Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The continuing consequences of the last Labor Government's defence spending cuts.

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

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

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to 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.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where does responsibility start?

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

That's right; it's the Deputy Prime Minister and his rather lacklustre industry minister in support. We are going to hold you to account. We're going to ensure the Australian people are secured and we're going to make sure this Albanese government is relentlessly mission focused on delivering submarines that are capable of defending this generation and the generations of Australians to come.

Opposition members interjecting—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are we finished with the interjections from the opposition benches?

Please, Member for Riverina!

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

THISTLETHWAITE (—) (): I want to, firstly, pay tribute to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force and let them know that every member of the Albanese government highly values and respects the role they play in defending our nation.

Australia faces some of the most challenging strategic circumstances since World War II. The government takes that threat very seriously. We're acting to ensure the Australian Defence Force has the capability and the personnel to ensure the security and wellbeing of all Australians. That's what the Australian people expect of their government, and that is what the Albanese government is delivering. That's why we've commissioned the Defence Strategic Review and the nuclear submarine taskforce, to advise government about delivering the necessary defence capability to defend our nation as quickly as possible and in a fiscally responsible manner. Just as Labor supported the then government, in opposition, when they announced AUKUS, we hope the opposition will support the Albanese government in making the necessary defence investments into the future to give the ADF the capability it needs to defend Australia into the future.

When it comes to national security and defence, the Australian people expect unity and cooperation from this parliament. It's a shame that, through this MPI, the opposition appears more interested in politics than in that unity and cooperation on national security. They're well and truly stuck in the past, if you have a look at the motion. They're talking about something that happened close to 20 years ago, yet they want to forget what happened over the last decade under their watch. They're playing politics, and the claims in the motion are simply untrue. They want to ignore the last decade of defence debacles under their government. Under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments, not only did we have seven defence ministers in the nine years they were in government; the result was 28 different defence projects running a cumulative total of 97 years over time. It's the coalition century of chaos, and it resulted in some of these projects reducing the capability of the Defence Force.

You don't have to believe me when I make these claims; we need only look at what the opposition defence spokesperson said himself on 31 October: 'Yes, we squandered a lot of opportunity through leadership changes. It created ministerial churn, which led to inertia institutionally, and I think it meant we delayed a lot of these decisions. Defence had too many ministers over a nine-year period. It's been a criticism, and I think it's a valid one.' Well, you got that right, champion—for sure you sure got that right! But it was not just you.

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

Deputy Speaker—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think I need to hear this point of order. I think I'm going to pre-empt that and say you need to address members by their correct titles.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I shall.

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

Good on you, cobber.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the interjections likewise—that was you, Member for Petrie, and I heard it.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sit down, please.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will you withdraw your interjection?

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't interject. I was standing on a point of order. I didn't interject at all, Deputy Speaker.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I heard an interjection. If it wasn't you, it was one of your colleagues behind you. Alright, no-one's prepared to own up. You might as well tell us what you want at the dispatch box. What's your point of order? What is it?

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is that the assistant minister direct his comments through the chair, not to the shadow defence minister.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Right. Sit down, please.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition also agreed to this, when he said, with Raf Epstein on 15 August this year:

I wish that we could have acquired more capability within Defence earlier …

And he's right. These significant projects that the former government messed up have resulted in a number of projects running over budget and beyond time. The $44 billion Hunter Class Frigate Program: start of construction delayed by four years and a $15 billion increase in expected costs. They tried to hide that from the public. The C-27J Spartan battlefield airlifters were delivered 4½ years behind schedule and are unable to fly into battlefields. The $3.7 billion offshore patrol vessels project is running one year behind schedule. The evolved Cape class patrol boats are also nearly a year late. The battlefield command system is three years behind schedule. And several defence satellite communications projects are running two to four years behind schedule. Then, of course, we have the submarine debacle: three different prime ministers, three different submarine projects, which only ended up in delaying Australia acquiring that important capability and left Australians vulnerable. Three different prime ministers, seven different defence ministers—chaos in defence acquisition under their time in government.

