Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Batman proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Prime Minister’s refusal to sack the Minister for Defence.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very important matter of public importance, because the failure of the Prime Minister to sack the Minister for Defence means that this government now crawls forward with yet another bleeding wound. It is plainly obvious that the Prime Minister must act. Dennis Shanahan posted in The Australian only a short time ago: 'David Johnston's job as defence minister "finished"' And we saw earlier from Paul Kelly, in today's edition of The Australian,that this government now confronts 'a growing crisis of trust'. This is a government going forward with a wounded Minister for Defence, and it cannot stand. The real tragedy and atrocity here is that the Australian Defence Force—its men and women—are currently on operations in the Middle East while being led by a bumbling minister. And this is not a minister who has been bumbling for a day, or for hours, but he has been bumbling for 15 months. This is known to those opposite.

Over the last 12 months, the Minister for Defence has given 40 speeches and interviews, while the foreign affairs minister has given 200. This is a minister who has been in the witness protection program of the Prime Minister for quite some time. When Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced 600 ADF personnel were to be deployed to the Middle East, he had standing by his side the Chief of the Defence Force. But where was the defence minister? He remained in hiding. And so, as this country sent its people into war, we saw Hugh White, Professor of Strategic Studies at the ANU, make the remark: 'He was incapable of answering the most basic of questions about why we are undertaking this military operation.' For 15 months, we have seen this minister deal with nothing but inaction and failure. You might recall, some short time ago, it took the minister two weeks to respond to claims made about the alleged mistreatment of asylum seekers by Royal Australian Navy sailors. And when he finally emerged, he said, 'I have not said much because, I have to confess, I was extremely angry and I have required some period of time to cool off.' Well, here is a man who lacks the temperament to be the Minister for Defence. Such a man has his finger on the trigger? Be reassured that he does not have his finger on the trigger. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have made sure that in fact this Minister for Defence has very little responsibility at all.

At the Australian Strategic Policy Institute submarine conference David Johnston began his contribution by saying, 'I have been told to say this and I have been told not to deviate from my speech.' He is on a very tight leash indeed. Most spectacularly of all, when asked to explain his absence at a meeting of the National Security Committee—a meeting of the NSC held while Australians are at war—he said, 'I didn't have much to add.' At the very beginning of his time as Minister for Defence he found himself overruled by the Prime Minister on the composition of his white paper planning team. It is the most fundamental of responsibilities in his portfolio and one with which he was not trusted.

The atrocities continue. We saw retired Major General Molan appear after a mere three weeks of service with the minister, which was all he could take of working with a minister who was in fact responsible for nothing. Major General Molan is a loyal, Liberal advocate—he is seeking Liberal party preselection in New South Wales. Notwithstanding those allegiances, when it came to criticising the minister he said, 'That's a conclusion you can come to. I'll have something to say with others in private.' Clearly he did, because this Minister for Defence remains absolutely in the witness protection program.

Broken promises have been a spectacular feature of Senator Johnston's time. He stood at the Australian Submarine Corporation in South Australia on 8 May 2013 and said:

We will deliver those submarines from right here at ASC in South Australia.

…   …   …

The Coalition today is committed to building 12 new submarines here in Adelaide …

That is a promise that has not survived first contact, but it is plain to all of us that it is a promise they should keep or that at the very least they should bring themselves to ensure that there is an open tender for this multibillion dollar, multidecade policy.

Senator Johnston came into office as defence minister after intimating to the shipbuilding industry that he would bridge the valley of death by commissioning a fourth air warfare destroyer, another undertaking that did not survive first contact. Then, when talking about rescuing the shipbuilding industry in this country, he commissioned the Winter review. On the basis of that review he has denigrated the industry again and again and again. But what is the most striking feature of the Winter review, Deputy Speaker? No-one knows—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no Deputy Speaker in the chair.

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

Quite right. No-one knows, because this report remains secret. Despite the minister's undertakings to deliver this report to the Australian people, it remains a secret.

There we have it, a defence minister who has been in the witness protection program for quite some time, who is not trusted with serious responsibility, who is not allowed to make serious decisions and with whom senior retired personnel from the ADF cannot work. This is a sinking feeling that those opposite are now well acquainted with, a sinking feeling that has been made manifest in the last 24 hours. After his extraordinary remark that he would not trust the ASC to build a canoe—an extraordinary indulgence—we saw the Liberal Party scatter as they sought to distance themselves from this broken reed of a minister. One senior Liberal said, 'Senator Johnston's comments were breathtaking.' We have seen revealed the fact that these comments came just one fortnight after he apologised to the ASC chairman, Bruce Carter, for being critical of the agency's work. That was an apology that did not survive two weeks. We heard another senior Liberal say:

This whole process has been undermined by Johnston and his office from the very beginning.

