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

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) Australia is facing the most complex set of strategic challenges since the end of the Second World War;

(b) the importance of a strong and capable sovereign defence industrial base to ensure we can respond to these strategic challenges without overreliance on international partners; and

(c) the failure of this Government to take meaningful action over the past two years to grow Australia's sovereign defence industrial base;

(2) acknowledges industry research which shows;

(a) only one in four (25 per cent) of defence businesses are 'extremely' or 'very' confident that their existing or upcoming contracts will continue as planned over the next 12 months; and

(b) 47 per cent of defence businesses believe it is 'difficult' or 'extremely difficult' to operate in Australia's defence sector, including 64 per cent of small businesses and 48 per cent of medium enterprises; and

(3) calls on the Government to urgently implement a policy framework and industry support to build our industrial self-reliance with Australian defence industry primes and successful small and medium enterprises.

It's now a number of years in this place that we've been talking about our nation's strategic challenges. It's widely accepted that Australia is facing the most complex of strategic challenges since the end of the Second World War. It was a finding in the Defence Strategic Review and one which the coalition supports. That is why I brought this motion before parliament today. If we are really at risk of facing a conflict within the next decade, if the 10-year window of warning has really passed then the Albanese Labor government has a lot of work to do when it comes to growing our sovereign industrial base.

A robust sovereign defence industrial base in this country is absolutely critical to our national security. We need the guardrails in place to ensure that if the worst were to happen that we are not over reliant on our international partners. We know how difficult it can be when supply chains are affected by unexpected interruptions. We saw this during the pandemic with masks and vaccines and we are seeing it in the Red Sea right now. We know how difficult it can be if we don't have enough of a skilled workforce to deliver the labour we need across a range of industries.

Defence is not immune to these factors; in fact, it can be argued that it is even more exposed. That has only become even more of a concern due to last two years of inaction by the weak leadership of the Albanese Labor government. Let's have a look at what the government has done thus far. Well, they commissioned a review and produced a report called the Defence Industry Development Strategy. This report has sought to provide a new definition for our sovereign industrial base, one which needs to move beyond the narrow lens of solar-using Australian owned businesses.

I know not everything can be produced by Australian-owned companies but what is the new definition of Australian sovereign defence industrial base according to this report? It is businesses with an Australian based industrial capability with an Australian business number. That's basically it. If you have an ABN, you are sovereign. Deputy Speaker Georganas, do you know who has an ABN? Huawei, Hikvision, companies we have banned from providing certain products to the government because of security concerns. As Michael Shoebridge said, it means Northrop Grumman is as sovereign as Bega cheese and Vegemite. Northrop Grumman is an American company. How do we think this looks to a 100 per cent Australian-owned sovereign company that exists to provide capability to the Department of Defence?

The former coalition government made it a priority to invest in companies which were taking this seriously with the sovereign industrial capability priority grants. This was for small-to-medium enterprises to assist them to invest in projects to build our sovereign capability. The program was axed by the Albanese Labor government, and we're still waiting on details of a replacement program. So that's a gap in time and an opportunity missed.

But, in the meantime, the government could be doing so much more to make it easier for SMEs to work with the Department of Defence. The motion before the chamber mentions agile market intelligence research commissioned by Defence Connect, which doesn't paint a good picture. There's a lack of confidence and a lack of clarity when it comes to Australian businesses working for Defence. Only one in four defence businesses are confident their existing or upcoming contracts would continue as planned over the next 12 months. Sixty-four per cent of small businesses believe it is extremely difficult to operate in Australia's defence sector. Forty-eight per cent of medium enterprises also believe the sector is difficult or extremely difficult to operate in. I'm disappointed to say that it's something I've heard echoed in Townsville, Australia's largest garrison city. I've got a veteran owned and operated sovereign business that have supplied amazing capabilities to Defence that have pulled out. They're sick of roadblocks, they're sick of the red tape and they're sick of indecision. It sounds a lot like this Labor government's approach to defence in general.