Once again, it will be up to Labor to clean up the mess left by the former government when it comes to defence acquisition. Just as the Hawke government set the strategic direction for a generation with the Dibb review, so, too, will this Albanese government with the Defence Strategic Review. But we're not waiting for that capability to come into the future. We're acting to put in place measures to fix the mess that was put in place by the former government. We're establishing an independent projects and portfolio management office within Defence; establishing monthly reports on projects of concern and projects of interest to the ministers for defence and defence industry; establishing formal processes of early warning criteria for placing projects on the concern list; fostering a culture in Defence of raising attention for emerging problems and encouraging/enabling early responses; and providing troubled projects with extra resources and skills. They are the changes that the new government is making in defence acquisition to ensure that we avoid the mistakes and the debacles of the previous government that left Australia vulnerable when it comes to our defence forces.

But it's not just about capability. Importantly, Labor will invest in the members of the Australian Defence Force. Over the course of this government, we will grow the Australian Defence Force—in the military, in the reserves and in the civilian workforce—to ensure that we have the best trained, best equipped defence force in the world. I want to pay tribute to those Australians that are currently in the United Kingdom that are training Ukrainian soldiers. If you ever want an affirmation of the skills, dedication and competence of the Australian Defence Force, look no further than the request made by the Ukrainian government to have our soldiers pass on their expertise to their brave soldiers who are going into battle—many of them are civilians who have never had defence training in the past—and we pay tribute to them.

But it's not just about recruitment. It's also about ensuring that members of the Defence Force are supported during their honourable careers serving our nation. That's why, recently, this government improved the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme—improving the eligibility—to provide more support for defence members and their families and to ensure that they feel supported in their career in the Australian Defence Force. Not only is it important to support our service personnel during their active service, but it's also equally important to support them when they leave the Australian Defence Force. One of the most disgraceful policy failures of the former government was the staff cuts and the staff cap that they introduced in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That has led to a massive backlog of DVA cases, which has resulted, unfortunately, in mental health issues, depression and, in some circumstances, suicides, as identified by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

As the new government, one of the first actions we took was to remove that disgraceful and arbitrary cap that was put on the DVA—the people who were dealing with and actively processing claims to support members who'd been injured in their service. We removed that staff cap. We're employing an additional 500 staff to ensure the DVA has the resources it needs to support those who've actively served our nation and who deserve the respect and support of the Australian people. We are not stuck in the past, as the opposition is on this matter of public importance. We are getting on with the job and, importantly, we are looking to the future. We are looking to ensure that the Australian Defence Force has the capability and is the best trained, the best equipped and, more importantly, the best supported defence force in the world, and that the members of the ADF will have pride in the service of our nation.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a very important issue, it gives me great pleasure to be able to rise and contribute. We were talking about time frames, and I think I'll take the time frames back a little. We'll go back to the Peloponnesian War, 411 BC, and the Thucydides effect. This is really important because, as we see, there is always a concern that the clash of two empires—as one is rising and one is falling—can inevitably bring about, through uncertainty, a move that has cataclysmic effects. I don't think the United States is falling. I think that is a huge mistake that people would make, and I think it's a mistake that has been made about the United States twice before—that being during the First World War and prior to the Second World War.

What I do believe is that it's incredibly important that we understand the uncertainties of our area. I'd go to other dates, and especially around 4 March 1942 and 7 March 1942, when the Japanese imperial command were making decisions about whether they would invade Australia. They came to the decision—it came under the terminology 'Operation FS'—that they weren't going to invade Australia; they were just going to choke us to death. They were going to starve us out, they were going to psychologically torment us, they were going to bombard us and they were going to bring us into subjugation. One of the reasons that that this was delayed was submarine interdiction, which was, basically, the destruction of supply lines that the Americans were able to deliver to the Japanese.

Why is this important? Because it drives Australian policy in such a way as to understand the pre-eminent platform that you need to secure Australia, which is submarines—nuclear submarines. And I'd like to commend the opposition—as they were at that stage—for supporting that decision for Australia to go to nuclear submarines, because it's incredibly important. Australia does not have the time to bicker or to go into an internecine debate because the threat is before us right now.

