Once again well done voters of NSW who can't tell the difference between Liberal party and Liberal Democrat.

David, the idea of buy Australian is a good one, to have government procurement policies to that effect is also a good one.
You would sell out Australian workers to the lowest bidding third world country!

It's a pity that David hasn't got an seat to be held account by. Thank goodness the recent changes to senate voting will see this chap loose his tax payer funded soap box.

Defence spending should be, at least, doubled, and there is plenty of money avaliable; it is being wasted currently on welfare and aboriginal schemes.

Unlike a household, Australia has unlimited credit and forever to pay it off. Therefore as a nation we are always able to spend more than we earn. We should remember that doing so is not without consequences, but we should keep in mind what those consequences are. The negative consequences of spending too much are high inflation and/or high interest rates. But right now those are both low and we have the opposite problem: we're spending too little, especially in South Australia. The penalty for spending too little is unemployment, economic decline and a drop in tax revenue so the nation still can't achieve a balanced budget.

'Tis not the politicians of SA who need gainful employment, it's the people. The economy is primarily run for the benefit of people in the eastern states. Interest rates have constantly been set too high for SA, and the Federal government spends too little in SA to adequately compensate for that. The people of SA require a greater proportion of Federal government spending, be it on submarines or something else.

And nuclear submarines are useless for our purpose as they can not operate in shallow water.

Cobber I strongly disagree. David's economic incompetence is shared by many in the Liberals and Nationals. Indeed the delusion that we could max out our credit card is even shared by some in Labor and the Greens.

But overall, having him in the senate is a good thing as, unlike the major parties, he values our civil liberties. And though he often proposes bad things (as in this article) he's generally opposed by Labor, Liberal and the other cross benchers as well.

George Bernard Shaw once said words to the effect that "universal suffrage was government of the people by its children" meaning that a large proportion of the electorate was ignorant of the ramifications and consequences of the decisions made by the promises of the government they were voting for.

I submit that many of the voters in any election are blind to how the money is made available as long as someone else pays for whatever is promised. If it's not there, "just borrow it, as long as I get my share" No consideration is given to the billions that have to be paid back in interest that could actually be spent on defence, hospitals education or whatever their personal priority happens to be. It's just another version of NIMBY (not in my back yard) The politicians know this and so make all these promises that they then struggle, and fail, to find the money for. However they gained power and that's what matters to them.

We need reform. Everyone says so, but whoever actually promises it inevitably affects a large number of people already on the gravy train, and who will not accept it.

Wrong again Adian. Nuclear submarines can operate in shallow water if the inboard coolant is helium.

However, why in heaven name would anybody want to sail subs in shallow water? Where they'd be incredibly vulnerable, when they could used in deep water and use sound proofing, plus total mechanical inactivity to make them virtually invisible laying on the bottom?

Simply put, there's no way to soundproof diesels, particulaly ones that use liquid O2, to make them underwater capable; and there is no reason why larger aircraft sized, much faster, (50+ knots) already in production, nuclear powered subs (4000+ tons) can't be used almost like underwater aircraft carriers to carry fleets of faster lighter, quicker and deeper diving mini subs to effectively maximise capability/intell gathering, all while minimizing potential casualties!

That aside, our defense spending and companion R+D, pales into insignificance compared to future potential rivals!

Besides genuine tax reform and simplification would likely solve so called spending addiction and unresolvable debt issues.

David's level of income probably puts him in the top tax bracket and opens up all sorts of available tax minimisation strategies than can and does limit personal liability to just 15 cents in the dollar?

Consequently one should advise the Author, to try speaking from a little higher up in future!
Rhrosty.