With a threat imminent, we must be doing better. We need to see Australian companies with their headquarters and operations here and a government that implements policy to build our industrial self-reliance, because what we're seeing now is that this is not occurring. We should have business confidence within our defence industry sector. They don't have it. We don't have a defence industry minister who speaks to the defence industry, and he doesn't show up to Land Forces—doesn't show up when he needs to be counted. I commend this motion to the House.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

The complex set of security and strategic challenges that the member for Herbert refers to are well outlined in the Defence Strategic Review, which the Albanese government commissioned early in its term and which was released publicly in April last year. Conveniently, the same Minister for Defence who commissioned the review is also overseeing its implementation. The coalition, of course, had altogether too many ministers for defence and, for that reason and others, were unable to provide proper guidance to the defence department or to the defence industry for many years. Was Scott Morrison also the Minister for Defence? I can't actually remember, given there were 23 different members in the role.

We expect the coalition to be pretty hopeless across a wide range of portfolio areas. We're busy fixing immigration, the NDIS, aged care, education and others, but, really, we would prefer if they weren't hopeless on defence. One recommendation of the Defence Strategic Review—the member will find it on page 81—is that Australia should rapidly establish a domestic guided weapons and explosive ordnance manufacturing capability. 'Rapidly establish' are hard words. The coalition would know given that they let 28 major defence contracts run, cumulatively, 97 years late. So 'rapidly' has meaning in this space.

On 8 May 2023, Air Marshal Leon Phillips OAM was appointed as the inaugural Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance in order to initiate the GWEO Enterprise. To date, they have, among other actions, accelerated the acquisition of guided weapons, agreed with the US to deep cooperation on Australia's GWEO Enterprise by collaborating on a flexible guided weapons production capability in Australia by 2025 and invested $220 million into munitions factories at Mulwala and Benalla in Victoria.

Following on from the DSR, the Defence Industry Development Strategy sets out a plan for the future of our defence industry and the creation of a far more robust sovereign and economically significant defence industry in Australia. It describes the rationale for greater sovereign manufacturing and treats procurement reform and, importantly, workforce challenges and solutions. Commentators have noted that the DIDS also devotes a whole chapter to communication, and it's good to see this acknowledged as an issue within defence and an area where cultural change and improvement can occur.

In technology, the government has committed at least $3.6 billion over the coming decade for the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator to ensure that Australia has speedy access to proven defence related technologies and to keep us at the cutting edge. The DSR also stressed the importance of naval shipbuilding as a sovereign industrial capability. It recommended a commitment to continuous naval shipbuilding. The DIDS supported this, and in November we were very pleased to see in WA that Minister Conroy announced continuous naval shipbuilding at Henderson.

Upon making that announcement, the minister stressed that continuous shipbuilding would allow companies to make investments and would underpin what is already a skilled workforce to stay in the industry and for that workforce to grow. The minister described it as a 'seismic' announcement, and I know it was appreciated by the WA Minister for Defence Industry, the Hon. Paul Papalia, and by my colleague the member for Fremantle, who has advocated on this for his community for many years. It will be appreciated even more by the workers and families involved and by the companies that can rely on a steady stream of work there to underpin that investment. Continuity allows for much more than just output and employment. It allows for planning and onshore maintenance and for the building of a skills base that can be relied upon in difficult times. Continuity is essential also essential for the developing business and investor confidence. This motion in fact speaks of confidence.

Confidence is an interesting thing. It's hard to have confidence in a coalition that pops up a different face into defence portfolios whenever the wind changes. Let me tell you what I know about business and investor confidence: nothing shakes confidence so badly as a sudden, abrupt and unexpected change to a contract worth hundreds of billions of dollars. When Scott Morrison suddenly pulled the rug out from under the French, it meant that the companies in Australia that had been busily investing in their own capacity to get ready for that deal and the part that they could play in it faced huge, real losses. I've spoken to people in the defence industry about this in my electorate and outside of it. So, 'I don't think; I know.'

