David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Bass. I noticed that in his remarks he finished with a sober and reasonable plea for bipartisanship. But, sadly, that reasonable plea was not reflected in the first eight minutes of his remarks. I think the member for Bass and, indeed, the House, would do well when contemplating the important subject of defence and national security to make sure that we do so on a foundation of a decent and proper assessment of our recent history in defence policy rather than what was, I am afraid, a very partisan and one-eyed accounting by the member for Bass.

Let us remember that in May 2013 the former Labor government delivered the 2013 defence white paper and it outlined Labor's plan to build a strong Australian Defence Force capable of meeting this country's national security challenges. It was a plan that included major new capability commitments which we judged were crucial to Australia's defence and security need and maintained the ADF and its world-class defence capabilities.

In the 2013-14 budget the former Labor government provided defence with a record $114 billion across the forward estimates and funding guidance of over $220 billion over the subsequent six years from 2017-18 through to 2022-23. This side of the House is committed to increasing defence funding towards a target of two per cent of GDP. It was the Labor government that made a commitment to build defence spending towards two per cent, and it was the then opposition that followed with its own commitment to do the very same. The former Labor government had a comprehensive equipment modernisation program. From the release of the Defence White Paper 2009 up until the 2013 election, the Labor government had granted some 141 approvals, with a total value of some $21.1 billion. It was a time when Defence took delivery of a number of major new capabilities and systems, including C17 heavy-lift aircraft, the Super Hornet combat aircraft, Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles and, perhaps most spectacularly, our two large amphibious and sea-lift vessels, the landing helicopter docks. So, at the November 2013 Senate estimates hearing, we witnessed senior defence personnel confirming that defence capabilities had been significantly enhanced under the former government. Indeed, at a dinner hosted by ASPI and Boeing, the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, described Army today as being in the 'best shape ever'.

For six of the eleven budgets that the coalition handed down from 1996 to 2007, defence spending had fallen to the lowest level since 1938 as a percentage of GDP. The honourable member for Bass spoke about this being a period of a graveyard of lost opportunities and denounced the 'defence of Australia' doctrine that then prevailed. But let me remind him that this was a doctrine that prevailed right through to 1999, and a succession of coalition defence ministers presided over the very shambles that he articulated. So you cannot criticise that doctrine nor defence spending in the 1990s without also having the Howard government share the blame for the sorry condition that the ADF found itself in when called upon to meet the challenges of operations in Timor Leste in 1999.

The coalition and, indeed, the Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon. David Johnston, has on numerous occasions described Defence as an 'unsustainable mess'. While they determinedly denigrate Labor and the defence department, it is worth remembering that, at the 2013 election, the coalition promised to spend $113 billion over the forward estimates and Labor had promised to spend $114 billion. At the 2013 election, the coalition promised to increase spending to two per cent of GDP within the decade, but that followed a Labor commitment to increase defence spending to two per cent of GDP when financially responsible to do so. The coalition government today, and in recent days, is promising the same dollars, the same time frames and the same—or fewer—procurement plans as the former Labor government. This is a government that seeks to make a virtue of the fact that it is doing, in defence, precisely as Labor did. It is not a boon, in the terms described by the member for Bass, for Defence to have its budget remain largely unchanged by this government. This coalition government has made no progress on Defence or defence policies since the election. The delay of a new white paper and defence capability plan until at least April 2015 ensures that scenarios such as the so-called 'valley of death'—in relation to our shipbuilding industry; something that Labor had effectively solved—will now come to fruition. The government plans to spend half of its term writing a new white paper and conducting a first principles review. The member for Bass was obviously put in the very awkward position this morning of being able to boast of nothing more than reviews and good intentions. There were no deeds for him to boast about.

Let us remember that this is a motion that talks about strategic force modernisation, enhanced national security and regional stability. The Defence White Paper 2009 was a watershed for defence and for the ADF. It was there and then that the government articulated that this nation would adopt a maritime strategy. From that flowed the capability requirements and plans for force modernisation with which those opposite struggle to comprehend and wrestle with. In recent years, the defence debate in Australia has all too often failed to comprehend the important implications of this country's maritime strategy, because it is that strategy that shapes the kind of forces we require and the operational concepts, the doctrine and the training that the ADF must undertake. In support of that strategy, there is an important area of military diplomacy.

The member for Bass called upon us to adopt a bipartisan approach with respect to the US alliance, Indonesia and the virtue of interoperability. One would think that he has only discovered these virtues for the very first time. Let me reassure him that these are policy objectives long comprehended and long dealt with by Labor. Let us remember that, under Labor, the US alliance was strengthened. Under Labor, we saw cooperation with US marines in Darwin and strengthened alliance arrangements in terms of the operations of the US Air Force and the continuing assurance of interoperability through joint exercises such as RIMPAC and Talisman Saber. We continued to see the ADF involved in key defence cooperation programs with partners such as Indonesia and the nations of ASEAN, and we found that, under Labor, defence cooperation programs with other partners, such as Papua New Guinea, increased by 100 per cent and were put on a pathway to increase by some 500 per cent. That was a sphere of endeavour that Labor well understood. It well understood that based on the foundations in the 1980s of the Pacific Patrol Boat Program and our deep engagement with Pacific Island countries throughout our region.

The Defence White Paper 2013 set out the essentials of Australia's maritime strategy. At 3.42, it states:

Controlling the sea and air approaches to our continent is the key to defending Australia, in order to deny them to an adversary and provide maximum freedom of action for our forces. This strategy is focused on the maritime domain, and aims to:

• deter adversaries from conducting attacks against Australia or attempting coercion;

• achieve and maintain air and sea control in places and at times of our choosing…

• deny adversary forces access to forward operating bases or the freedom to conduct strikes against Australia

• project power by deploying joint task forces in the Indo-Pacific region…

This is what the ADF is for, and those are the tasks it must accomplish. After establishing that strategic guidance, what flowed was a procurement program and a capability assessment which led to the dramatic changes we have seen and are continuing to see in our ADF's force structure, doctrine and capabilities, programs such as Future Submarine and Land 400. Land 400 is the project to replace armoured vehicles in Army and, as the member for Bass would well know, is a project absolutely critical to ensuring that our army remains able to be a digital force able to operate in a high threat, high intensity environment. It is a project that is now under threat by this government; but under our government, it was a project that was a key flagship priority, a $10 billion plus program.

We saw the Royal Australian Navy taking on board a suite of new naval capabilities. We saw plans for the upgraded Anzac class frigates that now have a world-class anti-ship missile defence system. We saw Navy combat helicopters equipped with dipping sonar and air-launched torpedoes. In a whole range of areas we saw Army transform under Plan Beersheba and we saw Air Force take control of new aircraft with the Super Hornet. We saw Air 7000 defined by the Labor government to include P8 Poseidons and high-altitude, long endurance UAVs. So there were a whole range of important achievements by the former government of which the member for Bass needs to take cognisance when he next seeks to come into this place and make a plea for bipartisanship. (Time expired)

See this speech in context