Another senior Liberal said in the press today that these 'were some of the most stupid words I have ever heard from a senior minister.' Last night, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Jamie Briggs, said Senator Johnston's comments were just 'wrong'. In the aftermath of Senator Johnston's extraordinary performance, we saw the Prime Minister himself rush to contradict him, saying, 'I have full confidence in the ASC and its sustainment work for the Royal Australian Navy.' Very rarely do we see a Prime Minister rush to contradict a minister so quickly. Senator Birmingham, a South Australian Liberal Party senator, said:

We should be honest about the problems submarines and shipbuilding have faced at Osborne, but that is no excuse for denigration of the workforce or of the extensive capabilities that South Australia has.

Perhaps most spectacularly, we have heard today Steven Marshall, the leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia, say:

Unless he can rebuild some connection, some rapport, some confidence within the industry, then I don't think he has any alternative (but to resign) …

I don't think that his current position is tenable unless he can rebuild that confidence with the sector.

This minister's collapse is manifest to all, and with the Australian newspaper making it plain to us today, it seems that soon we will not be able to read the Australian as well as not be able to watch the ABC. We have a defence minister who has gone from lame duck to dead duck. We have a minister who today is plainly on life support.

In the last year, ASC has transformed its submarine maintenance program. Again and again it has exceeded the Navy's target for submarine readiness. We have seen improvements in the availability of the Collins class fleet to defend our national interests. This has been done on the back of a reform process that the former Labor government was very proud to have initiated and that even those opposite were forced to concede had done the job and done it well. Notwithstanding that, we have a minister who apparently feels that he can denigrate the industry and the ASC without any regard for the fact that the ASC today, right now, is responsible for sustaining and maintaining our submarine capability. There are literally hundreds of submariners under the oceans of this world who rely on the work of the ASC, and they are told by this debacle of a minister that that organisation could not be trusted to build a canoe. This is an atrocity that cannot stand. To add insult to injury he now says it was a rhetorical flourish. This is a man who does not have the temperament to be the Minister for Defence. This plainly is a man who does not have the judgement to be the Minister for Defence. This is a man who has a record of 15 months of inaction and dithering. The words 'blundering' and 'withering' appear again and again in reference to this minister. Over the course of 12 months we have seen this minister do next to nothing. There has been failure after failure to proceed with the important LAND400 project. Those opposite spout about how important is SEA1000, the Future Submarine project, but 15 months down the track we have nothing. We have a shipbuilding industry that is in crisis because after 15 months this government has yet to achieve anything except send our shipbuilding work overseas, feeding the shipyards of foreign nations without any regard to our own and breaking its own promises and intimations to the industry that there would be work and reform in the industry. Again and again we see this minister relying on the fact that, he says, this industry is not up to the job and relying on a report that remains a secret. (Time expired)

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on defence and to remind the nation that there are no better hands for the Department of Defence and its fighting men and women than the coalition, those on this side of the House. It is interesting to reflect that 1,600 questions have been asked during question time and, out of those, only one has been asked to me, by the member for Batman, on defence—just one. So let's be very up-front: those opposite are not interested in substantive matters of defence and national security. They are interested in politics, plain and simple.

The Leader of the Opposition has jumped on this like a rabid dog to a bone, despite the Leader of the Opposition being at the cabinet table when $16 billion was ripped out of defence. I wonder what the Leader of the Opposition said around that cabinet table. Perhaps he was too busy worrying about who he was going to backstab. So let's see this confected outrage for what it is. It comes from an opposition leader who is directionless.

The Minister for Defence, to his credit, has come out this morning and apologised for the comments that he made in the heat of the moment. I think it is reasonable to say that a rhetorical flourish is hardly reason for dismissal of a minister let alone a matter of public importance in the House. But if Labor wants to have a debate and if the member for Hunter, who has just turned up, wants to have a debate, let's have it. Let's not forget that those opposite had 16 ministerial reshuffles in the defence portfolio in six years. That is one every five months. The member for Hunter was removed for breaking the ministerial code of conduct. That is a fact. So if those opposite want to talk about the strengths of defence portfolio ministers they should be wary of the winding road and the red or blue tablet that you take.

I think it is reasonable to say that the Labor Party are directionless when it comes to the issue of defence. Arguments that seek to whitewash their shame, their inadequacy and their history of doing nothing will not wash in here. So let's put the facts on the table when it comes to defence in South Australia, because the facts and the truth, Member for Batman, will truly set you free.

This year the government will spend $34 million in South Australia on the Future Submarine program, building our competencies and knowledge base in cooperation with industry. Over the next four years, in anticipation of the defence white paper, $4.2 billion will be spent in South Australia. This year alone, almost $1 billion worth of defence procurement and sustainment work is being undertaken in South Australia. In fact, 25 per cent of all sustainment across the nation is South Australian. That state is seriously punching above its weight on numbers, to its credit. There are 44 separate acquisition projects, including: the air warfare destroyer program; support for and upgrade of the P3 Orions; and upgrades to the Anzac class frigates and the army's communications systems.

South Australia is also home to some 58 separate sustainment programs, including the sustainment of Collins and the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar. In February this year, the PM announced that Australia will acquire eight P8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft that will be based at RAAF Base Edinburgh in South Australia. The government will consider four additional P8As as part of the defence white paper process. There are enormous opportunities for industry and jobs in South Australia. Businesses in that state stand to benefit by as much as $1 billion through the construction of facilities at Edinburgh and elsewhere to meet the requirements.