Confidence is supported by clear goals which the Defence Strategic Review, the DIDS and the recent National Defence Strategy provide. This motion calls upon the government to urgently implement a policy framework and industry support to build our industrial self-reliance. Well, that's all happening, and it's good to have the member onboard.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member. Just before I call the next number, I'll just remind all members in the chamber that if we're referring to former members of parliament in this place we should refer to them as their former name, or at least include their title. I think that's out of respect. Let's all be respectful in this place.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the most important lessons learnt by Australia during COVID is that our nation must continue to strengthen our manufacturing capability. We must be able to make what our nation requires and not rely upon others in the event that our borders are closed. Although the Morrison government already knew this from a defence perspective, the consequences of COVID were a stark reminder that we must be able to build at home to defend our home. During my three years as the Minister for Defence Industry, this became my mantra. Throughout this period there was a much greater emphasis on what areas of sovereign industrial defence capability Australia should be focusing its efforts on.

I was also determined that our men and women in uniform would have what they needed to do their job. Another of my priorities was to make sure that our Australian defence industry companies knew that we knew how important they were to the defence of our nation. I was determined to make culture change within the department so that when a new bit of the defence gear was required—and that happens often—a procurement manager didn't simply order it from an overseas supplier. In a relatively short space of time, together with industry partners and the Department of Defence, we achieved some remarkable feats. Not all these achievements got media attention—they didn't have their names up in lights—but they were important steps; indeed, they were important tools for securing a sovereign defence industry.

For example: we established the Australian Industry Content Division within CASG; we delivered a new mandated contracting model for Australian industry capability and content; we built a workforce through programs like the new and highly successful Defence Industry Pathways Program, which is currently running in Western Australia, and the expanded SADI program; we supported defence innovation, not just with words but with funding as well; and we created the Office of Defence Industry Support. We also created the AIC audit program, making sure we were holding the prime contractors to account. We made changes to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, making it much easier for smaller defence industry companies to get their first foot on the defence ladder. And we established the Defence Industry Secondment Program.

So what has happened since then under Prime Minister Albanese's watch? Ask yourself: does our Australian defence industry have faith and confidence in its current government? Agile Market Intelligence's Australiandefence industry report for the 2024 financial year, commissioned by Defence Connect, paints a very concerning picture. Indeed, for myself, I think it's a very heartbreaking picture that has been painted. It found a whopping 47 per cent of defence businesses believe it is 'difficult' or 'extremely difficult' to operate in Australia's defence sector, including 64 per cent of small businesses and 48 per cent of medium enterprises. Forty-nine per cent of defence businesses believe it is 'difficult' or 'extremely difficult' to attract and retain staff in the current environment. Only one in four—some 25 per cent—of defence businesses are 'extremely confident' or 'very confident' that their existing or upcoming contracts will continue as planned over the next 12 months. I mean, honestly, how can you plan your business when you have such lack of confidence?

What did industry proponents have to say? 'There is a lack of confidence in timing of contract awards, making it very difficult to attract and retain staff and key suppliers. The defence strategic review is not funded, and there is no funding in the forward estimates. This reduces confidence and the ability for Defence to execute awards.' 'The DSR has resulted in complete decision paralysis within the Department of Defence and CASG.' It's not a very good resume, is it?

Under a Dutton led coalition government we will not be waiting around to invest in defence. We're all about restoring trust in our Australian defence industry. We have done it before and we are determined to do it again. We will beef up our industrial capabilities and we will help to rebuild our small and medium-sized businesses to make sure that we have what it takes to defend ourselves.

