Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why has the Albanese Labor government rescoped the infantry fighting vehicle program following the Defence Strategic Review? What's been the response, and how does this differ from the actions of former governments?

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

Order! The member for Forrest will cease interjecting.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his service in the Australian Army. The government has rescoped the procurement of the next generation of infantry fighting vehicles from 450 down to 129 vehicles.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rescoped?

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

The member for Fisher will cease interjecting.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is being done in line with a recommendation of the Defence Strategic Review, and the process for managing the manufacture of those vehicles will now be handled by the Minister for Defence Industry. This is obviously a difficult decision, and there are many who disagree with it, including, apparently, those opposite. But no-one is suggesting that Australia's principal threat is an invasion of the continent. What we need is a nimble and mobile Army.

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

The member for Herbert will cease interjecting.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And it needs to be potent, so we need a number of those fighting vehicles, but we need to have the capacity to transport them. If we don't, we risk having hundreds of those vehicles stranded in Australia, and, if we're not about to be invaded, what is the point of that? They are the strategic reasons behind the hard decision that we have made, and that stands in stark contrast to the way defence policy was handled over most of the last decade, because the former government didn't do strategy and the former government was incapable of making a hard decision. When they spent money, they were completely out of control—

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

The Leader of the Nationals is on a warning.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which is why we saw 28 different programs running a combined 97 years over time. When there was a capability problem, the way they did business was through the bizarre mechanism of making announcements with nothing behind them, meaning there wasn't a dollar behind one-quarter of what Defence needed to purchase.

The only pressure those opposite responded to was political pressure, which is why we saw the unedifying spectacle of Australia's future submarine capability being tossed around the former government's party room in the empty chair challenge of Prime Minister Abbott. It's why they were in and out of a subs deal with Japan and in and out of a deal with France. It was only ever about the politics, which is why it is wholly unsurprising that the former government sank to the depths of trying to use the Defence Force to raise money for the Liberal Party. Our government's only interest is the national interest, and we will continue to engage in strategic analysis and to make the hard decisions required to build the Defence Force that we need to keep Australians safe.