Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I did want to talk a little bit about submarines, but before I do that I want to address Senator Sterle's commentary. I think it is a little bit rich for Senator Sterle, who just voted to keep a carbon tax, to claim that 40c a week is a disaster. In comparison to the carbon tax that he voted to retain we are talking about a significant difference.

Let's get to the issue around submarines, because I think there has been some interesting commentary about the disaster that Labor left us when it comes to the submarine program, or the lack of a submarine program, under the former government. We know why we have this mess. Over the last six years Defence spending dropped to levels not seen since 1938, a cut or deferral of some $16 billion. I will go to some of the commentary, specifically on Labor's failures on submarines in recent times, to explain exactly how we got into the position that we are in. I quote Greg Sheridan who wrote in The Australian, today, about replacing the six Collins class submarines and said:

The crisis is brought about by three policy decisions—three costly mistakes—that the Labor Party has made over the past three decades. The first was to design and build an orphan class of submarines—the Collins—in Australia. The cost was insane, the performance lamentable, the legacy debilitating.

The second was to do nothing about the subs for the six years Labor was in office under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. Rudd's 2009 defence white paper extravagantly committed to build 12 new subs in Australia.

Impossibly, these were to have range and capabilities far beyond the Collins or any conventional sub, in effect nuclear subs with conventional engines. Having made this grandiose gesture, and stressed its extreme urgency, Labor did nothing of consequence about the subs for its entire term.

The third great Labor policy dereliction has been to frame its response to the Abbott government's attempt to find a replacement for Collins entirely as a campaign for local jobs in South Australia.

He goes on:

… Successive reviews under Labor made it clear that Australia does not have even a fraction of the design, engineering and construction capability such a project would need.

The article goes on to say:

Whatever sub Australia buys, all the deep maintenance and sustainment will be done in Australia.

So when we hear the Labor Party talk about this issue, we have to point to the history under the Labor Party—not just over the last six years but over the past several decades.

That is quite aside from the fiscal situation the Labor Party has left us, the fiscal situation we find ourselves in as a result of the profligate spending of the former Labor government—and it is not just about their profligate spending. Whilst they were overspending in a whole range or areas, they were depleting our defence capability by spending the lowest proportion of GDP on defence since 1938. We on the coalition side believe that that is irresponsible. I commend the Minister for Defence for his efforts to fix the mess that was left to him by the Labor Party—not just in the last six years but going back a number of decades. The absolute priority of the defence minister is to do what is in Australia's national defence interest. It is not simply about a dressed-up industry policy, as the Labor Party would have us believe.

I will make a few final points. One is that we had virtually a blank canvas on the issue of submarines when we came into government. That is a big part of the problem we are seeking to address. The second point is that we had crippling amounts of debt bequeathed to us by the Labor Party. Thirdly, defence spending under Labor fell to the lowest levels since the Second World War. Finally, regardless of what decision is eventually made, we will continue to support, through maintenance and other areas of defence capability, significant jobs here in Australia. Any attempt by the Labor Party to imply otherwise should be rejected as simply false. (Time expired)