It is imperative that our defence industry has confidence in its government in order to take risks on defence contracts. This is urgent. War in the next decade is possible. The risk of conflict is ever present. We are hearing tough talk from those opposite, but I tell you what: words will just not cut it. On Labor's current projections, we cannot expect any new defence capability over the decade. This is why I am passionate about there being clarity around our strategic circumstances—a clear strategy to deter those who will do us harm. (Time expired)

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

This motion does get one thing right, and that is that we are indeed facing the most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War. That's one thing the member for Herbert got right in his motion. What it completely misses is that you don't defend our national interest or support our domestic defence industry with stunts and press releases, but that's exactly what those opposite did when they were in government for 10 years. You do not build a viable defence industry by announcing projects and then not funding them, by letting defence projects run off the rails or by treating the portfolio like a prize to reward your political mates, but that's exactly what those opposite did when in government. They racked up $42 billion worth of spending commitments without adding a single dollar to the defence budget. It beggars belief. They let 28 major defence projects run cumulatively more than 97 years late. They had 23 defence ministers—even the member for Herbert will get a go—and assistant ministers in the Defence portfolio in nine years. That's a lot: 23 in nine years.

What supports a viable local defence industry is hard work—working methodically to get our strategic settings right, matching it with viable defence capability plans, backing it up with real money and having a practical plan to give Australian defence industry and workers a go. That's exactly what our government has done, and the facts back it up. The ABS has said that in 2022-23, the first year of this government, Australian defence industry grew by over four per cent and provided $10.6 billion to the Australian economy. The number of people employed in defence industry also grew by six per cent, meaning that, in totality, defence industry now supports over 100,000 jobs. We have signed the single largest defence export in Australia's history, exporting over 100 Australian built Boxer vehicles that are valued at $3.1 billion and securing over 600 direct jobs in Queensland alone. That's an example of how we're creating a future made in Australia. Meanwhile those opposite tried to undermine this deal with a media release claiming it was dead—shame.

We have brought forward the delivery of Army's landing craft medium by a number of years so they start arriving from 2026. That's an example of how we're showing that we understand the strategic circumstances required for bringing forward such projects. We've also brought forward delivery of Army's landing craft heavy from the mid-2030s to 2028. We've announced more investment in Australian industry to further develop Ghost Bat, the first military combat aircraft designed and manufactured in Australia in more than 50 years. That's another significant thing that we've done.

We've also delivered a practical, clear and focused plan to support Australian defence industry and workers. On 29 February, the Minister for Defence Industry launched the Defence Industry Development Strategy. It's always good to have a strategy. This critical document outlines the strategic rationale for a sovereign defence industrial base and clearly outlines the actions the government will take to grow the industrial base that we need. The DIDS outlines a total investment of $183.8 million in funding for defence industry grants programs and provides clarity on the priority areas for defence to a level that is actually meaningful for industry. We're also making it much easier for business to work with defence. A critical element of this is procurement reform. By speeding up procurement processes, we not only make it easier for industry to work with defence but we also make it more cost effective. Do you know what else provides certainty for defence industry? Telling industry there is $330 billion for defence capability investment, which we have done in the recently released 2024 Integrated Investment Program, or IIP. This represents an additional $5.7 billion of investment over the next four years and $50.3 billion over the next decade.

We are committed to growing our defence industry while those opposite have been committed only to relentless negativity about what is clearly an effective and always growing approach that we have to funding our defence capability. Those opposite will see that, and they'll see that, as we've racked up budget surpluses, we've been able to put additional funds into capability, which those opposite could never do. (Time expired)

Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I enlisted in the Australian Army on 15 October 1985 at the end of the Cold War period, and—

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I didn't hear the member's comments.

Member for Solomon! Apologies, Member for Braddon. Please continue.

Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We on this side take it a little more seriously. As I was saying, I enlisted in the Australian Regular Army at the end of the Cold War. In the 20 years of service that I gave to this country and the years since, I've never seen a more dangerous geopolitical strategic environment.

