There is zero justification or sense in borrowing close to $100 billion dollars to manufacture totally of date and archaic machines.
The Poodle has gone now so his seat does not have to be saved...if they keep this sort of waste up they will end up in Opposition. Surely there is some one there with even a small number of brain cells that can over turn this stupidity.
Yes, it will cost us a penalty to get out of this idiocy, but that will be tiny as opposed to the overall costs of this foolishness.
Robert Gottleibsen wrote an article in the Australian this morning questioning the sanity in this...in part;
"The long-term importance of Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s economic statement this week is that Australia has moved from a country with a strong balance sheet to one that is now much weaker and could get a lot worse.
And one of the biggest single long-term impacts is that we can no longer afford to first gamble $90 billion, and then $225 billion, on an incredibly high-risk submarine project that also leaves our defences very vulnerable in the next couple of decades.
...some five years ago senior defence officials under oath declared to a Senate estimates hearings that the then stated French submarine cost of $50bn was calculated on an “out-turn” cost basis”- ie it was adjusted for future inflation. But five years later, last March, navy officials declared to the parliament that the original $50bn French tender was not in “out-turn”, or future, dollars but rather in constant 2016 dollars. As a result, the current estimate of $90bn mainly reflects a change of definition rather than a disastrous cost blowout. Maybe there is an explanation but, on the surface, one way or the other, the parliament appears to have been misled...
Worse still, many experts believe that the conventional lead acid battery-powered submarines (albeit vastly improved) will be well and truly outdated before the current decade is out, let alone over future decades.In other words,