Yes—but right now. It's really important that we understand that this belittling by the government of the efforts that we both have, to try and make this nation as strong as possible, as quickly as possible, has to be taken into account.

When the Minister for Defence, day on day, comes to the dispatch box and his contribution to the defence of our nation is to belittle the combined task that we both have to make our nation as strong as possible as quickly as possible, he undermines and debases the purpose that should be part of his job. We see that Minister Wang Yi of China goes to Dili, to Port Moresby, to Kiribati and to the Solomons. He has conversations with the Cook Islands, wants to be in Fiji, and goes through the process that is exactly what the Imperial Japanese Army would have done for the encirclement of Australia. That is what is before us right now. If you don't take it seriously, if you smirk and smear with funny little grins at the back when the future of your nation is before you, then you don't understand exactly what the job is of the people on your front bench.

We have to make sure that the effort to make Australia as strong as possible as quickly as possible is not just on the military platforms. We must have baseload power. We must have the capacity at least to entertain a civil nuclear capacity with decisions and things like—if you're going to have nuclear submarines, you're going to have to have nuclear technicians, and if you're going to have nuclear technicians, you've got to consider things such as small modular reactors. You've got to have the skillsets. But if you say, 'No, the world is going to change for me. The world is going to live to different rules. I will live in splendid isolation from history and splendid isolation from the world which is so apparent around me,' then you put Australia in a confounded threat from which no great speech at this dispatch box will ever get us out of. So I commend this resolution, and I commend you to the task that is before you.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker Claydon—

Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're such a moron

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me. Withdraw that comment now, please.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I ask for interjections to cease on my right as well. Thank you, Member for Paterson.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is supposed to be a matter of public importance, and indeed it is. On that, I do agree with the opposition. However, what we've seen here today is a fractious display, a display that does a great disservice, quite frankly, not only to the good men and women who serve in the Defence Force but, indeed, to the safety and security of our nation. This is not a matter to quibble over. I'm proud to say that I am part of a government and, within that government, a defence team that is working incredibly hard to make the serious and long-term decisions for our future and for our security.

Today we've heard from the alternative defence minister harking back two years and speaking about defence in a way that does not serve our people—

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was serving—as a soldier

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I respect the opposition defence spokesperson's service to our country, and I will take the interjection that he did serve our country. I thank him for that. I've done that both privately and publicly. As members—

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. when you guys cut funding

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Petrie, you are a serial offender in this regard. I have asked members on my right to stop the interjections. I would like you to respect that ruling and also show some restraint. Thank you.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that goes right to the nub of this. This is about respect—respect for the defence forces and respect for the Australian people but, essentially, respect for the portfolio of defence in and of itself. This is not about cheap political point scoring, it is above and beyond that.

A former deputy prime minister stood and quoted Thucydides. Well, we can all read ancient history, and again the opposition wants to take us back to when we were last making decisions about defence. We made those decisions in good faith, and we appropriated the funds to see the required capabilities come to fruition. In the last 10 years, we have seen a government that has handed this portfolio around like either a prize or a punishment for someone. That, in and of itself, is a disgrace as well.

It is not about the amount of money that a government spends on defence and defending our people; it is always about capability, whether that be materiel or personnel. We've got to have the best, most well-trained people to fulfil those incredibly difficult tasks that—let's face it—most of us here in this room would not be able to stomach. But they've also got to have, if I can use Defence parlance, Gucci kit. What I see from those opposite is a lot of spraying of cash but very little kit, and let me tell you: what these people brought to Defence wasn't Gucci. It was inefficient. In some cases it could not even be used on the battlefront.

So we have conducted a review under Minister Marles, who is truly being the adult in the defence world here, and under the guidance of Angus Houston, who has served his country, and Stephen Smith, who has stood at that dispatch box as the defence minister. They are seriously reviewing our capacity to not only defend our nation but participate in the defence of a rules based order and a democratic process. We are fighting the good fight with our friends and allies across this world. We will make mature decisions. We will appropriately spend good taxpayers' money. We won't waste it, and what we won't do is politick when the people of Australia are relying on us not just for their safety but for their future.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to bring to the House's attention this MPI today and the continuing consequences of the last Labor government's defence spending cuts. This is about facts, and the facts remain that the last Labor government cut the guts out of Defence, and it affected the ability of our personnel to do their job.

