Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his interest in defence matters and defence industry, particularly coming, as he does, from South Australia. One of the highest obligations that an Australian government can have is to protect and defend the national security interests of the Commonwealth. That goes hand in hand with the obligation on the part of an Australian government to protect and enhance the economic security interests of a nation's people.

To protect national security interests, one has to proceed with great care in strategic terms and proceed with great care in making judgments about capability. The mechanism the Australian government uses in that respect is, of course, the 2009 white paper, which is now subject to a commitment to be reviewed every year—so we are expecting a white paper in the first quarter of 2014. The white paper has what is described as the in-built Defence Planning Guidance, which is used on an annual basis to review strategic matters and capability. In the interim, of course, we have a $26 billion per annum budget for defence and the very important one- and two-pass capability mechanisms, which are considered by the Minister for Defence, the minister for finance and the National Security Committee. So these things are always done in a careful, considered and deliberative manner.

The member asked me what adverse implications there are if this approach is not taken. If you do not proceed in a careful, considered and deliberative manner you can send confused and confusing signals. You can send confused and confusing signals to the Australian people, you can send confused and confusing signals to the region and you can send confused and confusing signals to the local defence industry or the international defence industry.

Mr Hockey interjecting—

Mr Robb interjecting—

Mr Abbott interjecting—

See this speech in context