Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

It is for this reason that I call on the Gillard Labor government to immediately provide a guarantee—immediately, member for Page—in this parliament to the people of this nation, to all defence personnel and to their families that they will not be required to move from their homes for the purposes of the accommodation of those seeking asylum. Members of the ADF and their families need that level of categorical assurance. They deserve that assurance from this government. After all, we do not know whether or not this policy is still being kicked around in the back halls of Russell Hill and in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

In the middle of last year, when the issue hit the radio waves, the ministerial submission went as far as to list possible sites in Western Australia and Victoria that may be suitable. In fact, none of them are suitable, but the plans were well developed. In July last year it was reported by senior Defence sources that plans were well advanced for Maygar Barracks in Broadmeadow, outside Melbourne, to accept irregular maritime arrivals. At that time a Defence spokesman said:

The government has repeatedly acknowledged that as part of its routine and prudent contingency planning, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has for some time been exploring additional temporary accommodation options to house families and vulnerable asylum-seekers.

If we cut through all the spin it is quite clear that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and, indeed, this government, knows it is running out of space to house those seeking asylum. They desperately need additional accommodation for the thousands and thousands now being brought to the mainland. If the boats keep coming—and I guarantee you they will, because there is no deterrent; only a massive policy framework that is acting as a magnet to pull them here—there is a very real prospect that this government will run out of options and will seek further defence houses to house those seeking asylum.

That is why this motion calls on the Gillard Labor government to transfer all defence housing stock management to Defence Housing Australia—transfer it all—because this government cannot be trusted to have over 2,300 defence houses that the minister can grab at will, whereas he cannot grab those houses that are currently being owned and run by DHA. The temptation must be removed from this bad government: 2,383 houses owned by Defence, 1,937 occupied, leaving 446 right now—20 per cent—that I am sure this government is eyeing warily and greedily to try to deal with the problem of those seeking asylum, which is getting out of control.

Currently 81 houses in Inverbrackie, South Australia, are being used for this purpose—defence houses being used as a detention centre. Clearly this is the thin end of the wedge. In a question on notice to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel on 17 November 2010, the minister was asked why the housing stock was not transferred from Defence to DHA. The answer was that ‘commercial arrangements did not allow for it’. The real answer, of course—and we all know it—is that if you hand it over to DHA, the Gillard government cannot get its grubby paws on it to use it for ulterior motives other than housing defence families. It is that simple.

The Department of Defence, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Materiel have recently been in the spotlight over a growing list of scandalous equipment problems that have developed on their watch. Most notable and most parlous is the state of the Royal Australian Navy, where there is no amphibious capability available right now. Can you imagine if Cyclone Yasi had struck Townsville or Cairns and an amphibious ship could not be launched? There would be no hospital facilities offshore, no helicopter facility offshore and no mass movement of transport and goods offshore. This is the state Defence has got into because of what this government has done to it. The last thing we need to do is compound the problems the department is dealing with because this government cannot continue to control its borders.

See this speech in context