This environment requires decisive, deliberate, lethal capability to deter our adversaries and to defend our citizens. There's a Latin phrase we use in the military: 'Si vis pacem, para bellum.' That means, 'If one desires peace, then one should prepare for war.' Sadly, this defence budget won't drop money into our defence budget for a number of years. An example comes from my electorate of Braddon in north-west Tasmania where Elphinstone Manufacturing Group are the subprime for Hanwha, who are the successful tenderers for the Land 400 and Land 8116 mobile 155 millimetre howitzer program. Mr Elphinstone tells me he has been frustrated for many years. We initially gave him the indication that he was to build 450 of these hulls right in Tasmania to the highest tolerances. Over the length of that, which is 7.77 metres, he was allowed one millimetre. There are 40 thousandths of an inch to a millimetre, so those are very fine tolerances. He subsequently invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into gearing up to meet those tolerances, and subsequently, as soon as this lot got in, that 450 number was cut to 129, after that investment had already been made by that manufacturer. It is not good enough. He's got to run a business and employ people, and he needs to meet that capability.

We've heard a lot from the other side and, in fact, from many experts—we agree—that missile defence and force projection will underpin our effectiveness as we move forward. I recently visited Israel, and we started looking at the Iron Dome and the David's Sling technology that they have in that country. If they didn't have that, it wouldn't be the case that 99 per cent of those missiles are destroyed in the air, and those missiles not destroyed would hit their targets and destroy Israel's population.

We see manufacturers like Kongsberg, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin again being delayed in their process as they move forward and develop technologies which are aimed at the Australian Defence Force. But, at the end of all this, I look at the recruiting numbers and at the young people of Australia who aren't going into the recruiting office, are being delayed in the recruiting office, are not meeting the requirements for enlistment or are not getting into our training establishments quickly enough. We are going to need a very technical workforce. Make no mistake. If we can't get those young men and women into their Defence Force as quickly as possible then there will be no-one to drive these fancy pieces of equipment.

The other issue that I look at is what we call the C4ISR, the command, control, communications and computers necessary to drive this equipment and the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance requirements, or sensor-to-shooter requirements, that we need to aim these sensitive technical pieces of equipment onto our targets, given the size of our area of operations in the Indo-Pacific region. This is where the money needs to be spent: in the command and control aspects. I think this has been forgotten, along with those who are operating these pieces of equipment, and I call on this government, who should have done something a long time ago, to rectify the shortfalls in recruiting. They are flat-footed when it comes to having operators for this equipment. Overall, it's not good enough. We are heading for even more dangerous times, and I suggest that this government really get on with things, because we are, as I said, extremely flat-footed.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank the member for Herbert for moving this motion in private members' business today. Given that he is a few days shy of three months in the role of shadow assistant minister for defence industry, it is only natural to expect him to come into this place to speak on all things defence industry. I would like to hope that his colleagues armed him with the facts necessary to litigate such a motion on the subject matter, which was until quite recently—along with defence and foreign affairs, to name a few—deemed to be above partisanship.

However, the member comes into this place moving a motion referencing a survey, making it his sole evidence that the vibes are off. The shadow assistant minister comes into this place keenly displaying his L-plates when it comes to getting across his brief on defence industry. He is either keenly unaware of or oblivious to the big Ls that his former government took on defence industry policy across nine long years. The member gets a few things right with this motion. Australia is facing the most complex set of strategic challenges since the end of the Second World War. However, based on a cursory vibe check of my own, it is fair to say that bringing a motion such as this into this place demonstrates the opposition's tactics team is facing the most complex set of strategic challenges in quite some time too.

Much like one of the cornerstones of our government's 2024 National Defence Strategy, the opposition have taken a leaf out of that book and leaned heavily into a strategy of denial. This strategy especially extends to their ability to acknowledge any problems from those opposite that the Albanese government had to address in any area of policy, including defence industry, and it especially denies any part our government has played in seeing this industry grow and thrive in the immediate term and policies that we have put in place since day one that are working toward the long-term growth and sustainability of defence industry decades into the future.