The Minister for Defence Industry said today in question time that the war in Ukraine has demonstrated that we need sovereign capability, and he said:

By contrast, the Albanese government is backing … manufacturing …

The problem is that, under this minister, defence industry is in paralysis. Small and medium enterprises in defence industry right around this country are receiving nothing. Small decisions are not being made. There have been no program decisions made by this minister, the Minister for Defence Industry, since Labor came to power 10 months ago.

The member opposite whom I just quoted mentioned the war in Ukraine, but he might understand as well that, since the war in Ukraine started, there have been over one million 155-millimetre artillery rounds fired—one million rounds fired in Ukraine. So I ask the Australian government: since the war in Ukraine started, how many orders have you placed for 155-millimetre artillery shells? None. Zero. Not one order. Guess what: under our coalition government, we set up a factory in Queensland, set up as a partnership between Rheinmetall and NIOA, that produces these rounds, and this government hasn't even ordered one round, when over a million rounds have been fired in Ukraine. The problem with that is that we go right to the back of the queue, because countries right around the world, since the war in Ukraine started a year ago, have been starting to order. They understand. This government waits till after the DSR. They'll place their order— 'Oh, yes, we might deliver that in three years for you.' So we have a failure here by this government, an absolute failure. They are in paralysis, and the small and medium enterprises in defence industry have received nothing from this government. They won't meet with them, they don't attend shows, absolutely nothing—all talk.

The minister opposite comes into question time every day and acts like the question time clown. He actually tries to make jokes. What did he say today? He said that the former coalition government was the worst national security government in our nation's history. This, from the member for Corio, who, between 2007 and 2013, was guilty of cutting since 1938, as was the member for Sydney, as was the member for Grayndler, the current Prime Minister, as was the member for McEwen and as was the member for Kingsford Smith, the assistant minister, who is the only minister here today; the others couldn't be bothered to be here to listen.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am here.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sydney is here; she is on duty—sorry. In fact, they are now saying capability is paramount ahead of domestic manufacturing. That is what they're now saying. They're not just crab-walking away from their own election policy of a future made in Australia; they are running away. That's what the industry is telling me. They're absolutely running away. They have been in government for nearly a year. They squandered the last year and left medium and small enterprise businesses waiting in the wings.

The Prime Minister said today that they will receive the DSR, that Labor is big on commitment and not just announcements. But the reality is they have committed to nothing. They're not big on commitment. They haven't ordered the artillery shells that obviously we will need. Labor, when last in government, cut it to the lowest level since 1938. The Minister for Defence Industry today, when asked if he could name one naval vessel commissioned between 2017 and 2013, couldn't name one because, as the Leader of the Opposition said, there wasn't one. The last time Labor was in government, the decision to cut defence spending was simply playing Russian roulette with our nation's safety and security. I have the whole book here on what the coalition did in government. When this man is back as the defence minister one day, we will have a competent defence— (Time expired)

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

We should be debating defence and strategic issues. Our nation faces the most serious and deteriorating strategic circumstances that we have faced since World War II. That is a fact, universally agreed. On the very day that the government is receiving the Defence Strategic Review from Sir Angus Houston and Stephen Smith—the very day—the opposition choose to bring this debate. We could be debating important strategic matters such as the forced posture review, the future pathway for nuclear submarines, or exploring the policy issues.

I agree with those speakers opposite, not the last one but part of what the member for New England said and part of what the shadow minister said. I agree that these are serious issues. We should be seeking cross-party agreement. As chair of the defence subcommittee, that is what we strive to do with bipartisan reports, sensible briefings, sensible thinking. They are speaking against their own motion because the motion is new heights of bizarre. When you listen to the words in the motion they brought, they say we shouldn't be politicking yet they bring a ridiculous motion that says they want to talk about the consequences of the last Labor government. Kevin Rudd was elected 16 years ago. That is the debate they choose to bring today on this very day, given the seriousness of these issues. It says everything about how hopeless they are that they want to talk about the last Labor government 15 or 16 years ago.

