Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will come back, because this bill is about Australian citizenship and the importance of it. If we are looking for what qualifications we would seek for someone to become an Australian citizen, then what higher standard, what better applicants could we find than the families of defence force members from countries such as England, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and the USA who are prepared to fight under the Australia flag to protect our way of life? The Australian Defence Force has a longstanding practice of recruiting members from the armed services of compatible countries, and it is one that in the past has served our nation well. It is a practice that is necessary in order to fill the capability gaps in our own armed forces and is obviously important as new equipment is introduced into each of the services in our Australian defence forces.

Currently, the Australian Defence Force seek to recruit 300 lateral transfer personnel per annum—which may well increase as, among other examples, our ageing Collins class of submarines is phased out. Of importance to this debate, 90 per cent of possible lateral transfer recruits have families they would seek to bring with them if they came to fight under the Australian flag. It should be noted that, just as Australia seeks to supplement our military capabilities by lateral transfer, so do many other comparable nations. Simply put, unless we make the changes brought forward by the member for Fadden and replicated by the relevant minister we will make ourselves a less attractive option for these defence force personnel that Australia seeks to recruit.

Both pieces of legislation also aim to address the legislative vacuum that exists in relation to the lateral transfer system. The member for Fadden indicated that there are currently seven soldiers serving in combat operations on the front line in Afghanistan that have joined the Australian Defence Force through lateral transfer. But, at present, there is no requirement for the government to afford their families the same level of support in terms of benefits normally payable to the spouses and dependants of Defence Force members killed on duty. In fact, currently there appears to be no legislative basis or guarantee that a spouse or the dependants of a lateral transfer member of the Australian Defence Force would even be able to stay in Australia should that serving member be killed in training or in a combat operation. It is all well and good for a government to say, 'Don't worry; we'll make it happen,' but with this government's long list of broken promises that is not very reassuring. A far better approach would be to correct the legislative settings and give peace of mind to soldiers and their families considering coming to Australia under the lateral transfer system.

The coalition will be supporting this bill because it is based on sound policy and, more so, because it is the right thing to do. As we have always been, we will be the party that supports our defence forces. We will continue to support our soldiers—those brave men and women who give so much of themselves to our nation. We will also support their families, who provide our soldiers with much support. The circumstances surrounding the development of this bill, however, are concerning, and they reflect the disappointing attitude of this Labor-Greens government towards our Australian defence forces. The people of the seat of Hughes have a strong connection with the Australian military that has been developed over generations. The seat of Hughes is the home of a major Defence Force base in Holsworthy, and we are proud to have previously been represented by the Minister for Veterans Affairs and assistant Minister for Defence in the Howard government. But in 2012-13 the current Gillard Labor government has slashed defence funding. I take the opportunity to raise this point because it goes to the attitude the government has toward our defence forces. The recent raft of defence cuts has caused significant disquiet in my community, ranging from annoyance to anger, especially regarding the targeted cuts, the punitive cuts and the mean axing of the recreational defence leave travel entitlements. This important program was very much about the health and wellbeing of our soldiers, who spend so much time away from their families and support networks. Only this government—the same government that thought fixing the legislative gap we are now considering was not necessary—would think many soldiers being left camped in their barracks was a good policy approach. The people of Hughes recognise that this measure is both unfair and will save this government less money than it intends.

When given the choice between implementing good public policy and playing politics, it is unfortunate that this government is choosing the latter. That is what we see in their actions on this bill. Nonetheless, I support this bill and commend it to the House.

See this speech in context