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

I rise on behalf of the coalition to lead some comments on the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2013, which extends the interim measures applicable to the military justice system following the invalidation of the act establishing the Australian Military Court in 2009. This is the second time I will speak on an interim measures military justice bill—almost two years to the day that I spoke on the last interim justice bill. The interim measures are about the ability to actually pay the current judges who sit on the tribunals because we still do not have a military justice bill in the House to debate—staggering I know, unbelievable at best.

A little history is always good. The Australian Military Court was established in 2007 in a bipartisan series of legislation following a number of Senate committees and other reports. On 26 August 2009, the High Court handed down a decision in Lane v Morrison that found the Australian Military Court unconstitutional. The High Court found unanimously that the provisions of the DFDA 1982 establishing the Australian Military Court were invalid because it purported to exercise judicial power over the Commonwealth but did not meet the requirements of chapter III of the Constitution. Therefore, the interim measures bill was put into the parliament in 2009 to deal with the issues at hand and provide interim measures so that judges and other judicial officers could be paid.

We were told by Minister Faulkner at the time, in 2009, that this was about rectifying the military legal problems and that it would be afforded the government's highest priority. Yet by 22 June 2011 we still had no bill in the House to deal with Australian military justice. So the first interim measures came in, and here we are two years later—four years after the Minister for Defence said, 'this will be afforded the government's highest priority'—and we are still passing interim measures bills so that justices can be paid, because this government cannot get a bill together to put in place a military court that satisfies the constitutional requirements. It is simply and utterly staggering. But when you look at the litany of this government's highest priorities, even in Defence, it is staggering. I will read a paragraph from my speech on 22 June 2011:

and, surprise, surprise, here he is again—

Well, Member for Moreton, you came in on that platform, you came in spruiking the fairness of veterans' pensions. After six years, where are we? What have you done, sir, to ensure that military pensions for DFRDB are properly indexed? What has the member for Moreton done? The answer is: nothing.

No, I won't take a question, Member for Moreton, so sit yourself down and find a way to explain to your constituents why, in six years, you have done nothing for the veterans of our country. In 2009, it was 'the highest priority to address the issue of military justice.' It was the highest priority to index military pensions. Nothing was done in six years. Do you know what another highest priority was, Mr Deputy Speaker? Defence of the realm and national security were the highest priority. Prime Minister Rudd issued the first national security statement and promised that every single year he would update that. He never updated it, and the current Prime Minister has done one. We have had two in six years—and national security is the 'highest priority'. In fact, national security is of such a high priority that the current Prime Minister would not attend the National Security Committee of cabinet; she would send her bodyguard. That is how much 'high priority' the Prime Minister puts on national security.

An honourable member: One of the members of the National Security Committee told us.

Goodness! Would that have been Kevin? Who would have thought! If national security is so important, why has this government cumulatively cut $25 billion from defence—statement of fact? Why, if it was such a high priority? I am sick and tired of this government's 'highest priorities' when it comes to defence.

We had the budget handed down on Tuesday. Defence apparently did well: a 2.25 per cent increase in the budget. So it kept up with CPI. But when you read through it—their great announcement that there would be $2.9 billion for electronic attack warfare Growlers, how much extra money did the government give for Growler attack? Was it $200 million? $2.7 billion is absorbed.

See this speech in context