Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mitchell for his comments and his generous remarks about me and other people. I think we are all involved in a much wider group of people, including the member for Eden-Monaro, the Deputy Prime Minister and others, in an ethical campaign to see that businesses are not boycotted a la the 1930s. It sets up a very bad image in people's minds. It is a shame that I have to speak in a partisan way now because I have to speak on the defence policy of the opposition.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't have to. No-one is forcing you.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, your senator in the other place forced me to be partisan, because he attacked the bipartisanship that we normally have on defence policy. As the Australian's Defence Editor, Brendan Nicholson, stated, 'The opposition launched a surprise attack—a Pearl Harbor—from the flank of the previously bipartisan issue of the size and shape of the future of Australia's Defence Forces'. The Liberal opposition's spokesman for defence, Senator David Johnston, announced yesterday that an Abbott government would tear up Australia's 2009 defence white paper, halving our purchase of 100 Joint Strike Fighters, and review plans to build 12 conventional submarines. He described the Navy as a basket case. Mr Abbott was forced to backtrack last night, stating that he would 'never make savings at the expense of the operational capabilities of our defence force … No one said we would tear up the defence white paper'. In fact, the member for Sturt was so alarmed that he had to get on the radio first thing this morning to say that these were simply the musings of their defence spokesman.

The proposal of those opposite to cut out defence white paper plans are very alarming. The proposed reassessment of defence spending could lead to thousands of defence jobs being cut. As Defence Teaming Centre Chief Executive, Chris Burns, said today in the Adelaide advertiser:

Proposals to reassess defence spending could lead to paralysis and indecision for defence manufactures ... Effectively it would mean further delays in projects.

Senator Johnson has stated that Liberals would reassess the proposed new submarine replacement to be built in Adelaide and the 12 proposed by the defence white paper.

The senator and his party neglect to underline the fact that these 12 submarines are essential to the defence of Australia. Indeed it was a former adviser to coalition defence ministers, Sean Costello, who wrote in the AustralianFinancial Review today that these submarines:

… have the potency and range to deny an enemy the use of the sea. It can stay at sea for long periods of time, much further away from home and strike targets on land as well as sea. They can provide earlier warning of impending danger and are more habitable for the crew. The larger submarine—

which Senator Johnston is apparently opposed to—

… can fight as part of a coalition force …. To call a spade a spade, it can contribute to US forces in the Asia-Pacific, where as the smaller submarine is limited.

If Australia ever faced the strategic circumstances of 1942, these submarines would help prevent a seaborne attack on Australia's territory or on our maritime interests.

I suppose the defence minister, the member for Perth, was hinting at that in his remarks in question time today. I suppose the coalition has to find ways of finding the $70 billion black hole that their costings have got them into over the last few months. One of the ways they might do it is by cutting defence. I think it is a very bad idea. The Liberal alternative is to review these subs and consider off-the-shelf subs, abandoning 50 Joint Strike Fighters. It is not the way I would go. We need a considered defence policy in this country and off-the-top-of-the-head musings by the opposition's defence spokesman are very dangerous.

Plans by Mr Abbott and Senator Johnston to get 24 new Super Hornets to complement the existing 24 are not in the league of the capabilities offered by the Joint Strike Fighter when it comes to defending Australia. The Joint Strike Fighter project would create jobs across the nation. The defence technology giant BAE Systems is a partner in the fighter project and its Australian headquarters are based in Adelaide. By cutting the number of JSF fighters, the coalition would be putting thousands of jobs at risk.

The opposition's proposed solution is to spend $4 billion on new surveillance aircraft, Global Hawks. I am not against the Global Hawks as a defence instrument, but you cannot increase your expenditure in some areas just off the top of your head, while cancelling the Joint Strike Fighters and the submarines. Defence policy in this country needs to be taken seriously. We need to rely on the experts. Sudden announcements on the front page of the papers by your spokesman can have a terrible effect on the reliability of manufacturing. (Time expired)