I will get to that in a minute, member for Durack. This strategy is not always shared by the shadow minister for defence and the shadow minister for defence industry, the member for Canning.

The member for Herbert should take note of the member for Canning's candour as he was, after all, someone who served as one of the many assistant ministers for defence during the previous government. Even the member for Canning, as assistant minister, during that time acknowledged he saw a great deal of waste when it came to defence industry and procurement. The member for Canning also acknowledged the damage caused in this vital area of policy by a revolving door of leadership changes and constant reshuffling.

The timing of the member for Herbert's motion is also curious. According to the Notice Paper, notice of this motion was given on 14 May, once more flexing the opposition's blanket strategy of denial, demonstrating this wholeheartedly by calling on the government to implement a policy framework and industry support to build self-reliance within our defence industry, and by further stating that, in the past two years, they cannot recount any actions of this government to grow Australia's sovereign industrial base, seemingly unaware of the handing down of the 2024 National Defence Strategy alongside the integrated investment program.

This is contrasted by those opposite's defence industry strategy, which was not just full of over-promising and under-delivering but promising and then nothing else after that. Their government liked to make announcements and issue press releases but when it came to funding defence projects, when it came to monitoring their progress to ensure what came off the line was not just battle-ready but fit for purpose, these announcements—and they can only be called that because they were not allocated a single dollar afterwards by the coalition government—totalled $42 billion. Perhaps the strategy of denial is a bit older than what we first thought, but that's what you get for having a government with 23 defence ministers and assistant defence ministers.

As for denying growth in our defence industry, I would like to use my state of South Australia as a prime example of why the member for Herbert might want to rethink his narrative before putting up another motion like this in the future. From the latest figures available, 2022-23, South Australia experienced an eight per cent growth to our defence industry, contributing over $1.68 billion into the industry nationally. It is an industry that accounts for 9½ thousand jobs directly, and these numbers are only expected to rise in the coming years. I can look to many companies in my electorate, like aimpoint RPL delivering on labour shortages for the defence industry, veterans being able to get into a job; AML 3D; Levett Engineering, Basetech, Century Engineering—fantastic SMEs. (Time expired)

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just ask all members, can we just please allow the member on their feet to have the opportunity to give their speech in quiet.

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

It was all the way back in April 1951 with their backs against the wall that fewer than 1,200 Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and American troops held firm against overwhelming odds, against a 6,000-strong communist Chinese force. Spread thinly across some seven kilometres of mountainous terrain and under constant assault for three days, our soldiers prevailed against a numerically superior enemy. This was our victory at the battle of Kapyong. It was a decisive turning point of the war.

It is an understatement to say they faced a complex set of tactical challenges against wave after wave of the enemy. Here we are today, nearly 75 years later, facing the most complex set of strategic challenges since Kapyong, the Korean War and the Second World War before it. We are living in a dangerous world, and Australia is at the forefront of great power competition and the threats posed by authoritarian powers.

Kapyong proved then what we know is still true today—that Australians always punch above our weight and we can prevail. There are no limits to what we are capable of if we are given a fighting chance. It is true of our soldiers and it is true for Australia's defence industry. A strong and capable sovereign defence industrial base is indispensable in our mission to keep Australia safe and secure. A strong and capable defence industry means a strong and capable defence force, which in turn means a strong and capable Australia. Australian defence entrepreneurs and innovators punch above their weight. Several have been growing their businesses and equipping our allies and friends. We have world-leading capacity to deliver state-of-the-art platforms and state-of-the-future capabilities. We offer many things wanted by the advanced militaries of the world, including by our friends fighting for survival in Ukraine. We have leaders in defence industry who are showing the way. We have tasted what's possible. But it's not the full story.

