David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk about the powers of the Commonwealth government under section 51 of our Constitution, which relates to the defence of the nation. Over the years, leaders of both political persuasions have highlighted that this is the most important task of government—to make provision for the defence of the nation.

I would like to talk a bit today about what this government has done in this area, with the white paper of last year, the integrated investment plan and the Defence industry policy statement. Then I will talk about what changes are actually occurring now as a result, to the benefit of our Defence Force in terms of capability; and about our ability to sustain that over the life of that equipment, through the investment in defence industry. Lastly, I would like to talk about why this area of our polity should be above politics, and I will go back to some work I did in 2013 and talk about some work that I am hoping will occur in this term of parliament around planning for defence and the national interest.

The white paper of 2016 was released by the government. It set out, as most of them do, the strategic situation and the plans for the future. Alongside of that was the integrated investment plan. This has been a shift from previous years in that rather than just being a shopping list of equipment that is required, the government and Defence have taken a holistic view. Within the defence construct, when they look at capability, they do not just look at, for example, the aircraft. They look at the fact that you need pilots, technicians, runways, fuel and a doctrine and tactics to employ it. Likewise, in the procurement we should not just be funding the aircraft. We should be making provision for all of those aspects of funding over the decade, which is why the integrated investment plan looks at a whole range of areas, including infrastructure, and importantly allocates funding and time frames to that. This gives not only Treasury, in terms of the provision of funding as we move towards that two per cent, but importantly industry an idea of the areas where the government is committing funding to invest in our defence capability.

The third element of that package was the Defence industry policy statement. That is something that traditionally has been either the last or second-last chapter of the white paper. This year it was a standalone document. The reason it was a standalone document is that it makes quite a paradigm shift in how the government and Defence are engaging with industry. Much of that is premised on the work of the First Principles Review, which followed the 2012 Senate inquiry into defence procurement.

One of the changes that the First Principles Review recommended is that, just as the service chiefs are required to consider things like their personnel, individual training, organisational structure, doctrine and all of those elements of their capability, they should also consider the defence industry, or at least elements of defence industry, as one of their fundamental inputs to capability. They can, therefore, be more proactive in their management and understanding of that, so when they come to government with a cabinet submission for an acquisition there is a very deliberate understanding of the impact this will have, or the opportunities this will present, for defence industry. This will mean it is considered and, where necessary, funded as part of that decision process. That has been a paradigm shift in terms of the structure.

We have seen white papers in the past which have had fantastic vision and scope of what people aspire to, but then either the budget has not followed or, importantly, the decision cycle has been so slow that stakeholders—whether they be in Defence or in defence industry—have wondered what all the fuss was about, because they do not see tangible change.

I am very pleased to report to the Senate that, as a result of both this combination of the white paper integrated investment plan and the Defence industry policy statementwith its very clear focus combined with the focus at a cabinet level of the defence industry policy—we are seeing decisions being made in a timely manner, which is providing industry the encouragement and the confidence to invest in Australia. Already we are seeing not only the decisions made on headline programs—everyone knows about submarines and DCNS, and they are setting up their office in Australia—but other companies, such as Northrop Grumman, which is doubling the size of its workforce in Australia from 500 to around 1,000 people. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, likewise, are doubling the size of their workforce in Australia. They are building new facilities and extending existing facilities. We are seeing investment in infrastructure in Australia. In Western Australia this year we have already seen works supporting Austal, for example, who export ships. They are building patrol boats here, both for our use and the Pacific patrol boat for the region. Companies like Civmec are looking to make significant investments in infrastructure and personnel, so that we have the facilities in place to implement the government's policies. This year in South Australia plans are well underway for the future developments at Osborne. We are seeing, in a very real sense, that this policy—unlike many in the past, which have been issued with a bit of fanfare and then sit on a shelf collecting dust—is actually making a difference.

It is not just the big companies we are talking about. I went with the defence committee to Avalon earlier this year to the international air show. The overwhelming sense that I received from the players there, from small business, was that they are seeing contracts flowing from government directly, or through primes, and they have the confidence because they are being contracted now to pick up work. Part of that is the investment that the government is making in innovation and technology, so that we have the opportunity for companies here to take great ideas to develop unique Australian IP, so that we can see those exported. We are seeing that being supported by government very actively. Things like CEA who have developed their CEAFAR radar. In terms of world leading capability on our own, Anzac frigates are now being exported overseas to the US and are in contention for a Canadian contract. So some very positive things are happening on the ground, creating jobs and wealth in Australia.

There has been some controversy in recent days, particularly by members opposite who are mistakenly saying that the maritime technical college which has been announced is somehow competing with the Australian Maritime College in Tasmania. As Senator Polley said earlier today, the Australian Maritime College is a great institution. It is well regarded worldwide, and, as she said, it trains seafarers. What we are talking about in terms of a technical college to support naval shipbuilding is that the government is recognising there is a need to help people transition from other industries or move from school into training. The college will equip the workforce we need, not just in areas like fabrication, welding and other skills but also with systems. Whether that be software, electronics or the integration of systems, this college, which would be contracted this year and start operations next year, will look to engage a network of providers around the country to make sure that no matter which state you live in people will have the opportunity to engage and train to be a part of this program. The program will see the South Australian workforce alone increase from some 1,800 to nearly 5,000 in the shipbuilding industry, as we move to build not only the offshore patrol vessels, the future frigates and the future submarines but also the Pacific patrol boats and importantly other vessels for export that the government is working on.