In March this year, the Prime Minister announced the government had committed to the acquisition of the highly capable Triton UAV. This will also be based in Adelaide, South Australia, bringing significant further economic benefits. The acquisition will require approximately $140 million worth of new facilities, $100 million of which will be invested in South Australia. Support requirements for Triton will create a further $20 million worth in opportunities annually for businesses in South Australia. In March, the Prime Minister announced a contract that includes $78 million in work for BAE in South Australia, part of a five-year multimillion dollar contract with Boeing for the sustainment of the Wedgetail.

As you can see, there is an enormous amount of work that goes to South Australia. There is a plan for shipbuilding, and there is a plan for shipbuilding in South Australia. There are management issues. There is no question about that when it comes to our fleet of ships. There is a reform strategy for the air warfare destroyer project, a gift from those opposite two years late and up to $600 million over budget. There is nothing like fiscal gifts from the Labor Party!

In June, the government committed a further $78.2 million to accelerate work on the future frigate that will keep alive the option of building future frigates in Australia—another gift, legacy and disgrace left by the Labor Party. Be in no doubt—the nation should be in no doubt at all—that there is a huge budget being spent on defence work in South Australia.

The substance of this motion is fraudulent. We know it, the House knows it and the member for Batman knows it. Let's not forget the without-precedent and baseless slur in Senator Conroy's attack on Lieutenant General Campbell. Senator Conroy is the shadow minister for defence. He accused a three-star general, one of the most senior military officers in the country, of running a political cover-up. What did the leader of the opposition do? Nothing. The shadow minister for defence accused an outstanding, credentialled three-star general of a cover-up, and the Leader of the Opposition turned his back. Did he demand an apology from Conroy? No. Did he censure Conroy? No. Did he demand Conroy make public statements? No, he turned his back.

And what did the member for Batman do about that? On 27 February this year, during an interview with Peter van Onselen on Sky, this issue was raised. The member for Batman said of the matter that it was sufficient for Senator Conroy to withdraw his remarks—it was sufficient. That was the member for Batman's view—that it was sufficient that Senator Conroy just withdraw his remarks after saying to a three star general: 'This is a cover-up'.

Yet today, clearly, the Minister for Defence publicly apologising and making a statement in the Senate is not good enough. It is good enough for Senator Conroy but not good enough for anyone else. Do you know what that is called? It is called hypocrisy. It is called hypocrisy—writ large. It is called a whitewash too. It is called a brood of vipers. It is called hypocrisy.

If we want to talk about hypocrisy, if we want to unpack hypocrisy from the Labor Party, the list is long. I refer to a publication, The Little Book of Labor's Defence Backflips, that goes through about 30 of them in nauseating detail. Let us look at them. Prime Minister Rudd sent an adviser to the national security cabinet. Prime Minister Gillard sent her bodyguard to the national security cabinet. Defence spending reached the lowest level of GDP since 1938. On 38 occasions, Labor ministers promised three per cent growth in the Defence budget, and what did we get? $16 billion worth of cuts. You did not even come close, did you? You missed it by this much!

You promised, before 2007, to index DFRDB pensions. How did that go? It went nowhere! In fact, this side of the House tried to pass private members' bills, as well as using other processes of the House. There were three attempts. And what did you do? You broke the promise. You promised to build 12 family health clinics. How many did you build? None. You promised to look after Defence personnel—and then you tried to take travel away from 21,000 of them. You decided in 2013 to have a white paper, and all you had was some dross you served up with a $150,000 backdrop of jets, fighters and other defence gear. Your 2012-13 budget delayed and cancelled capability—a 34 per cent reduction in Defence Capability Plan funding and over 40 per cent of DCP projects impacted by cuts. Despite all that, the Labor Party has the temerity, the audacity, the blatant effrontery to come in here and demand that we remove an effective defence minister. Hypocrisy, my friend. Hypocrisy is your name.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today as the member for the electorate in which the Australian Submarine Corporation is located. I rise to say squarely to the Prime Minister: this defence minister must go. The comments yesterday were the most reckless and insulting remarks you could imagine from a defence minister, but they were not isolated. They were just the latest in a series of slip-ups, broken promises, blunders and other acts of sheer incompetence by this fellow who has clearly—it is now absolutely clear—been promoted above his ability.

You do not have to take it just from the member for Batman, from me or from other speakers on this side of the House, because colleague after colleague on the government benches are lining up to say this defence minister is a joke. Some of them are doing it on the record. Every South Australian MP, with the exception of the member for Sturt, has stood up in the media, put their name to it and said that his comments were hopeless. They have disassociated themselves from his comments—except for the member for Sturt, who refuses to do that.

We have just seen another audition, this time from the assistant minister. He is but one of a series of frontbenchers—most of whom do it by backgrounding, not putting their name to it—lining up like Tonya Harding to take this defence minister out at the knees, because they have picked up the smell of blood. The member for Bass is up there because he knows that if the assistant minister moves up then he moves up to be a parliamentary secretary. You can tell it—right up to the back. The furthest back of the backbenchers have picked up the smell of blood. They know this guy is hanging in the breeze—but not the Prime Minister, apparently.

