David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to rise today and speak on the motion moved by the member for Charlton. I think it is very important to provide some context here in relation to defence spending and the various approaches to defence management that we saw under the previous government and under this one.

Of course, defence is the most fundamental responsibility of the federal government, and it is pleasing to see the interest of the member for Charlton in it, but it is very important to note the very poor treatment of Defence under the previous government. In fact, we are now in a position where, as a proportion of GDP, Australia is spending the lowest amount on Defence since 1939. That is some 75 years ago and it is an unacceptable situation. That is why the Abbott government has committed to making no further cuts to Defence spending and to getting Defence spending back to two per cent of GDP within a decade. The white paper process that we are working through at the moment will be critical to future projects. What the government is doing, in a methodical, careful and judicious fashion, is working through all of the issues related to Australia's Defence capability, including shipbuilding and many other issues. That white paper process will then report and the government will act upon those considered recommendations.

You have to contrast that, though, with the approach to Defence white papers under the previous government. In the Defence white paper back in 2009, the government solemnly said it would increase Defence spending by three per cent per year through to 2017-18 and then 2.2 per cent thereafter. Understandably, people in the Defence industry within Australia took some comfort from that. They said: 'This is good. The government has set out a clear commitment in relation to Defence spending.' But, of course, what happened was very, very different. What we actually saw was a cut in Defence spending of five per cent in 2010-11 and then 10.5 per cent in 2012, which was the largest proportional cut in the Defence budget since the Korean War. How could it help Australian Defence industries when, for politically expedient reasons, the former government hacked into Defence spending? The consequences included having 100 projects delayed, 40 projects reduced and 11 projects cancelled under the previous government. Obviously, these tend to be quite substantial projects given the nature of Defence, and that ad hoc approach to Defence expenditure was very damaging for the sector.

As I said, I acknowledge the interest of the member for Charlton in this matter, but the member for Charlton—perhaps in his previous role working with the previous member for Charlton, who, after all, was the Minister for Defence Materiel and Science—should have used his advocacy skills in that role, spoken to his boss and said: 'Look, you know these drastic cuts to Defence spending that you're sitting around the cabinet table planning? Don't do it, because it's not in the interests of the Australian military.' I am sure there were many discussions internally, but, unfortunately, he was unable to carry the day on those issues and those cuts did occur. They have been very substantial and very damaging.

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Indeed, we are in government, as the member for Charlton interjects, and that is a good thing because it means that, in a careful and methodical fashion, through the white paper process, the government will assess all of their very complex matters related to Defence funding and make appropriate decisions as we go through that. When the previous government came into office, 5.7 per cent of government outlays were in Defence. By the end, it was 4.9 per cent. That is a very substantial change as a proportion of government expenditure. We all acknowledge the significance of Defence and Defence planning and the government is committed to it.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context