Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Securing our defence industrial base is a topic worthy of serious debate, and I thank the member for bringing the topic. It is important—and I say that as someone who has taken a great interest in defence strategic issues here as Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, but also, in a former life, oversighting the Victorian government's defence industry unit, some years ago—many years ago, now.

It should be serious. I do say—and I say this with respect: it is a pity that this motion that you've chosen to bring is framed in such terms. It's full of inaccuracies, it's frankly ridiculous and it's immature. The interjections—and I'll say: those from both sides—have demeaned the topic. There was the interjection that you made to the previous speaker as he left: 'Make sure you tag me on Facebook.' I mean, this is a serious topic, and I do appreciate the former minister's contribution both in the portfolio and to the debate.

Our nation's defence industrial base is a critical strategic capability. As has been said, it has a deterrent value in its own right.

There are the lessons from Ukraine. If you had to pick a couple, they'd be that our resilience and our ability to manufacture the consumables of violent conflict and to repair the platforms are critical. It's not to make everything here; that will never happen. We should make more here, but we'll never make everything here. But you've got to be able to manufacture the consumables and repair your platforms, and that also contributes jobs and economic activity. So it is a pity that we're debating such a motion in the terms in which it has been put forward, over real debate. There is one thing that's right, as every speaker has observed. These are the most challenging strategic circumstances in decades. That comfortable assumption, which our country's enjoyed for 70 years—of 10 years of warning of a violent conflict that may come at us—is gone.

Defence policy, including defence industry policy, should be contestable. It absolutely should be contestable. Serious people and serious parties of government should strive for bipartisanship wherever possible and avoid inflaming conflict for conflict's sake in the domestic political debate. Anyone with half a brain, anyone with a quarter of a brain and certainly the shadow assistant minister should know that defence industry grew by 4.1 per cent in the first year of the government, with over $10.6 billion of economic activity. The number of people employed grew by six per cent. Over 100,000 Australian jobs are supported by defence industry. We secured the largest single export contract in Australian defence industry history: more than 100 Boxer vehicles worth $3.1 billion, with more than 600 jobs in Queensland alone. We brought forward the delivery of numerous capabilities, including army landing craft. We've invested in Australian industry to further develop Ghost Bat, the first military combat aircraft designed in Australia for 50 years. We're investing in Australian air and missile defence in partnership with Australian industry. I'll put in a note of bipartisanship; that is a bipartisan issue. It continues an initiative of the former government and brings it forward with $14 billion to $18 billion of investment through the Integrated Investment Program.

That's the kind of discourse we should be having. It is peak irony for speakers on this motion to be talking about certainty. They had a revolving door of defence ministers, with 23 ministers through the portfolio in nine years. It was patently ridiculous. As has been said, it was all announcement and no delivery: 'Yes, we've got the means.' They make the point about running onto the battlefield waving a press release, but it's a fact: $42 billion of announcements without any spending commitments in the budget. That's not adult government; it's not how you should treat the defence portfolio.

You absolutely can critique, and we can have a contested debate on whether the government should do more. Should we do more on this? Should we do less on that? Let's have that debate—absolutely—but please acknowledge that restructuring the investment program and the defence industry strategy is a serious effort to respond to the circumstances we face, and every announcement is actually funded in the budget. That is something that didn't happen. If you were being sensible about it, you'd actually acknowledge that and commit not to have that kind of nonsense happen again if you ever form government. Twenty-eight projects running 97 years late—yes, some major projects will run late.

So what are we doing about it? We're overhauling the Defence Industry Development Strategy. It's a clear focused plan to support Australia's defence industry and workers. There are grants. There's clarity on priorities. There were too many defence industry sovereign priorities; it wasn't a label to be thrown around. If everything's a priority, then nothing's a priority. We're putting in place easier-to-do business reforms on procurement and on flexible contracting. Let's have a debate about the substance instead of throwing silly words around.

See this speech in context