Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How will the Albanese Labor government's response to the surface fleet review shape the Royal Australian Navy for decades to come, and what alternatives are there?

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

I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her service. Last Tuesday the government announced its plan for the future Royal Australian Navy surface fleet, which will see an increase in the number of our surface combatants from 11 to 26, giving us the most capable Navy in the country's history. It will also see an acceleration of the acquisition of those service combatants such that the first will come into service this decade—in five years, not 10.

But the most important point is that this is a plan which is paid for, with an $11.1 billion increase in defence spending to fully fund the $54 billion it will take to make this happen. This is real. This is not make-believe. This is not the kind of announcement that we were used to from those opposite, such as the $35 billion guided weapons program where they only put $1 billion on the table. And this increase, combined with increases in last year's budget, will see defence spending go to 2.4 per cent of GDP by the early 2030s, and that compares to what we inherited from those opposite, which was taking defence spending to 2.1 per cent.

We have heard a lot from the Liberals over the last couple of months about defence spending. They and their little coven of supporters have been dancing around the fire, whipping each other into a frenzy. And, as they have been barking at the moon, we have—

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Here we go!

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

Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting.

The member for Morton is warned. I'm trying to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business, who is entitled to raise a point of order.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on relevance: I invite you to consider whether the Deputy Prime Minister is entitled to be venturing into the territory that he's going in to now in response to what was, in fact, quite a tightly drafted question.

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

The question contained 'what are the alternatives?' so the Deputy Prime Minister needs to ensure his answer contains the alternatives that he was asked about, not simply his opinions about former decisions. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.

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

We even heard the shadow minister suggest that, if there wasn't increased spending, there should be resignations. I always think one should be a little bit careful going to this space, lest one establishes a standard for themself that they cannot meet. When you strip away all the moon barking, what we are left with is the shadow Treasurer saying that defence spending should be within the envelope which they took to the last election—that is, 2.1 per cent by the early 2030s. When the shadow minister for defence has been asked whether he supports an increase in defence spending, he has consistently said he can't commit. All the while, the Leader of the Opposition has been completely silent on this issue. What that means is that the policy of those opposite is 2.1. And what that means is a cut in defence spending. The Albanese Labor government is committed to increasing defence spending to 2.4 per cent of GDP to give us the surface fleet we need to keep Australians safe.