I would prefer a debate about strategic policy but those opposite chose this. This is what those opposite chose to bring here—their choice. Why, you might ask. They are desperate to distract from their decade of dysfunction and dithering and delay on defence. I will quote the shadow minister, my favourite line from his 10 minutes of Churchillian-like application for the Leader of the Opposition's job one day. He drifted from defence matters into the economy to things which must underpin our prosperity. I like the wing cut collar. That is a nice touch, shadow minister. He said, 'Look forward, as you'll find no inspiration in your past.' Never truer words were spoken in relation to the opposition's record on defence. Those opposite are hoping Australians will forget that they were the government for the last 10 years, a long decade—well, nine years.

There were three prime ministers: Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison—the ATM government. And wasn't it an ATM! The cash just whirred out. There was a trillion dollars of Liberal debt and nothing much to show for it. Billions of dollars in compensation was paid for submarines that we did not get—another broken contract. There were three Treasurers, six defence ministers—you've got to go to two hands for that. I haven't had time to total up the number of ministers who churned in and out of the portfolio over their decade in office. It was chaos. They cut promised defence investments and failed to deliver projects on time. There were 28 projects running a cumulative 97 years late. Year after year on the audit committee, which I've been on, it was like goldfish: around in the bowl we go again, major projects report after major projects report.

The cover-ups! It was all announcement, no delivery. They must have run out of Australian flags for the number of announcements they made, hundreds of flags flying behind them, on billions of dollars of new investment, none of which was delivered. Too little capability is the key point here: battlefield airlifters which can't fly to a battlefield, patrol boats with substandard aluminium and rust problems. Then there were the submarines. How did the Japanese submarines go? Tony Abbott left; that stopped. How did the French submarines go? Billions of dollars were paid out when Malcolm Turnbull left. There's AUKUS—no submarines ordered. As a defence minister has said to this House, you can't take a press release onto the battlefield. You can't hold up the budget papers and say: 'Don't shoot! We haven't got any missiles yet, but they're coming in the forward estimates or sometime thereafter.'

Yes, I'm someone—a proud lefty—who says that we are going to need to spend more on defence as a percentage of GDP. The progressive side of politics must never cede national security to those opposite, given their dismal record. During the Second World War, Australians called on a Labor government, with John Curtin and Ben Chifley, to save us at that time. But it's the quality of the spend that matters. It's not how big the spend is; it's what you do with it that counts. And you deter from a position of strength.

The finance department—let's be honest—don't like defence. They say, 'You want to spend how many billions of dollars on stuff you hope you'll never use?' Well, that's the point. But if deterrence doesn't work, if the very worst happens—the absolute, ultimate failure of politics—then the men and women of the ADF deserve the very best. And that's what we're committed to giving them, in contrast to the record of those opposite. They brought this debate. It should be above politics, but they chose this. (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll say that I heard the member for Wills—and I might have misheard him—call out to the shadow minister for defence, 'Walk the walk.' If anybody has walked the walk in this place, it's this bloke behind me. He was a member of the SAS regiment, and there's no finer regiment than that. In a minute we're going to hear from the member for Herbert, another fine soldier, somebody who has represented his country. I acknowledge all members in this place—including the member for New England, who's been a reservist—for their service to our nation and in uniform.

This matter of public importance discussion is about the last Labor government's defence spending cuts. I was a member of this parliament when Labor cut the heart out of defence spending. Indeed, a production in late 2013 spelled out exactly what Labor did. Labor's defence policy—what Labor said in this particular publication—and what Labor did were two completely different things. We've heard that Labor, during those six sorry years of chaos and dysfunction, reduced the defence budget as a percentage of gross domestic product to its lowest level since 1938—and we all know what happened in 1939.

Labor's 2009 defence white paper said, 'For the first time, an Australian government has committed to funding a defence white paper for the life of the white paper.' That's what Labor said. What did Labor do? Well, it never adequately funded its own defence white paper in 2009.

In May 2009 federal Labor 'released the most comprehensive defence white paper ever produced by an Australian government'. That's at least what they said they had done. What did they do? It was a disjointed, unfunded and unmitigated disaster.

