Australia.  Such a request should have been made years ago and must now be made as a matter of urgency.

I also attach for the Committee’s review correspondence from (then) Air Commodore John Harvey in 2005 which includes the following statement:

“Defence has up to 40 DSTO scientists working full time on detailed technical analysis of the JSF and how it will perform when integrated into the future networked ADF.  In addition, RAAF pilots are involved in high fidelity simulation exercises to assess the capability of the JSF against advances (sic) threats – both from the air and from the ground – including threats that won’t be fielded for many years to come.  All this activity reinforces Defence’s view that the JSF, integrated into the future networked ADF, will provide the air combat capability that Australia needs well into the future.”

This statement reveals an astonishing level of intellectual vacuity that says much about the NACC program office.  Consider the following:

Defence has up to 40 DSTO scientists working full time on detailed technical analysis of the JSF….but none working on any comparison of other aircraft that might perform better against known reference threats.  Note that in 2005 the JSF was still a ‘paper plane’.

…and how it will perform when integrated into the future networked ADF.  Note: “when” not “if”.  So by 2005 Defence had already chosen the JSF. Why?  Why were 40 scientists studying a plane after it had already been selected?  What did they hope to discover?

In addition, RAAF pilots are involved in high fidelity simulation exercises to assess the capability of the JSF against advances (sic) threats ….this is true, and the simulations showed that the JSF was not survivable.  The following is a quote from one of the scientists working on the JSF simulations:

“My colleagues and I do simulations of future military conflict as consultants to international clients, and my colleagues and I have done detailed studies of the JSF F-35A vs Su-35S. The result is clear but stark: the F-35As are annihilated in each engagement. (Note: we did the same work inside Defence using classified data and got the same result—which the Senior Defence Officers noted (up to Chief of Defence Force level), did not challenge, and proceeded with the JSF purchase. So they know the truth.)”[i]

All this activity reinforces Defence’s view that the JSF, integrated into the future networked ADF, will provide the air combat capability that Australia needs well into the future.  So Defence is sees its own enthusiasm for the JSF as proof that it is the right aircraft.  That is the kind of institutionalised groupthink that one would expect to find in a religious cult, not in a professional organisation.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to the statement that the F-22 is three times more expensive than the JSF.  The F-22 is now the cheaper aircraft.

It was in an attempt to cut through this institutionalised irrationality that I spoke to then Defence Minister John Faulkner and presented him with a submission at a community Cabinet in 2009.  In essence I asked him why there was no contestability in the advice given him by Defence on any issue.  He made a personal commitment to me to establish an independent expert reference group to critique Departmental advice on air power issues.  Faulkner failed to do this.  Given that Defence and the NACC program office still refuses to engage with anyone who disagrees with them, including prominent experts within Defence and outside it, it is vitally important in the national interest to get contestability across the board, but most urgently with air power planning.

I can only urge the Committee in the strongest possible terms to make that a key recommendation of the current review.

Sincerely

Erik

Tag line: ABC Four Corners Joint Strike Fighter, JSF, Sukhoi, Defence Force Reform, RAAF, Lockheed Martin, Thana Marketing, F-22, stealth fighter, fighter aircraft, networking, Superhornet, air power, Australian defence force.

---

[i] Wing Commander Chris Mills RAAF (Retd) BSc, MSc, CEO Eagle Vision, simulations representative at REPSIM Pty Ltd, pers comm.