The Prime Minister is dreadfully happy with this chap. He thinks he is doing an outstanding job. He has his full confidence. He is quite happy to see a minister stand up and disparage, in the other place, the skills of some of the most highly skilled tradesmen and tradeswomen in this country who are building and sustaining some of the most important naval assets this country has—our submarines and our air warfare destroyers.

Before I get to some of those policy issues that the member for Batman has so skilfully outlined, consider the human impact. There are 3,000 workers at the Australian Submarine Corporation, mainly in South Australia but also in Western Australia. Thousands of those workers have had their capacity, their lifelong skills, impugned by this defence minister. They rightly regard themselves as having some of the best skills in this country, but they are also intensely proud to be part of the nation's defence apparatus, building and sustaining incredibly important naval assets. You have to ask yourself—even the member for Bass, I am sure, will ask himself—how does that make those families feel? How does that make the proud community of Port Adelaide feel?

I will not talk about that. Instead I will quote Andrew Daniels, who is an Australian Submarine Corporation worker—has been for years. He is a proud worker with amazing skills. He said this yesterday in the media:

We're being trashed. When I go home to my family and this guy—

the defence minister—

is telling me I'm useless ... I don't feel useless and that's pretty gutting to 3,000 workers in South Australia and Western Australia. It's not a great feeling to have your Defence Minister, you're out there doing your best job for the country and he's trashing you.

He is trashing them and that is not good. This minister does not even have the grace to apologise properly.

The Prime Minister in question time today said this minister had apologised and withdrawn his remarks. That is just not true. The only person I have heard this minister apologise to in the last 24 hours is the Liberal Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, Steven Marshall, who—as the member for Batman said—thinks that this defence minister has pretty much satisfied the criteria for resignation or sacking. He said this minister's position was 'untenable'. And it is untenable. Any veneer of objectivity in the extremely important job of deciding that next generation of submarines project has utterly gone now. This minister is clearly committed to giving these jobs overseas to Japan. He must go or be sacked.

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

There you have it! Getting lessons from Labor on ministerial accountability is a bit like getting lesson on ethics from Eddie Obeid, or lessons from Stephen Smith about how to treat ADFA commandants, or lessons from Stephen Conroy on how to treat Lieutenant-Generals in Senate estimates, or lessons from Kevin Rudd on team building perhaps. So thank you for those lessons.

What this MPI reveals is that Labor remains in a miasma of denial. They are damned by their own record of the most appalling dysfunction during six years of Labor and Labor-Greens government—and not just dysfunction but destruction of the Defence portfolio.

We heard the member for Fadden talk about 16 reshuffles. Labor had three defence ministers during their six years. I know that, because I worked to all three of them. We had the member for Hunter, who did not serve his turn; he left after admitting he did not comply with the ministerial code of conduct. We had Senator Faulkner, who left 12 months later—very soon after Kevin Rudd had been politically knifed by the current Leader of the Opposition. We had Stephen Smith, who spent most of his tenure manning the ATM, scratching the fiscal itch; whenever Penny Wong and Wayne Swan called for it he would ring up the Defence ATM and hand over the dollars—$16 billion of defence funding. So when you come into this place and you talk about ministerial accountability, pause for a moment and reflect on your record.

I remember the member for Hunter and the Cessnock conference—the grand bargain between Defence and the Labor government of the day. It was reliant on government providing real increases in the defence budget of three per cent between 2009 and 2017-18; 2.2 per cent beyond 2017-18 to 2030—and they said they would give them a deal on indexation. Then they said to Defence: 'Your part of this grand bargain is to come up with $20 billion of internal savings'—about eight to 10 per cent of their budget, year on year. Yet here they are complaining about 4.4 per cent from the ABC, and they impose 10 per cent on Defence, year on year, for a decade.

But the combined effects of those two things—government investment in defence and the $20 billion in savings—was meant to deliver something called Force 2030—do you remember that? It was 12 submarines the famous Rudd-pluck of 12 submarines, determined on the back of the same envelope that the NBN plan was written on. It is little wonder that the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has referred to the defence budget under that mob as an unsustainable mess.

I listened with incredulity earlier today when the Leader of the Opposition had the temerity to come into this place and talk about submarines. In six years they failed to progress SEA 1000; six years, and not even first pass approval; no contracts or key milestones achieved; no meaningful work at all.

Ms Butler interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith is interjecting from outside of her place in this chamber.

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

Cost overruns on the Air Warfare Destroyer of plus-$360 million, and two years overdue. So, if you want to talk about legacies, I love talking about Labor's legacy when it comes to defence.

Labor's approach to defence projects was all about delay and obfuscation. It was about insufficient resources. It was about constantly changing plans. Who can ever forget that wonderful campaign promise by the former Leader of the Labor Party, Kevin Rudd, to move the entire Navy from Garden Island to Brisbane? Can we all remember that? If that is not ministerial irresponsibility, I do not know what is.