'The government remains committed to a defence budget which ensures the ADF can meet the government's operational, force posture and preparedness requirements'—that's what Labor said it was going to do. What did it actually do? It kept defence spending at historically low levels.

Federal Labor has delivered a new secure funding model for Defence, including a commitment to an average annual three per cent real growth through to 2017-18.

That's what Labor said it was going to do. After the 2012-13 budget, defence was left in an unsustainable mess. And we, as an incoming coalition government, had to fix it—like always.

The … Government is also committed to making strategic, risk-based decisions about Australia's long-term national security and defence needs.

That's what Labor said it was going to do. Labor's 2013 Defence white paper was a political document designed to whitewash over its appalling defence record in policy.

'The government remains committed to fiscal discipline and improving the sustainability of the budget'—again, that's what Labor said it was going to do. But what did Labor do? It spent at least $150,000 of taxpayers' hard-earned money to provide a backdrop for its 2013 Defence white paper.

'There is no greater responsibility for government than the defence of Australia and Australia's interests.' I agree with that statement, which Labor made in its 2010 election document. But what did Labor do? Well, I can remember Prime Minister Gillard—as much respect as I have for her—sent her bodyguard to national security meetings. And that just simply wasn't good enough.

Labor's defence policy, through the white paper, 'confirmed the centrality of the alliance relationship with the United States'. What did Labor do? Well, its budget cuts earned a rebuke from respected US statesmen at the time.

A Rudd Labor Government will maintain a generous military superannuation system, in recognition of the importance of the ADF and the immense responsibility placed on personnel in securing and defending Australia.

Again, it's what Labor said it was going to do. What did Labor do? It never fairly indexed, and will never fairly index, military superannuation pensions.

The Defence Capability Plan (DCP) sets out Federal Labor's detailed planning for delivering Force 2030 through major projects and equipment acquisitions. It gives industry the guidance necessary for planning future investment and maximising involvement by Australia-based companies.

That's what Labor said it was going to do. But what did it do? It failed to articulate and enact a clear defence industry policy, and it forced local companies to the wall.

I think you get my drift. I was only up to number 11 of 30 defence failures. Thirty defence failures—I'll come back to those in a future speech, be sure of that. But you can clearly understand how Labor did leave our defence unprepared and how its policies were not in the national security interests of our nation. The first order of government is to protect its people. Labor, during the years from 2007 through to 2013, failed in that task. And, rest assured, I ask the government to make sure they make amends this— (Time expired)

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This MPI is just another example of the shadow opposition we have over there. The shadow minister for defence wants to talk about this but not to refer to anything that has happened in the last decade. We've just heard every single speech. They didn't refer to anything that they actually achieved in defence, because they didn't. In fact, we do know that the pressure that they put on our relationship with one of our great allies, France, and the billions of dollars that were wasted on submarines that were never delivered—they were things that we had to get into government and fix straightaway. The fact is that none of them could talk about it. I think I counted 132 times that the member for Riverina said 'Labor', but he never once said anything about what they did. Ten years, seven ministers and God knows how many press releases—I mean, they think that you could defend this country on a pile of press releases, because that's all they did. They talked about, 'Oh, we're going to spend'—'We're gunna, gunna, gunna'—but they never did. They never actually delivered anything.

And when you're relying on the member for Petrie as one of your intellects, you know you're in trouble. This guy couldn't deliver a pizza, let alone a submarine, let alone for the defence of our nation. But the consistent thing that we have seen is that, under the chaotic mess we had for nine years, defence was treated poorly.

They like to wrap themselves in flags and say, 'Ra-ra-ra,' but what did they do? Remember: it was a Liberal minister who said that he wouldn't trust Australian workers to deliver a canoe. What a disgraceful thing to say! But that's what we got under this lot. Ninety-seven years we were going to have to wait for them to get to everything that they promised to do and never ever did. It's no wonder that they want to go back and focus on things that happened 15 or 16 years ago, because they know, in their own hearts, that they failed in defence for nine years in government. All we saw was announcement after announcement after announcement after announcement, but never a delivery.

