Australian Navy's newest boats made in China
Certification documents uncovered by the ABC reveal the first of three "harbour tugs" was completed in late December at the Damen company's "state-of-the-art" Changde facility in Hunan province, before being delivered to Darwin earlier this year.
In a letter sent from its Netherlands headquarters last year, Damen told the Defence Department the tug boat build "will be heavily reliant upon established supply chains both in Australia and overseas" but did not specify any work would occur in China.
"Therefore, to maximise opportunities for competitive (local) industry, Damen will implement proven systems and processes established that will ensure value-for-money for the Commonwealth of Australia," the company wrote in December.
Damen Shipyards Changde says its workkers have been producing vessels built to the highest standards at competitive price levels for more than 30 years.
(
Damen
)
According to the Damen correspondence, the second of its Azimuth Stern Drive (ASD) 2111 tug boats was due to arrive in Australia by May this year, but the ABC has confirmed a third vessel will also be delivered before the end of 2025.
"
It is firmly understood that the Commonwealth of Australia needs a partner with this endeavour who has significant shipbuilding and sustainment experience and is willing to share knowledge, appropriate intellectual property and individual skills.
"
"The value of the Contract is approximately $28 million with an Australian contract expenditure percentage of 47% of the procurement of the 2 x ASD 2111 for the sustainment of the tugs over the life of type (est. 25 years)," the Damen letter states.
In a statement Defence confirmed the tug boats are being built in China with a subsequent "fit out" occurring in Vietnam, but insisted they were not "Royal Australian Navy vessels, and will be operated and crewed by a civilian vessel operator".
Nick Xenophon slams the decision to have new Army dress uniforms manufactured in China, despite Defence saying the option represents the "best value for money".
A Department spokesperson told the ABC it is "retaining the option to crew the vessels in rare situations such as emergencies" and that similar tug boats have "provided harbour support to Defence for more than 10 years".
Defence has declined to comment on if any possible Australian build options were examined, or whether the new 50-foot tug boats would be used to support visiting international warships.
Responding to the revelations, the Opposition said Defence Minister Richard Marles had "serious questions to answer" including what he knew of the Chinese build and any security mitigations that might be needed.
"Did Australia's Defence Minister give the green light for two Royal Australian Navy vessels to be built in a Chinese shipyard or was he not across his brief?", Opposition Defence spokesman Andrew Hastie demanded to know.
"
This is just another example of shocking mismanagement of Defence under the Albanese Government, and why Labor cannot be trusted with Australia's national security.
"
Mr Marles is yet to respond but in 2016 Labor heavily criticised the then Coalition government after the ABC revealed
Last year, a Damen design was selected as the preferred option for the Australian Defence Force's new Landing Craft Heavy fleet, with eight of the vessels to be constructed in Western Australia by Austal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
9 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Work-from-home is for employers to decide
Should business owners lose the right to determine where their staff should work? It's a radical notion, but it's being proposed by the Victorian government. Employers have always had the right to say where their staff should be sited, but the proposal is to take away this foundational right and force employers to accept two days of work-from-home for employees who want it. Lest governments in other jurisdictions are tempted to go down this path, let's be more specific about the flaws in this proposal. I'll start by explaining how businesses maximise productivity regarding work arrangements and what we stand to lose. The critical element is that each employer has the right to set those work arrangements themselves. Having this choice allows employers to decide on work-from-home arrangements that work best for the business, depending on their individual circumstances. A travel agent in town A, for example, might have lots of work-from-home employees, and that works for them for the type of staff they're looking for and, as a result, they enjoy high productivity levels. That's great. Loading On the other hand, a consulting firm in town B might insist all staff be on deck to foster teamwork and camaraderie, which result in high productivity. That's also great. The key point here is to allow individual firms the choice of whether to have work-from-home or work-from-work arrangements, or indeed some sort of hybrid arrangement. Allowing that choice allows the town A as well as the town B business to thrive. Denying that choice would – by definition – cause one of those businesses to suffer a productivity hit. The importance of allowing individual businesses to choose is critical not only to the success of millions of businesses across the country, but also to the national economy. Some people make the mistake of making sweeping generalisations about what level of work-from-home is best for Australian businesses, but these one-size-fits-all proposals fail to account for what works best for each enterprise. They come in all shapes and sizes, with all sorts of business models, meeting all sorts of customer needs, and that is as it should be in a modern, dynamic economy.
