Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I'd like to echo the words of the member for Canning and congratulate him on his appointment to the important position of shadow minister of defence. He has done a great job, and that is demonstrated through his contribution just before.

What this motion is saying is absolutely critical to the future of our country. We live in a time of great uncertainty, unlike any we've seen. To be prepared for the unthinkable, we need to continue our investment in our nation's defence. We must continue to build on the work of the former government with AUKUS, and we must commit to building capability and strong defence spending. That means we must not see cuts to defence.

The Labor government announced its strategic review last month and appointed former defence minister Stephen-Smith and former CDF Sir Angus Houston to run it. It's not a bad thing to take stock and ensure that our structure and posture are appropriate for the times in which we operate, but I have concerns about appointing the former Labor defence minister, who presided over the period when defence spending was cut to its lowest levels since 1938. It is extremely concerning. Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. Of course, we'll hear the Labor government saying: 'We're not cutting defence. It's not going to happen. We're not going to cut any spending.' But, just over a week ago, we had the first example of the Labor government using the review to disguise capability cuts in a bid to save money, and it has many in the Defence community worried.

Just a week ago, the defence minister said the previous government's commitment to replace the underperforming MRH-90 with the tried and tested Black Hawk was fuzzy and that a process was underway to evaluate the capability. This was the same day the US approved the sale of 40 Black Hawks to Australia, hardly the result of a fuzzy commitment. The decision to replace the MRH-90 with the Black Hawk was well overdue. There had been nine incidents where the MRH-90 Taipan was unsuitable to fly. Defence has spent $37 million to hire civilian helicopters to maintain capability because they were grounded.

But where do the minister's comments leave us? They leave us with uncertainty. They leave us questioning what's happening with MRH-90? What's going to happen with the Black Hawk? We are now wondering, will the Labor government now dump the Black Hawk deal? Our soldiers need a reliable, tactical, troop transport helicopter now, which can be used for training, humanitarian missions and on combat operations. That helicopter is the Black Hawk.

This would also leave our community of Townsville in the lurch. As the current operating base for the MRH-90, the 5th Aviation Regiment would most likely be the base for new Black Hawks, but now the hardworking men and women there who have had to endure the MRH-90 with all its faults and failings don't know what the future holds. As far as they're concerned, they will be continuing to operate that aircraft for longer than they'd hoped. Since the minister's comments, the negative reaction to this decision has been quite significant. I've received e-mails, texts, and messages on Facebook wondering what will be happening with the MRH-90, and if the Black Hawk will be coming into service. Not to mention that, if another platform is chosen, there could be negative implications for jobs and skills capability at that base. The Townsville defence community was critical in backing the push for the decision to be made in the first place. Now we have people working in the 5th Aviation Regiment facing more uncertainty about their future and operating a helicopter that isn't doing the job it's meant for.

If this debacle is anything to go by, it's not just the Black Hawk that we should be worried about being on the chopping block with this review—what about the deal to scrap the Tiger for the Apache? Could it be the nuclear subs next? The coalition government returned defence spending to more than two per cent of GDP, including investing more than $270 billion in defence capability. We must continue this trajectory and ensure we do not see cuts to defence spending.

See this speech in context