Under the Albanese government, Australia's sovereign defence industry isn't being given a fighting chance. Instead of supporting the industry, Labor is starving it. Under the Albanese government, there have been two years without moving the dial—two years of endless reviews and inconsequential aspirations. Programs have paused, spending has stalled and uncertainty abounds. Everyone in defence industry fears for their future, with economic pressures, crippling inflation and an absence of investment and imagination making conditions tougher than ever. Numerous firms are, at best, pivoting away from defence to survive, and, at worst, shutting down and going under.

Australian defence industry can punch above its weight; we just need to give it a fighting chance. A Peter-Dutton-led coalition government will invest more in defence and defence industry, sooner. If elected, we will give sovereign defence industry a chance to get moving again, and we will give our patriotic entrepreneurs and innovators a fighting chance. When they win, we all win.

We have AUKUS pillars I and II, the race to restore our surface fleet and to keep our submarines on station, and the need to reinvigorate our Defence Force. We cannot be left behind. And we should not leave it to others.

The coalition will restore faith in our own industrial heft. We'll grow our sovereign industrial base and provide support and certainty to small, medium and growing enterprises, to urgently deliver the future capabilities we need today.

We are running out of time. The most sober assessments warn that there is no longer a decade of strategic warning time. Meanwhile, the Albanese defence establishment seems intent on operating with a decade of self-imposed waiting time. We can't afford to wait any longer.

My message to Australia's defence industry is this: we know you're hurting; we hear the disappointment; and we see what you see—that the Albanese government continues to let you down and turn its back on you. Well, the coalition has your back and we'll do whatever we can to get you back in business. We know you punch above your weight. We know that there are no limits to what you can achieve if you have a fighting chance, and that a strong and capable sovereign defence industry means a stronger and more capable Defence Force, and, therefore, a stronger and more capable Australia.

I commend the member for Herbert for moving this motion. We support it. The time to act is now.

Those members on the other side have committed $50 billion over the next 10 years, and most of it will be spent in the next decade. They assume, absolutely, that we still have 10 years to wait, and, if you look at the forward estimates, you see $5.7 billion, which perhaps accounts for inflation—perhaps; it's unlikely. But most of that money, $3.8 billion of it, will be spent in the fourth year of the forwards, and that just shows that this government, the Albanese government, is not serious at all about defence. They are playing politics. They are dressing up—they're wearing the uniform—but they're not actually serious about building defence industry and a strong Defence Force. And we are weaker for it.

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

Securing our defence industrial base is a topic worthy of serious debate, and I thank the member for bringing the topic. It is important—and I say that as someone who has taken a great interest in defence strategic issues here as Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, but also, in a former life, oversighting the Victorian government's defence industry unit, some years ago—many years ago, now.

It should be serious. I do say—and I say this with respect: it is a pity that this motion that you've chosen to bring is framed in such terms. It's full of inaccuracies, it's frankly ridiculous and it's immature. The interjections—and I'll say: those from both sides—have demeaned the topic. There was the interjection that you made to the previous speaker as he left: 'Make sure you tag me on Facebook.' I mean, this is a serious topic, and I do appreciate the former minister's contribution both in the portfolio and to the debate.

Our nation's defence industrial base is a critical strategic capability. As has been said, it has a deterrent value in its own right.

There are the lessons from Ukraine. If you had to pick a couple, they'd be that our resilience and our ability to manufacture the consumables of violent conflict and to repair the platforms are critical. It's not to make everything here; that will never happen. We should make more here, but we'll never make everything here. But you've got to be able to manufacture the consumables and repair your platforms, and that also contributes jobs and economic activity. So it is a pity that we're debating such a motion in the terms in which it has been put forward, over real debate. There is one thing that's right, as every speaker has observed. These are the most challenging strategic circumstances in decades. That comfortable assumption, which our country's enjoyed for 70 years—of 10 years of warning of a violent conflict that may come at us—is gone.

