Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In fact, we would not be having this conversation at all, Senator Cameron, if Labor had not abrogated its responsibility to make the decision during its six years of government. Unlike Labor, we will be making the decisions necessary to avoid a capability gap between the Collins class and the future submarine. In doing so, however, the coalition will ensure Australia has the military capabilities to deter threats and project force. But defence acquisitions must always be made on the basis of our national defence requirements. And, when it comes to defence, we cannot be ruled solely by industry policy and protectionism. This is a huge and significant national investment in our defence capability and it is essential that we get it right. But it is a decision the previous government should have taken. They had 4½ years after the release of the 2009 white paper to do so, but they did not. That is a fact. It is not a cheap stunt like those that Senator McEwen was just referring to.

Let us have a look at some other facts. Despite all of the Labor promises, under Labor the share of GDP spent on defence fell to 1.56 per cent—the lowest level since 1938. In fact, in the 2012-13 budget Labor made the biggest single cut to defence since the end of the Korean conflict. They cut 10.5 per cent from the budget.

I experienced firsthand the impact of the broken promises that Labor made in defence. As the director for strategic reform in the Army in 2009 and 2010 I, like many others, took the Labor government at its word and worked hard to implement the strategic reform program—a program the government promised us would reduce costs and allow the resources that were to be freed up to be reinvested into Force 2030. What a demoralising and dispiriting breach of faith that proved to be. Senator Cameron, guess who was the minister during that period, who failed to make the decisions despite promising to deliver the future submarine capability? Any guesses, Senator?