Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

It was a rowdy question time. It's a reminder of how quickly politics can change. Only last week the Deputy Prime Minister rose in this House and said, 'The first responsibility of government is to provide for the safety and security of its people.' In a very solemn voice he spoke of Australian sovereignty and the need to protect it, along with our unique and cherished way of life. We agreed, and we answered in a spirit of bipartisanship. We pledged to work with the government on the strategic challenges ahead, to build our strength and sovereignty, to show resolve in the face of authoritarian aggression and coercion, to deliver nuclear submarines as soon as possible, to act as a robust opposition—in the Westminster tradition—and to hold the government to task and to account for their promises, the trust of the Australian people and our national security. We pledged to be tough but always with the national interest as our guiding star, to make sure that we make Australia safer now and for the generations to come. That's our pledge as the coalition, and it's one we take seriously.

Our words in this place matter, as do our actions, and we are rightly judged by both. Therefore, we cannot leave unanswered this government's cheap hyperpartisan misrepresentation and distortion of our record. Today, unlike Labor, we seek not to settle scores; we seek simply to correct the record. Let us consider Labor's defence record over the past two decades.

The truth is that when the coalition won government in 2013 we inherited a big mess from the former Labor government. Chronic underinvestment, spending cuts and neglect had badly damaged capability and morale in the ADF. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments drove defence spending to 1.56 per cent of GDP—the lowest since 1938. That was after inheriting the strong economy the Howard government had built before them. It was a huge mess. Since taking office in 2013 and until leaving office late last year the coalition government increased defence spending in real terms by 55 per cent. Truth matters, and the truth is that all of the investment in defence over the last decade was made by the coalition. Growing ADF numbers; building new capabilities; restoring morale; giving our soldiers, sailors and airmen a new sense of mission and purpose—that was the coalition. It was under our watch.

The truth is that the hard analysis of our new strategic reality was undertaken by the coalition. It was our burden, and we stepped up. We did not resile from it. The 2020 defence strategic update, which forecast the rise of authoritarian powers, the return of traditional warfare and the growth of subversive operations in the shadows, was the hard-headed work of the coalition. We were on the right track. The proofs are there, including Russia's brutal war in Ukraine and China's increased aggression in the region and beyond.

The truth is that we also took the hard decisions in responding to our dark and strategic reality. Sometimes the right commitment to investing in our national security means making tough decisions. We took the tough but necessary decision to cancel the French Attack class submarines and to acquire nuclear powered submarines through AUKUS. It was necessary in the national interest.

We took the tough but necessary decision to acquire Black Hawk and Apache helicopters. That was our call. This was also necessary in the national interest. This call means that, if our troops are once more deployed overseas into harm's way, they won't be relying on allied airlift or air support under fire. Instead, they will have Australian air crew and helicopters watching their backs.

These decisions, among many others taken by the coalition, were informed by the lived experience of veterans sitting on these benches and followed through by the Leader of the Opposition. We are proud of our record, and we take exception to this government trashing it in the petty pursuit of short-term partisan applause.

We remain circumspect about the Albanese government's commitment to the task ahead. We have good reason for this. In 2007, the Labor Party produced an election document entitled 'Labor's Plan for Defence'. On page 7 we find these words:

Labor is committed to maintaining defence spending, including a minimum annual 3 per cent real growth until 2016, and is committed to ensuring that Defence dollars are spent more effectively and efficiently.

We know how that campaign pledge finished up. On leaving office in 2013, defence spending under Labor had dropped to just 1.6 per cent of GDP. They promised three per cent; it went down to under 1.6 per cent. The ADF had been fleeced and we had all become more vulnerable.

We can't pretend this is ancient history, because it's not. In fact, two of the key contributors to this dangerous record have returned, front and centre, to the political stage. Stephen Smith, the defence minister back then, was entrusted with co-leading the defence strategic review and is now the UK High Commissioner. Dr Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister and foreign minister back then, is now Australian Ambassador to the USA. They are now intimately involved in delivering our nuclear submarines and operationalising AUKUS. We hope they have learned from their past failures and neglect under their watch. We will remain vigilant, watching carefully and reserving our judgement as DSR and AUKUS announcements are made over the coming weeks and months.

But perhaps even more concerning than this is the internal difference, the division, within the Albanese government over the nature of the challenge we face. While reading the Treasurer's essay this summer, I enjoyed my fill of anecdotes from ancient Greek history about rivers—we all did! But I was left worried by the gaping hole the Treasurer left. He covered the three crises of the past well enough—the global financial crisis, the pandemic and the energy and inflation crisis we face now. But none of these is the big crisis, the one over the horizon, the one the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly called 'our greatest security anxiety'. Over two years ago, Senator Wong criticised our side for deliberately encouraging anxiety. Now both she and the Deputy Prime Minister admit we need to be clear-eyed about national security or we face the risk of a catastrophic failure of deterrence. While the Treasurer had 6,000 words, he couldn't find a dozen of substance to acknowledge the greatest threat this country has faced since the Second World War.

I was proud—indeed, we were all proud—to be part of a government that saw the crisis with clarity and responded with AUKUS and the plan to acquire the most lethal submarine in history. Australia needs nuclear submarines. They will make us strong and change the balance of power in the region in favour of those who seek peace. This is the promise of AUKUS. But these weapons depend on a highly powered economy, and we're yet to see a plan for developing the economic power we will need in the years ahead. AUKUS requires a nation-building approach. We need the submarines, but we also need the highly trained military and civilian personnel workforce and industrial capacity. This is the most important capability advance.

How will the Deputy Prime Minister, therefore, reshape the educational system to ensure Australian students can prepare for the jobs AUKUS will create? How is the Deputy Prime Minister streamlining our immigration system so the AUKUS workforce can move seamlessly between Australia, the US and the UK? How is the Deputy Prime Minister going to ensure that legislation that will cut across defence, energy, education and other portfolios is managed in a bipartisan and constructive way? Is he prepared to institutionalise the kind of bipartisan cooperation and collaboration that Australia needs from this parliament so that AUKUS and its fruits will survive not just this government but the many governments hereafter? How is the Prime Minister going to sustain and grow our defence industry? What signal will he send to our partners that this parliament is serious about working on AUKUS and building institutional support for it? We welcome answers to these questions. In the meantime, we suggest that the government gets on with the AUKUS mission and works constructively with the opposition. Look forward, as you'll find no inspiration in your past.

I turn to the comments made recently, last year, by the defence minister, who very clearly appreciates the task ahead of him. He said on 10 October 2022:

Well, let me start by saying we accept responsibility. We accept the responsibility of government, and we do so going forward. No ifs, no buts about all of that. It's not ultimately for departments to stand here and accept responsibility for government performance. It is ministers.

See this speech in context