The results of Labor's inaction on things like the submarine project are plain for all to see: the potential for the Collins class submarines to reach the end of their usable life when the new subs are not ready. That is called a capability gap, and that is a capability gap that you cannot fill easily. The Leader of the Opposition says: 'If we were in government, here is what we would do with all these projects'. Well, you had six years, and what did you do? You ruined this country economically, diplomatically and militarily. So spare us your sanctimonious lectures. Admit your considerable failings and get out of our way as we fix your mess. (Time expired)

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Talk about 'spare us the sanctimonious lectures'! Not once did the speaker mention the minister's name, and this is all about the performance, or the lack thereof, of the Minister for Defence.

What we saw last night and over the past 24 hours from the Minister for Defence is absolutely outrageous. His comments were a complete kick in the guts to the highly skilled and dedicated workers of the AFC—and not just the AFC; a range of industries support the AFC in South Australia. There are hundreds and hundreds of workers in industries throughout South Australia who were supporting those workers. What the minister did last night was kick them in the guts. We heard from the former speaker about what it actually felt like to be one of those workers, to hear the minister's view of those workers. It is absolutely outrageous. It is complete kick in the guts and a complete insult.

Australia expects more from its defence minister. Australia expects more, particularly when we are dealing with capability that is incredibly significant for the nation's security. And we are talking about jobs that are incredibly significant for the nation's security—3,000 South Australian workers, and what did he do to them last night? He gave them a significant kick in the guts. And it is not just them; it is also the families of these people that go, each day, and do great work in supporting capability to defend our nation

What do you think those families thought when those people came home? It is absolutely outrageous. And, as the member for Batman said, what about the families of those submariners who are out there serving the country, defending our nation, doing it tough away from their families? Imagine how their mothers felt; imagine how their fathers felt; imagine how their brothers and sisters felt when they heard that the organisation that is there to support the capability that they are serving the nation in could not build a canoe. How outrageous were those comments from the minister. How insulting. What a kick in the guts to workers.

This minister has form on this. We have seen what he has done in terms of ADF pay and conditions—cutting ADF pay and conditions so that the pay deal that has been offered by this minister and this government is below inflation. It means that these people are expected to basically take a pay cut. And it is not just that. It is the cut to conditions that is even more insulting—hard-fought-for conditions after many, many years. These include cuts to recreation leave, cuts to Christmas leave and cuts to opportunities for families who have not seen each other throughout the year to get together. That has all gone as a result of what this minister and this government has done in the outrageous pay deal—the slap in the face that you have delivered through the ADF pay deal and the cut to conditions, as well.

You have until 1 December to turn back this ridiculous decision. We have been calling on you to reverse this decision and to reverse these cuts to pay and conditions. The ADF community has been calling on you to do it. We have been calling on you to do it. Are you going to make a reversal of that decision by 1 December? Time is running out, everyone. Are you listening to your constituents? Are you listening to the ADF members in your electorates? Are you listening to the families and the children of those ADF members? They are outraged. What they are most outraged by is the fact that they see this as them being part of collateral damage when the real target is cuts to pay and conditions for public servants. These guys just see themselves as, absolutely, collateral damage in the real quest to cut the conditions and pay for public servants. You have until 1 December to reverse the decision. Reverse that decision, listen to your constituents, listen to the ADF members, listen to the families and listen to the children of those families.

On the weekend—although I do not know whether those opposite actually took any notice—there was a major rally in Townsville. Two hundred people turned out—ADF members in civilian clothes, ADF family members and parents of ADF members. They were absolutely outraged at what you have done on this. They are going to maintain the fight. The DFWA is going to maintain the fight. The RSL is going to maintain the fight. ADF members and their families right across Australia are going to maintain the fight. And we will maintain the fight to ensure that ADF members and their families get decent pay and conditions.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to be able to participate in this debate, moved by the good member for Batman, on sacking ministers. The member for Batman has a lot of form in not only sacking ministers but actually sacking prime ministers. So we should go back: we are now a little over 12 months in to cleaning up the mess from the worst, most incompetent and most dysfunctional government in our nation's history. Across every portfolio, every minister that has come into their portfolio has had an absolutely diabolical mess to clean up.

I would like to, perhaps, pose the question: which minister has inherited the greatest mess and has had the greatest problems with what they have had to clean up? I will start with the Treasurer. We should remember that the past financial year was the year that the budget was meant to be in surplus. We can remember the former Treasurer standing at the dispatch box and saying 'the four years of surpluses I announce tonight' and 'this budget delivers a surplus'. Well, we know what happened. There was no surplus; there was a deficit—a $48 billion deficit. Then we could look at the Minister for Small Business. What was the mess that he inherited? There are 500,000 fewer jobs in the small business sector and 3,000 fewer small businesses employing people after this mess. Or perhaps we could look at the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has been trying to clean up the debacle of a previous minister whose main concerns were about whether he had silk pyjamas, about traveling first class or about the quality of the meal in business class. Or we could look at the Minister for Communications. He had to clean up the mess of the NBN, with a catastrophic blow-out of $29 billion. Or perhaps we could look at the Minister for Education and the mess that he has had to clean up. Under Labor's reign, according to the World Economic Forum, our educational standards in this country slipped from eighth in the world all the way back to 23rd. And then we have the ministers for industry and the environment. They have had to clean up the mess of the carbon tax, which put Australia's industry at a competitive disadvantage. And then, of course, the minister for immigration could also challenge for the award.