Finally, let's look at where all this goes. What we saw in 2009 was a white paper, which—although some thought it was a little optimistic—most people supported and said, 'That is a good thing'. The decision of the government of the day then to pursue a budget surplus led to the funding not being delivered. That meant that commentators looked at it and said, 'Well, it's a great paper, but essentially defence is now'—to quote them—'an incoherent mess, approaching a train wreck of colossal proportions’, and ‘plans set out in 2009 are in disarray; investment is badly stalled, and the Defence budget is an unsustainable mess’. I was then a member of her majesty's loyal opposition and I said that it was partly the fault of the government of the day. But I would actually say it is also a fault of our political system. We have a three-year political cycle that drives decisions that are short-term in nature, as opposed to looking at the long-term investment time line that Defence has.

I wrote an article back in 2013—and ASPI did some workshops with me around how we could move towards a bipartisan approach to planning for defence—I cited the Danish example. I am hoping that in this term of parliament we will see more work in that area, so that defence can truly be above politics as one of the most important and foremost tasks of any government.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take this opportunity in the last sitting week before the budget is due to update the Senate on what we have seen from this government in Queensland, particularly regional Queensland, over recent budgets, and the impact that that has had on local communities. There is no doubt that what we are seeing from this government is a divided government, a weak leader and, increasingly, a narrow agenda. You only have to look at the subjects that are up for debate this week: a weakening of the Racial Discrimination Act, a refusal so far to have a vote to protect penalty rates, and a government that is champing at the bit to cut the pay and conditions of those who can least afford it. We also see them pursuing an agenda of tax cuts for big multinational companies. That is not going to help those people in regional Queensland who are really struggling.

I always like to inject some facts into the debate, and I think this frames and underscores the challenge that we have in regional Queensland. The unemployment rate in Townsville is over 10 per cent. The unemployment rate in Cairns is almost 10 per cent. The youth unemployment rates in both Townsville and Cairns are above 20 per cent. As a Queensland senator, I am very concerned that the next generation of people coming through are unable to find employment. You would think the government would have focused on these issues, but, sadly, what we see from the other side is plenty of rhetoric but very little action. It is a really sad indictment on the government that they have failed to make any inroads in this regard in regional Queensland. I think when you hear some of the answers from those opposite in question time, particularly answers from Senator Nash and Senator Canavan—they often get very loud; they often start shouting—and when you look at their record it is really poor.

The best example is in regard to jobs packages and promises that were made during the last election campaign. Senator Nash toured throughout Queensland. She visited Cairns, the Bowen Basin and the Wide Bay area, promising millions of dollars for jobs packages in those areas. How much has been spent? Not one cent. Guidelines have not even been implemented. So, in an area where you have high unemployment, they come through before an election, making promises, but they have delivered nothing—absolutely nothing. So why don't you start getting some runs on the board and actually delivering on your promises in regional Queensland?

The other great hoax from those opposite—and Senator Canavan in particular—has been the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. If you listen to some of his rhetoric again, you will hear him talk about all sorts of things that they are going to do through NAIF. Again, look at the record. How much has been spent? How many projects have been supported? Not one project has been supported through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. When you look at the record of this government and the impact that that has had on regional Queensland, you will see that they have done absolutely nothing. Is it any wonder that regional Queenslanders, like everyone else in Australia, are losing faith in this government when they look at their record over the last 18 months in this area.

This is not even to mention what they have done with rural and regional councils. There are 34 of them that still have outstanding issues with this government in relation to the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. Again, this is something where they are neglecting rural and regional councils. So it is something that is an absolute failure of this government that we will absolutely hold them to account on. As we look forward to this budget what can we expect? If you are in regional Queensland, very little—based on previous records. So the jobs packages that they went around promising before the election—nothing has happened with them. With the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility—there is nothing that they can point to that they have achieved in that regard.

The most recent example of the debacle of this government is in relation to the regional ministerial task force. It was announced by Senator Nash, I believe, and there was not one Queenslander on it. They like to come in here and champion their efforts in regard to regional Queensland, but not one senator from Queensland was put on that task force. I quote from the Courier Mail, 15 March:

When the Prime Minister’s office was questioned, the query was flicked to Regional Development Minister Fiona Nash, who said: “Every Queenslander knows they have a champion in Barnaby Joyce, who was Senator for Queensland for almost a decade.

We know Barnaby sold out on Queensland a long time ago. It then goes on to say that Senator Canavan was appointed to the committee but he was not on the original appointment list. I think that goes to show you the neglect they have shown in regional Queensland. They come in here and talk a big game, but when you look at their actions there is a real failure to do anything for regional Queensland.

Again, we hear regularly from Senator Canavan in relation to employment issues. Let's have a look at their record. Since they were elected, there are 18,000 fewer people employed in mining in Queensland than there were in 2015. There are 5,400 fewer people employed in construction than there were in 2014. And there are 7,300 fewer people in Queensland employed in manufacturing. That is their record. It is disgraceful and we will hold them to account. (Time expired)