Defence is important. I think it was the member for Bruce who said that it's probably the most important thing we need to do. But what you don't hear from those opposite is how they want to actually build, how they want to go forward, how they want to increase things and how they can actually work together.

Australians made it very clear at the last election that they want a government focused on the future. We're at a time in history that is challenging, to say the least. What we found when we came to govern was that we have holes in our capability that we've never had before—issues we face, travelling forward, in the next 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. Talking about nuclear subs—for them, we made a deal with everyone on the planet. But never once did you actually invest in the workforce. In the rant by the member of New England, he talked about nuclear. Let's talk about nuclear. We have a shortfall of engineers. We have a shortfall of people for these subs coming forward, because, under the plan that you had in your government, for 40 years we're going to have a hole in submarines—because all you did when you, the LNP, were in government was create press releases and deliver nothing.

We've got issues with things you have been involved in. We've seen 28 projects running late—28. Under the last Labor government, in six years we listed 21 projects of concern. What did you do? Four—four projects. Part of the problem was MRA—

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were part of the problem.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's great that the member for Petrie likes to interject, because, let's face it, you're really clueless. You've done nothing but fail. You sit there and say we haven't ordered shells—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Member for McEwen. Please withdraw that comment. And I'm going to ask the member for Petrie, for the second time in this debate, to refrain from those interjections.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing changes the fact that we've got those opposite talking about shells. It's just irrelevant. We're not in the Ukraine war, just by the way; that's Russia and Ukraine.

This is, I guess, about the inability of those opposite to stand up and take responsibility for the failure they were for nine years. Never once did they come in here and say, 'Let's work together and push and see how we can build Australia's defence capability in the future.' But the best they can come up with on the day that the Defence Strategic Review is being delivered, to talk about the future of the nation, is to run back to a time long ago. We've had nine years that didn't disappear off the Australian calendar. They were nine years of abject failure, and an abject waste of money that has left us facing $1.2 trillion worth of debt—and you delivered nothing. (Time expired)

Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If history has taught as anything, it's that the last thing we should ever do is cut spending to defence, especially as we face the most uncertain global strategic environment in our generation. As a former infantry soldier I've spent a lot of time with people on the ground, the ones who feel the effect of government decisions. We need a government that invests in its people. This government needs to ask the questions about capability and kit to the people who use it every day.

You must remember that you are the party and you were the government that cut defence spending to its lowest levels since the 1930s. Under the last Labor government, defence spending as a percentage of GDP dropped to 1.56 per cent. That compares to 2.09 per cent in our last year as the previous government. Those figures correlate with what we see on the ground.

I remember being in the Army when Labor was in power. It wasn't hard to see the effects of the cuts to spending—MCBAS, for example, which is body armour. You couldn't shoulder your rifle to get into the fight if you needed to, because it was poor kit. It wasn't good. It was a failed bit of kit, and it was because the people who made the decisions didn't talk to the people that used them. You need to be speaking to the soldiers, the aviators, the sailors, the people that use the equipment every day, not listening to people that sit in here or that maybe sit at the highest levels at Russell. You need to be speaking to the people that use it—the people that are at the tip of the spear when it comes to conflict.

That means investing in the right areas at the right levels at the right time. That's not always easy, but it's our job as people who hold the positions that we do in this place. It's the job of the Deputy Prime Minister and his team of defence ministers to listen and to act. It is the job of those of us on this side of the House to do the same. That's why it's important that we continue to implement and develop the AUKUS partnership and make the most of that huge and historic strengthening of our strategic posture.

We're already seeing the Defence strategic review be used to disguise cuts to defence, like we saw under the previous Labor government. The Deputy Prime Minister, the part-time defence minister, has flip-flopped on his position on announcements on major coalition initiatives in the portfolio. Take the acquisition of the Black Hawks from the US to replace the MRH90 helicopters. At first it was said that the Black Hawk decision was under review as part of the DSR and no decision on it would be taken until the outcome of the review was announced. But then, 145 days after he said that, and months before the DSR is to be finalised, he announced the acquisition is going ahead. So what is it, Deputy Prime Minister? Are these decisions subject to the DSR or not? That's leaving aside the fact that the 5th Aviation Regiment has now had cuts to its capability as Black Hawks won't be based in Townsville, leaving no replacements for the MRH90s that are there now once they're phased out.

