Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House congratulates the Government for its continuation of Defence reform, specifically in respect of strategic force modernisation, enhanced national security, and regional stability, including:

(1) the acquisition of:

(a) an additional 58 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; and

(b) the eight P-8 Maritime Surveillance aircraft and commitment to the Triton Unmanned Aerial Vehicle; and

(2) a commitment to:

(a) enhancing Australia's overall Defence capability, close cooperation, and interoperability with regional partners; and

(b) provide certainty for Defence planning, capability and doctrine development.

I have great pleasure in bringing this motion before the House to highlight the government's defence reform agenda, which responds to evolving strategic circumstances in our region and beyond.

Our agenda spans three diverse areas, including: a comprehensive first-principles review of all aspects of the department and in particular the Defence Materiel Organisation; a commitment to return the Defence budget to two per cent of gross domestic product within 10 years; and the development of a new Defence white paper—a document that will articulate a clear Australian national security strategy, including the all-important funding and planning dimensions. In turn, this will give Defence industry in particular the certainty it requires.

Regrettably, far-sighted commitment to reform of this type has not always been the hallmark of federal policy. Too often, Defence has been seen as a convenient means of achieving short-term savings, at the overall cost and risk of long-term defence preparedness. Labor's embracement of the Defence of Australia doctrine during the 1980s and 1990s is a case in point. Under it, Australia's strategic outlook and commitment apparently stopped at the sea-air gap. Yet much of my 31-year career in the Defence Force was spent working in areas and thinking about military challenges well beyond the sea-air gap. The Defence of Australia policy had the effect of landlocking our Army inside continental Australia—replete with the inherent withering of land force capability. This situation set back Australian strategic interests and influence a decade or more. I know it, because I professionally lived through it. Not until after East Timor did Defence make sizeable steps to recover from this short-sighted introspection.

Perhaps just as bad, this period represents a graveyard of lost opportunities to prepare well and realistically for the future; even if only to use elements of our professional military to engage constructively and practically—as is their proven strength—within our immediate region. Labor's 2009 white paper falsely promised an economic grand bargain with Defence. The bargain went something like this: Defence had to find some $20 billion of savings in a 10-year period; the Labor government promised real growth of three per cent in the Defence budget to 2017-18, 2.2 per cent from 2017-18 to 2030, and a bit of a deal with indexation; and the combined effect of those two inputs would fund the capability requirements for Force 2030. I notice the member for Hunter is in the chamber: his media release of 12 May 2009 also promised $43 billion of much-needed new initiatives from 2009 to 2019.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were a key advisor; I always appreciated your efforts in that regard!

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I cheered on the efforts of the member for Hunter in that regard. But despite the heroic efforts of the member for Hunter, there was no grand bargain. The department, sadly, was used as an ATM whenever Senator Wong or the member for Lilley had a fiscal itch to scratch. From 2009-10 to 2016-17, instead of all these new initiatives, $16 billion was cut or deferred from the Defence budget—$9.2 billion of that from the Defence Capability Plan. Defence now faces a deficit of $12 billion on current plans over the next decade, with an additional $18 billion required just to achieve the aspirations of Force 2030. 119 key projects were left delayed, 43 were severely degraded, and eight were cancelled. The sad truth is, Labor did not approve a complete 10-year Defence DCP after 2009 because they did not want the Australian people to know they were using the Defence department as an ATM.

2012-13 was the lowest share of GDP allocated to defence since 1938—at 1.56 per cent, the largest cut since the Korean conflict. Little wonder that the Australian Strategic Policy Institute referred to the defence budget as an 'unsustainable mess'. Little wonder that US President Obama publicly commended the Prime Minister's leadership on the defence budget just last week in Washington for restoring some much-needed common sense in this important public policy area.

Our budget last month is not only about getting the Australian economy back on track but getting defence back on track. The coalition is determined that the stop-start-stop cycle, which has so adversely affected defence planning and procurement in the past, will not resurface on our watch. This is why this motion focuses, in part, on returning and maintaining expenditure on defence at consistently two percent of GDP. Yes, a professional military capability is expensive, but for good reason—our national future is the stake at risk. If we want quality, and we do, we must pay for it—and we will.

The best national security policy is surely one which is based on vigilance, flexibility and agility. Refreshingly, today's motion recognises, too, the unseeable nature of defence threats in both our region and the world at large. No strategic expert can divine or foresee the future absolutely. The very best that can be offered is to be consistently least wrong—or at least less wrong than one's adversaries. This observation reinforces the triumvirate of vigilance, flexibility and agility.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Labor's national security policy assumed Australia to be, more or less, immune from what transpired in the wider world, even at a time when the Berlin Wall was being torn down. All of us, I think, have grown up since then; the scales have fallen from the eyes of even the most myopic. Australia is not isolated from distant events; we cannot rely unduly on others to defend us; and we must be prepared to continue, if necessary, to do more 'heavy lifting' where security is concerned, if, when, and wherever it is in our interests to do so. This motion is redolent with those sentiments.

In more recent times, Australian service men and women have risked their lives to support stabilisation operations in East Timor and the Solomon Islands; fought two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; continue to undertake the hazardous constabulary operation against illegal people smuggling at sea; and have supported multiple humanitarian missions, including those in Rwanda, Indonesia, PNG, Pakistan and the Philippines. From an Australian national security perspective this diversity has proven three things. First, international conflict and emergency can hail from anywhere, often very quickly, and without clear warning. Second, Australia, and Australians, have the resources, expertise and confidence to make very significant contributions not only regionally but globally. And, third, constructive engagement with other nations has itself the potential to contribute to future peace and stability. But none of these things is a guarantee or replacement for careful and cogent national defence planning and preparation. In the words of the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, 'Only the dead have seen the end of war.' For this reason, the coalition's defence reform agenda has focused deliberately and specifically on a first-principles review, a strategic white paper, and the financial surety of a return to two percent GDP within a decade.

My request to the member for Batman, the member for Hunter and their colleagues is: let's have a bipartisan approach on defence. As history has shown, the ALP in opposition always shifts to the left on defence and foreign policy. That has perhaps never been as evident in the Labor Party as it is now, with the member for Sydney and Senator Conroy leading Labor's national security team. But rather than make superficial political points, as the member for Sydney and Senator Conroy repeatedly do, why don't we agree on this vital area of national policy? Let's work together to strengthen practical cooperation and interoperability with our US alliance partners. Let's encourage the quicker conclusion of negotiations between ourselves and the United States on a legally-binding agreement to govern force posture initiatives. Instead of pandering to the left wing of the Labor Party and the Greens, let's build closer cooperation with regional partners, including Indonesia and Japan.

I call on the member for Batman, the member for Hunter and the many other sensible people in the opposition, like Senator Faulkner, the members for Holt and Bruce and others, to not let the Labor Party weaken on the defence budget and the US Alliance. Let us take forward initiatives that reflect our national interests, that reflect this parliament's faith in, and determined commitment to, the men and women of the ADF—as well as to the hardworking public servants in the department, who make an invaluable contribution in so many policy and enabling areas. This House, I am sure, joins me in recognising the quality of their individual and collective contribution and sacrifice for Australian national security. I commend both their efforts and this motion to the House.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.