❓ Dr. Honey questions the government's commitment to a dry-docking facility at Henderson for AUKUS. The Minister responds defensively, highlighting past advocacy and emphasizing the need for a nuclear-rated facility, while criticising the previous government's actions.
AnsweredQoN 774Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
DEFENCE INDUSTRY — DRY-DOCKING FACILITIES
774. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Minister for Defence Industry:
When will the minister's
government show a real commitment to a dry-docking facility at Henderson, which
is critical for our AUKUS arrangements?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please!
Dr D.J. HONEY : It is
critical!
The SPEAKER : Pipe down,
please.
774. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Minister for Defence Industry:
When will the minister's
government show a real commitment to a dry-docking facility at Henderson, which
is critical for our AUKUS arrangements?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please!
Dr D.J. HONEY : It is
critical!
The SPEAKER : Pipe down,
please.
AnswerView source ↗
The member is a little out of his
depth. He knows nothing about military matters, and he really knows nothing
about dry docks, naval shipping or submarine requirements for that
infrastructure. Had he paid any attention to the subject of the defence
industry in the last six years, he would have noticed that, when the Morrison
government was in power, I was advocating for a dry dock because the sole dry
dock in Australia, and the only one that takes naval shipping in Australia, is
the Captain Cook Graving Dock in Sydney. That is not nuclear rated, but it is a
dry dock. It is going out of service in 2026 for long-term maintenance. I was
advocating years ago—no, I will not be nasty. When the federal Minister
for Defence was Senator Linda Reynolds, I began advocating at that point for a dry
dock. Before the fake announcement by the Morrison government that put a contingent
liability in the budget for a dry dock, I had advocated for it. That is where
it got the idea. What needs to happen now is the federal government needs to
understand and acknowledge—it does because I have talked to Hon Richard
Marles about it—that if we are going
to build a dry dock, it needs to be nuclear rated, and it needs to be done in a
time frame that meets the requirements for our acquisition of nuclear
submarine capability. It knows more about that time frame than I do. We know
that we are going to buy a United States Virginia-class submarine in the early
2030s, but it will come having gone through its mid-cycle docking, so there is
an extended period after that before which we will need to undertake deep
maintenance. There will be a time frame within which they can build a dry dock.
Really, I agree that a decision needs to be made and there needs to be work
started on planning, designing and then constructing a dry dock, because it
will take years, and it is a big project. I, for one, wholeheartedly support
any advocacy because I thought of it and we started it. Members opposite should
back it in. They should have backed it in
when the previous government was there and made its fake commitment, and they
should back it in now. I will welcome them to the party.
depth. He knows nothing about military matters, and he really knows nothing
about dry docks, naval shipping or submarine requirements for that
infrastructure. Had he paid any attention to the subject of the defence
industry in the last six years, he would have noticed that, when the Morrison
government was in power, I was advocating for a dry dock because the sole dry
dock in Australia, and the only one that takes naval shipping in Australia, is
the Captain Cook Graving Dock in Sydney. That is not nuclear rated, but it is a
dry dock. It is going out of service in 2026 for long-term maintenance. I was
advocating years ago—no, I will not be nasty. When the federal Minister
for Defence was Senator Linda Reynolds, I began advocating at that point for a dry
dock. Before the fake announcement by the Morrison government that put a contingent
liability in the budget for a dry dock, I had advocated for it. That is where
it got the idea. What needs to happen now is the federal government needs to
understand and acknowledge—it does because I have talked to Hon Richard
Marles about it—that if we are going
to build a dry dock, it needs to be nuclear rated, and it needs to be done in a
time frame that meets the requirements for our acquisition of nuclear
submarine capability. It knows more about that time frame than I do. We know
that we are going to buy a United States Virginia-class submarine in the early
2030s, but it will come having gone through its mid-cycle docking, so there is
an extended period after that before which we will need to undertake deep
maintenance. There will be a time frame within which they can build a dry dock.
Really, I agree that a decision needs to be made and there needs to be work
started on planning, designing and then constructing a dry dock, because it
will take years, and it is a big project. I, for one, wholeheartedly support
any advocacy because I thought of it and we started it. Members opposite should
back it in. They should have backed it in
when the previous government was there and made its fake commitment, and they
should back it in now. I will welcome them to the party.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.