Then we have LAND 400 phase 3. That decision was meant to be made months ago, but, again, the Deputy Prime Minister has said that is subject to review. Does it mean that we might not have an infantry fighting vehicle in the future? We don't know. There are units of the Royal Australian Regiment at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville who are using APCs. They are World War II relics. They are in museums around the country and around the world.

It's absolutely critical that this new Labor government does not continue along the path of its previous term. We are feeling the effects of those cuts and, as I have outlined, we are seeing the signs of the same approach being continued. We must invest in the people that keep us safe. We must invest in the people that do a job that many people don't want to do or haven't done. We have right now the 3rd Battalion using infantry fighting vehicles that are APCs. They can't train properly in them. They definitely can't fight in them. They don't manoeuvre like any of the LAND 400 vehicles.

The defence of our nation is of critical importance, and we cannot afford to cut costs with our national security. Our approach is that, whilst members in the government have not liked things that have been said, we will work constructively and we will put our brave men and women first, because they are the ones who stand up every single day in support and defence of this nation.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is pure hypocrisy for the members opposite to be pointing the finger at the former Labor government on defence matters. After all, it was the former coalition government which had six defence ministers and seven defence industry ministers over its time in office. Under former Prime Minister Morrison, there were four defence minister in just four years. The result was chaotic and dysfunctional leadership, with inadequate oversight and focus on the defence portfolio, leaving a significant procurement mess for the Albanese government to fix up. On coming to office last year, we inherited a defence mess. We had to move swiftly to rectify significant and systemic issues in the delivery of crucial defence capabilities left behind by the outgoing government.

A series of major Defence projects with approved budgets totalling more than $69 billion were facing significant schedule delays and budget variations. Of these projects, at least 28 were a combined 97 years behind schedule. At least 18 projects were found to be running over budget and at least $6.5 billion of variations from the approved budgets were identified. This underperformance on Defence projects is due in no small part to the chaotic former coalition government.

Let's have a look at some of the project failures left for the Albanese government to fix. The start of construction on the $44 billion Hunter class frigate program was delayed by four years, with a $15 billion increase in expected costs, hidden from the public by the coalition government. The $1.4 billion C-27J Spartan battlefield airlifters were delivered 4½ years behind schedule and are unable to fly into battlefields. The $3.7 billion offshore patrol vessel project was one year behind schedule. The $356 million evolved Cape class patrol boat was running nearly a year late. The $970 million battlefield command system was three years behind schedule. Several Defence satellite communications projects, worth $906 million, were running between two and four years behind schedule. And, most recently, the Multi-Role Helicopter Program for the MRH-90 Taipan is another project of concern because it's not fit for purpose. Need I remind you it was the Howard government which decided to acquire the Taipan against the advice of Defence to acquire Black Hawks? That's the dazzling track record of the people opposite, yet they have the audacity to point the finger at Labor.

In contrast, the Albanese government is fixing, strengthening and revitalising defence projects. We are doing that in line with six reforms announced by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence Industry last year. We're establishing an independent projects and portfolio management office within Defence. There will be monthly reports on projects of concern and projects of interest to the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Industry. And we're fostering a new culture in Defence, drawing attention to emerging problems and encouraging and enabling early response, and we're providing those troubled projects with extra resources and skills. These things should have been in place under the coalition, but they weren't. Now, under the guidance of our defence minister, things are changing for the better. Last month, we announced the acquisition of 40 Black Hawk helicopters for the Australian Army to replace the current fleet of Taipan helicopters, and we are substantially increasing the ADF's guided weapons, explosive ordinance stocks, naval strike missiles and long range surface-to-surface high-mobility rocket systems—several projects that we are putting in place.

The Albanese government is committed to ensuring Defence can deliver the capabilities ADF personnel need when they need them. In doing so, we build our defence capabilities at home, upskilling our workforce, improving the defence of Australia and, most importantly, protecting our people and our democracy.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has now concluded.