Defence policy, including defence industry policy, should be contestable. It absolutely should be contestable. Serious people and serious parties of government should strive for bipartisanship wherever possible and avoid inflaming conflict for conflict's sake in the domestic political debate. Anyone with half a brain, anyone with a quarter of a brain and certainly the shadow assistant minister should know that defence industry grew by 4.1 per cent in the first year of the government, with over $10.6 billion of economic activity. The number of people employed grew by six per cent. Over 100,000 Australian jobs are supported by defence industry. We secured the largest single export contract in Australian defence industry history: more than 100 Boxer vehicles worth $3.1 billion, with more than 600 jobs in Queensland alone. We brought forward the delivery of numerous capabilities, including army landing craft. We've invested in Australian industry to further develop Ghost Bat, the first military combat aircraft designed in Australia for 50 years. We're investing in Australian air and missile defence in partnership with Australian industry. I'll put in a note of bipartisanship; that is a bipartisan issue. It continues an initiative of the former government and brings it forward with $14 billion to $18 billion of investment through the Integrated Investment Program.

That's the kind of discourse we should be having. It is peak irony for speakers on this motion to be talking about certainty. They had a revolving door of defence ministers, with 23 ministers through the portfolio in nine years. It was patently ridiculous. As has been said, it was all announcement and no delivery: 'Yes, we've got the means.' They make the point about running onto the battlefield waving a press release, but it's a fact: $42 billion of announcements without any spending commitments in the budget. That's not adult government; it's not how you should treat the defence portfolio.

You absolutely can critique, and we can have a contested debate on whether the government should do more. Should we do more on this? Should we do less on that? Let's have that debate—absolutely—but please acknowledge that restructuring the investment program and the defence industry strategy is a serious effort to respond to the circumstances we face, and every announcement is actually funded in the budget. That is something that didn't happen. If you were being sensible about it, you'd actually acknowledge that and commit not to have that kind of nonsense happen again if you ever form government. Twenty-eight projects running 97 years late—yes, some major projects will run late.

So what are we doing about it? We're overhauling the Defence Industry Development Strategy. It's a clear focused plan to support Australia's defence industry and workers. There are grants. There's clarity on priorities. There were too many defence industry sovereign priorities; it wasn't a label to be thrown around. If everything's a priority, then nothing's a priority. We're putting in place easier-to-do business reforms on procurement and on flexible contracting. Let's have a debate about the substance instead of throwing silly words around.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm conscious of the time, so I'm going to focus on the importance of defence industry—not just now, but historically. I want to take you back to June 1942. Everyone remembers that. What happened in June 1942? It was the Battle of Midway. You've seen the movie; there are two versions of it. You've seen young men flying into literal hell. That was a key part of the battle. Of course, that bravery and sacrifice turned the tide.

What is less known and less reported is the role of defence industry in turning the tide. We know that the key ship, the USS Yorktown, had been severely damaged in a battle earlier. The initial assessment for that aircraft carrier was that it would take months—six weeks at best—to repair it and have it back ready for use. But they gambled on defence industry back in the United States, through ingenuity and hard work, turning it around in a matter of days. They worked 24 hours, multiple shifts, never slept and put themselves in the headspace of those young men who were going to get in the planes and fly into hell. They got the USS Yorktown battle ready and back out to support the Battle of Midway. That only happened because there was a defence industry that was supported. It was backed up and it was ready and able to be used when it was needed most.

That's what this motion is about from the member for Herbert. It's about having a solid defence industry that is ready and capable for when we need it, because if we take them for granted and we don't support them when they need it—and we've seen the reported statistics on the lack of confidence in sovereign capability being called upon now—then when we really need them they won't be there to support us.

That is a lesson from history that we should heed. All of us in this place, when we're looking to keeping our nation safe and doing the hard work that is required, should never forget the role of the defence industry. It matters just as much as the bravery of the people who are now commemorated in our War Memorial.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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