Mr Champion interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Interjecting from outside of your place in this chamber, member for Wakefield, is very disorderly.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fifty thousand arrivals, 800 illegal boats, 1,000 more deaths—this is the mess that has been carried out. But of all the portfolios the ministry has had to clean up, I think the Minister for Defence has had the most difficult job. Let's go through the mess that the Defence minister has had to inherit and has had to clean up.

Mr Champion interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wakefield! It is disorderly to interject outside of your place in this chamber.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had the previous Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, promise a three per cent annual increase in Defence spending. What did they deliver? Sixteen billion dollars worth of cuts. You come in here and you cry these crocodile tears when you were responsible for $16 billion worth of cuts from Defence. You reduced Defence expenditure in this nation to the lowest level since 1938, when Neville Chamberlain stood up and said, 'There will be peace in our time'. That is how you reduced Defence expenditure in this country. In your last budget, you slashed Defence expenditure by 10 per cent.

You come in here and cry these crocodile tears and you march in the streets about a 4.6 per cent cut to the ABC. Where were you people when you were cutting 10 per cent from Defence? Nowhere to be seen. This is the mess we have inherited. This is the mess our Defence minister, Senator Johnston, has inherited. What a debacle. Not only that, we have an obligation to pay the interest on the debt that this mob ran up. Every single month we must pay $1 billion in interest. One billion dollars every single month goes out to pay the interest on the debt this mob created.

This MPI will go for one hour. In that time, because of the debt this mob have run up, we must find as a nation $1.5 million in interest. It is an absolute mess. We are working to clean it up and every minister in this place is doing a good job and has my support. (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Batman. Last year the Minister for Defence, Senator Johnston, said on 8 May 2013: 'We will deliver those submarines from right here at ASC in South Australia.' He said, 'The coalition today is committed to building 12 new submarines here in Adelaide.' It was no slip of the tongue. It was said very deliberately, because the submarine contract mattered to South Australia in the period leading up to the election. It was indeed a key South Australian federal election issue. The minister at the time knew that and made that commitment in order to try to win votes in South Australia.

It is interesting, as we debate this, that there is not a South Australian Liberal member of parliament here in the chamber to support the workers of South Australia. I remind those South Australian federal Liberal MPs that we on this side of the House will remind the voters of South Australia—right through to the next election—about the commitment made by Minister Johnston in 2013. They can rest assured of that. We will remind them, because it is another broken promise of the Abbott government for South Australia.

On top of having had the auto industry shafted, South Australians see this issue as even more important now than it was in 2013. The Abbott government is now trying to shift the promise from 'We will build the submarines in South Australia,' to 'The work will be centred around South Australia.' We heard the word 'centred' used by the Prime Minister today in answer to a question from me and others on this side of the House.

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

It is deceitful!

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Batman said, it is deceitful, because the words were 'We will build them there.' It is part of their mantra and it will not wash with the people of South Australia. Even worse—and quite disgracefully—the minister has now embarked on a narrative of trashing the ASC in South Australia. First, he said it will cost $60 billion to $80 billion to build the submarines in South Australia—without ever giving any figures or discussing the matter with them—and then he talked about the disgraceful mess regarding the Air Warfare Destroyer program, knowing full well that most of the reasons for the cost blow-out were matters beyond the control of the ASC.

Yesterday, when he said, 'Do you wonder why I wouldn't trust them to build a canoe here?' he simply went too far. The comments are insulting, they are ignorant, they are ill informed and they offend the thousands of workers of that industry—workers, engineers and designers—who know that is simply not true. The problem is, he will not even commit to an open-tender process. If he were a fair minister on this issue why would he not commit to an open-tender process and allow everyone to put in their bids?

I will quickly go to another matter. Last year, the Prime Minister visited Japan in April. In June, the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, and the Defence minister went to Japan. In August, the Prime Minister of Japan visited Australia. Also in August a Japanese delegation visited the ASC facilities, in South Australia, for undisclosed purposes. It may be just coincidence, but it begs the question: what backroom deals were done by the Prime Minister to secure the Japan-Australia free trade agreement, and was the submarine contract part of those deals?

This is indeed a serious matter. It goes to the heart of Australia's national security. It commits Australia to tens of billions of dollars of government expenditure and it affects the jobs of thousands of Australians. Most importantly, it is critical to Australia's Defence manufacturing capability. Senator Johnston, not just through his comments yesterday but also through a series of actions since the election, has shown himself to be incompetent. He is now a lame-duck Defence minister.

