Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

The Minister for Defence, the member for Hunter, then decided to go ahead with the facade of a review, which came back with what he already knew, and that is that the aircraft, the Super Hornet, was the correct aircraft. In relation to the delays in releasing the air capability combat review, we always read things in the paper before the minister provides a statement to the House:

The first half of the Orme report was released last month and recommended the F-111 be retired in 2010 and the Government proceed with the Super Hornet purchase.

That is fair enough, because that is what we had said, but then it states, as we also read in the Australian on 30 April:

The Orme report is believed to recommend against the Raptor, despite Fitzgibbon’s desire to keep the plane in the mix.

The reality is that he is sitting on the air combat capability review because that review supports the direction that the government went in on advice from Defence. He makes much of the claim that ‘it was the minister who went and acquired these Super Hornets without any briefing or detail’. That is not true, and he knows that is not true. And he knows that the background work was done by the Department of Defence and it provided recommendations to the minister and the National Security Committee of Cabinet, supported by the CDF at the National Security Committee of Cabinet, to buy those aircraft. I have asked him specific questions; I have asked him, if he will not answer them now, to take them on notice and provide an answer as to when he—the minister—found out, after being sworn in, about the true capability of the Super Hornet. I want to know that date. And I want to know why, then, he proceeded with the charade that we saw.

There is another question that I want to ask—and it is a shame that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel is not here, but as the minister has overall carriage I will ask him. Minister, prior to the election, you stated at various military bases throughout Australia that the Labor Party would contribute $33 million as a government to the establishment in 12 locations of defence family health centres. Minister, in the budget you have announced five centres. Minister, in detail and supported by the now Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, at Townsville, you said that these clinics would have a GP for half a day a week and they would have a nurse every day of the week. You said that they would have a full-time dentist at these clinics. You said they would have a full-time dental assistant at these clinics. There was no talk of caps. Now, in your policy, which has been watered down to $12 million and to five centres, there are no clinics: just toddle off to the doctor and if you get a bill for extra services, send it to them—but make sure those extra services are not for things like X-rays or referrals to other specialists. This has gone a long way from providing free dental and medical help to families of defence personnel. This was their retention package, clearly stated in the policy.

We have now seen that watered down to $12 million over four years, five centres and ‘just shoot along to the local GP’. One of the problems with postings is that you may not get onto a GP’s books. All you are going to be refunded is the difference if that GP does not bulk-bill. Dental assistance has been capped at $300 per person. There was not a single mention of that prior to the election. The government said they were going to provide a GP for half a day, five days a week; a nurse full time; a dentist full time; and a dental assistant full time. The government have misled Defence Force families. What we see is an apology from the minister: ‘I am sorry.’ Well, I am sorry— (Time expired)

See this speech in context