House debates

Monday, 18 June 2012

Bills

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012; Second Reading

6:37 pm

Photo of Nola MarinoNola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, like the member for Mitchell, I indicate my support for the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012—and it is, as the member for Mitchell said, about time. I believe that we need to do whatever we can to support our defence personnel, the men and women who come from overseas and those who are from Australia who put their safety on the line to defend the interests of all Australians at home and abroad. As we have heard, the original bill was put together by the member for Fadden, the shadow minister, Stuart Robert, and I commend him for his efforts. He is unrelenting in his representation in this regard, and I echo his concerns about the $5 billion worth of cuts to defence in the current budget.

This is a very important issue. It is very important that faster access to Australian citizenship be extended to the families of those personnel who have completed the relevant defence service. The personnel involved have access but their families do not. This bill seeks to change that. As we have heard, 90 per cent of those who come here in that form do bring their families. So the merit of extending this privilege to foreign nationals who are willing to serve directly in our armed services should really be obvious to us all and should not have taken so long. That is why the coalition, through the member for Fadden, previously introduced the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill back in May of this year.

I would like to see the men and women who are responsible for our defence having a stronger bond to the country they are defending, and I think this is an important way that we can recognise the contribution they make to this nation. It is entirely appropriate that those who serve should be fast-tracked into Australian citizenship and so should their families, so that a new bond of national pride and appreciation cements the relationship that these people and these personnel have with the communities that ultimately they protect. That is what they are doing—they are protecting our communities.

It is not a great step forward to acknowledge that when such personnel align their loyalties to our nation through citizenship it is actually contradictory to deny their immediate family that same honour, opportunity and privilege, as we see it. This simple step, as previously proposed by the coalition, was delayed by Labor just to save political face—though I am not sure why. The legislation put forward previously by the member for Fadden was a very worthy piece of legislation, and I do not understand why the government did not support it, particularly given that the piece of legislation we see before us now is very similar to that. Unfortunately, it represents one more example of the political meanness of this government. I do not appreciate that approach to the members of our military.

Labor came into power promising a three per cent real increase in the defence budget and a white paper that was supposed to structure the force for the next 20 years. This is where we see this ongoing attack on defence—another promise from the Gillard government that, in defence terms, could be described as firing blanks. The government's promised three per cent real growth was actually only 1.3 per cent as at the end of last year—which represents the smallest increase in defence funding since 1938. The government appears to be ignoring the fact that our forces are actively engaged around the world. We are engaged in conflicts and in peacekeeping roles, and ongoing funding of defence is critical. It is obviously a surprise to the government to know that in practical terms these cuts mean additional demands and pressure on defence, not less.

The defence budget under Labor has now dropped to 1.6 per cent of GDP, just above the 1.55 per cent it was in the year before World War II—a period in which the world largely knew it was inevitably headed to the battlefield. Members would be shocked to hear that the defence budget has been slashed by around $18 billion over the last four years, and I have real concerns about this. This includes $5.5 billion worth of cuts under the most recent budget—with $960 million coming from next financial year alone. That lack of support for defence really does concern me. It has meant that significant defence projects have had to be pushed to the out years—and some beyond the out years—and probably will not ever be committed to under this government.

Comments

No comments