The future of Australia's national security is far too important to be entrusted to a defenceless minister, and the Prime Minister should cut him adrift. That is what this motion seeks to do. I assure members opposite that I have had emails from people in South Australia who are as outraged about the minister's comments as we are on this side of the House. The Prime Minister should take note of what people are saying out there in the community.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to talk about this matter of public importance, and I am quite happy to do so.

An opposition member: Tell us about David Johnston!

I will get to the minister in a minute, member for Batman. The Labor Party are all about political point-scoring. Their MPI debates, their 90-second statements and their constituency statements are all negative. There is nothing positive. On this side of the House we are very positive about the Australian Defence Force.

Mr Champion interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wakefield—

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We heard from the member for Batman. He got up on this MPI and said the reason the Defence minister needs to go is that he has not made enough speeches. Member for Batman: it is not about speeches, mate, it is about performance. That is what counts here.

The member for Port Adelaide got up and said, 'This minister's got slip-ups in incompetence.' Then he went on a rant that was totally unfounded. The member for Canberra—who has decided to leave and not even stick around for the rest of the debate—gets up and wants to go on about ADF pay and conditions, yet she was a member of the previous government that saw the biggest fiscal turnaround in this country since federation in 1901.

We left them with billions in the bank. They racked up billions in debt. We have $1 billion a month that we are repaying in debt. And she wants to go on about ADF pay and conditions. Well, she should have thought of that before she spent a truck load of money and left all these people up here in the gallery, and every other Australian, with a heap of debt.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: can I seek clarification as to whether the member said 'Johnson' or 'Johnston'?

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. In fact it is disorderly, and the member for Hunter should know that.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Makin spoke about South Australian members and so forth. Well, defence affects all members of this parliament. Defence affects all Australians. He wants to give us advice on defence acquisitions. Well, on this side of the House we take advice from the minister; and also from the assistant minister, the member for Fadden, who had a distinguished career in the Defence Force; and also from the member for Bass, who spoke on this MPI today, who was a distinguished brigadier in the Defence Force and sits on our defence backbench committee. I am quite happy to take recommendations from those members on our side of the parliament.

Opposition members interjecting—

The Labor Party are negative. I am quite happy to talk about the Minister for Defence. I judge people by what I see when I meet them. I have spoken to the Minister for Defence on several occasions and I believe he is passionate about the ADF and believes Australia needs to have a strong Defence Force. Let's look at what the minister said today in the Senate. He said: 'The frustrations of successive governments with the performance of both the Collins class sustainment and the AWD program are well documented. I am committed to leading the effort to fix our problems. I did express my frustrations in the past performance of ASC—

Opposition members interjecting—

Listen up, 'shadow minister'. He said: 'In these comments I never intended to cause offence and regret that offence may have been taken.' But that is not good enough for the opposition because they are Mr and Mrs Negativity. What is Labor's record on defence? We have heard it from other members, and I will not go into it all again, but we know that they launched a defence white paper and then cut $16 billion out of defence. Many new members are sitting around me here. We made the decision to run for our seats in parliament because of your past performance, because of the cuts that you made to defence and the many, many things that you did—and you have the gall to come in here and raise this in an MPI debate. Under Labor, defence spending dropped to 1.56 per cent, the lowest since 1938. We have made a commitment to invest in defence. We will continue to do so and ensure taxpayers' money is spent well. (Time expired)

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In World War II they had posters that said 'Loose lips sink ships', and we have got a defence minister with the loosest lips in the history of the Federation! Unfortunately, this is all part of the form of the Liberal Party, who have been undermining the Collins class submarine, one of the best diesel electric submarines in the world, since the 1990s. In the 1990s they went after the then Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, who is now the Australian Ambassador to the United States, in a totally partisan attack. They went after the Collins class submarine to undermine the then Leader of the Opposition. And now they are after the Collins class submarine again, they are after the ASC again, they are after workers again.

They have got form on this. This is no mere 'rhetorical flourish' as it was described by the defence minister this morning on 891 ABC. This minister is a blackguard. He is out to get workers, he is out to get the Collins class submarine, he is out to get the ASC and he is out to get South Australia. Loose lips sink ships. The minister is sinking fast because he tried to attack national institutions and he tried to attack workers. He was a bit too smart, a bit too full on, a bit too hot headed in the Senate yesterday. And what do we see? All of this damage. And what do you lot do? There is not one South Australian in the room. We have to roll out these Tasmanians to defend the minister—and even they do not mention the minister's name!

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will tell you what South Australians think. The Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, Mr Marshall, says the minister's position is untenable and he should resign. Mr Briggs, the member for Mayo, says he is wrong. Senator Birmingham says there are no excuses for the behaviour, no excuses for the language. Mr Southcott said Senator Johnston's comments were 'deeply regrettable, unhelpful and wrong'. Even Senator Edwards—who let me tell you sticks with the Liberal Party through thick and thin; I have been on the receiving end of some of his campaigning—says there should be an open tender and he has full confidence in the workers at ASC. And in The Australian the 'unknown' Liberals say that it is bizarre, breathtaking, stupid. That is what they say about this minister—'bizarre, breathtaking, stupid'.