The Age
9 minutes ago
- The Age
Work-from-home is for employers to decide
Should business owners lose the right to determine where their staff should work? It's a radical notion, but it's being proposed by the Victorian government. Employers have always had the right to say where their staff should be sited, but the proposal is to take away this foundational right and force employers to accept two days of work-from-home for employees who want it. Lest governments in other jurisdictions are tempted to go down this path, let's be more specific about the flaws in this proposal. I'll start by explaining how businesses maximise productivity regarding work arrangements and what we stand to lose. The critical element is that each employer has the right to set those work arrangements themselves. Having this choice allows employers to decide on work-from-home arrangements that work best for the business, depending on their individual circumstances. A travel agent in town A, for example, might have lots of work-from-home employees, and that works for them for the type of staff they're looking for and, as a result, they enjoy high productivity levels. That's great. Loading On the other hand, a consulting firm in town B might insist all staff be on deck to foster teamwork and camaraderie, which result in high productivity. That's also great. The key point here is to allow individual firms the choice of whether to have work-from-home or work-from-work arrangements, or indeed some sort of hybrid arrangement. Allowing that choice allows the town A as well as the town B business to thrive. Denying that choice would – by definition – cause one of those businesses to suffer a productivity hit. The importance of allowing individual businesses to choose is critical not only to the success of millions of businesses across the country, but also to the national economy. Some people make the mistake of making sweeping generalisations about what level of work-from-home is best for Australian businesses, but these one-size-fits-all proposals fail to account for what works best for each enterprise. They come in all shapes and sizes, with all sorts of business models, meeting all sorts of customer needs, and that is as it should be in a modern, dynamic economy.
The Australian
an hour ago
- The Australian
The government's best major defence purchase
Mogami was selected over the German-made ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems' MEKO A-200 because it was the more capable ship and the company had a better industrial plan, Defence Minister Richard Marles announced. As Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Euan Graham said before the decision was announced, he had been told the Japanese were 'ahead on every significant criteria except price'. The US is believed to have quietly supported the Japanese bid. The frigates will help secure Australia's maritime trade routes and vital northern approaches. It is a significant advantage that Japan offered to allocate a ship that was already in production to Australia, accelerating delivery of the first vessel. It is scheduled to be delivered in 2029 and operational in 2030. The program will cost $10bn over a decade, delivering three vessels to be built in Japan. The remaining eight will be built at the Henderson shipbuilding precinct in Western Australia. Japanese ambassador Kazuhiro Suzuki said the process would kickstart an advanced manufacturing boom in Australia, as Ben Packham reports. Before the decision was announced, Mr Suzuki said at least 12 major Japanese companies would invest in Australia if MHI's bid succeeded. While Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy previously said that the decision would be made on the basis of the frigates' design and the bidders' industrial plans, rather than geopolitical considerations, the selection also provides important strategic benefits. 'There's no other country in the world that is quite as aligned with Australia as Japan,'' Mr Marles said. The contract would cement Japan's quasi alliance with Australia (sometimes colloquially referred to as 'Jaukus''), Mr Suzuki said, adding: 'Japan and Australia held 39 joint exercises last year, including multilateral ones – roughly one in every nine days.'' The decision, which deserves the bipartisan support it has attracted, is the Albanese government's most important and best defence decision to date, as Greg Sheridan writes. It contributes to the strategic evolution of Japan as a major military and industrial power within the US alliance and gives life to the vision that Tony Abbott pioneered as prime minister by trying to partner with Tokyo to build Australia's future submarine. On that occasion, Japan lost out to France's Naval Group, which later lost the contract when the Morrison government committed to the AUKUS partnership, with nuclear-powered submarines. As China takes its military build-up across the Asia-Pacific region to a level unparalleled since World War II, dangerous times demand lethal defences. The Mogami frigate is designed to carry plenty of firepower. Mr Marles described it as a 'next-generation'' stealthy vessel, with 32 vertical launch cells capable of launching long-range missiles. It also has a highly capable radar and sonar. It was 'a general-purpose frigate capable of engaging in air warfare and undersea warfare', he said. News of the frigates comes a day after Mr Marles announced an improvement in the number of ADF recruitments and retention. Rarely has defence hardware and personnel mattered as much in peacetime. Purchasing the MHI frigates is an important step that paves the way not only for more defence spending, but judicious spending. Read related topics: AUKUS