We know that there are some good Liberals around the place. I beat one of them in 2007. His name is David Fawcett. He is the bloke who should be defence minister. He knows more about defence than all of you. It is a great pity that he is not in the chamber today—well, it is not such a pity; I am glad he is in the Senate! He should be defence minister. He has called for an open tender. He knows how damaging this minister is, he knows how important this submarines decision is and he knows how good the Collins class submarine is. But it is not just all of us in this debate. Hugh White, from the ANU, said the minister could not actually articulate the reasons why we are in Iraq. That is what Hugh White says. Jim Molan went on the Bolt Report and praised everybody but the minister. When Andrew Bolt said, You seem to be pointing to the minister, David Johnston.' He said, 'Well I do not really want to go into that. I will say what I need to say privately.' That is what is going on. We know what he said. We know this minister is absent from the national security council. He is cutting pay. And we know he is a loose lipped minister. He is a foolish minister. He is a hot-headed minister.

The Prime Minister has to choose between this foolish idiot as a Defence minister and workers, the national interest, our sub mariners, the ASC, shipbuilding workers and the national institution. He has to choose between an incompetent minister and the national interest. That is the choice here. None of you have done a particularly good job of defending Minister Johnston because you all know loose lips sink ships. Johnson has to go.

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The sheer hypocrisy of this MPI. All this MPI succeeds in doing is highlighting the double standards shown by the opposition when it comes to deciding what is deemed worthy in regards to sacking someone. The nerve of those opposite to talk about witness protection programs. Let's talk about your witness protection programs.

We have all heard of Craig Thomson, who is currently awaiting sentencing for fraud with 65 convictions. We talk about 'loose lips sink ships'. Craig Thompson is a classic example of 'those in glass houses should not throw stones'. What about Peter Slipper? Those opposite in the Labor Party supported someone who forged documents to line his own pockets, effectively stealing from taxpayers. What did those opposite do? They did the same thing they did for Craig Thomson—they defended him at every opportunity.

When it comes to sacking people, Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, has been very keen to sack people. He stabbed in the back poor Julia and he stabbed in the back poor Kevin. I have never seen a union hack so keen on the idea of unfair dismissal. What a wonderful example the former member for Dobell and the opposition have set for the hypocrisy of today's MPI subject.

This MPI is also a chance to highlight the lack of interest shown in Defence by the opposition when previously in government. No investment in Defence spelt 1.56 per cent of the GDP. The year 2012-13 was the lowest level of Defence funding since 1938. I would like to point out which Prime Minister was in charge during this disgusting abandonment of our Defence portfolio but it is just too confusing because during the time of the chaos there were two Prime Ministers, three Deputy Prime Minister's—the list goes on.

But we are all aware that on the opposition's watch the 10.5 per cent cut in the 2012-13 budget was the biggest since the Korean conflict. And another example of the opposition's refusal to sack a member of their party would be their highly unsuccessful border protection policies. Was the Minister for Immigration sacked when on his watch more than 50,000 illegals arrived and more than 800 boats? Were moves made to sack any member of the opposition when Labor's failed border protection policies caused a budget blow-out of $11 billion? What about when tragically 1,100 drownings occurred at sea on Labor's watch? The list goes on and on.

Another fine example of the hypocrisy of calling for the sack of our hard-working minister—and I will name him, David Johnston—is the opposition's failure to make decisions. Six years is how long the opposition failed to make a decision on the protection capability of our country. And that is as long as it takes for a student to go from year 7 to year 12 in high school. This was six years of jobs uncertainty, six years of empty promises and Defence spending cuts. Perhaps the opposition should look at its own failures and mess before trying to create make-believe stories about issues and policy they obviously know nothing about, proven by their failures during their time in government. But luckily for the Australian people, the Abbott government takes Defence and national security seriously. More importantly, Australian people now have a Minister for Defence—and I will name him again, David Johnston—who understands how critical a strong Defence Force is for our nation.

Instead of sitting around twiddling thumbs and staring at ageing ships in need of replacement, we are taking steps to ensure our Navy is properly equipped and providing the Australian shipbuilding industry with a long-term strategic direction it lacked during the years under Labor's rule. Instead of stripping nearly $20 billion out of the future submarine program, we are concentrating on an affordable and deliverable plan to ensure that the huge national investment in a viable defence capability is done properly. The coalition is ensuring that Australia has the military capability to deter threats and to protect our forces in our neighbourhood.

The vital need for a strong credible Defence approach is even more important to me since observing Operation Resolute earlier this year. It was there that I witnessed first-hand the outstanding job that our men and women do in our armed services. Having observed and been part of Operation Resolute, I am in awe of the professionalism, commitment and dedication of the men and women tasked to protect our borders. This is why I am proud to be part of a government which makes the right decisions for the right reasons. (Time expired)

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

I seek leave to move an extension on the member for Dobell's time so, unlike the other speakers, she can name David Johnston one more time.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter does not have a point of order. The standing orders describes the matter of public importance for one hour and it is over time now. The discussion has concluded.