Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We should be debating defence and strategic issues. Our nation faces the most serious and deteriorating strategic circumstances that we have faced since World War II. That is a fact, universally agreed. On the very day that the government is receiving the Defence Strategic Review from Sir Angus Houston and Stephen Smith—the very day—the opposition choose to bring this debate. We could be debating important strategic matters such as the forced posture review, the future pathway for nuclear submarines, or exploring the policy issues.

I agree with those speakers opposite, not the last one but part of what the member for New England said and part of what the shadow minister said. I agree that these are serious issues. We should be seeking cross-party agreement. As chair of the defence subcommittee, that is what we strive to do with bipartisan reports, sensible briefings, sensible thinking. They are speaking against their own motion because the motion is new heights of bizarre. When you listen to the words in the motion they brought, they say we shouldn't be politicking yet they bring a ridiculous motion that says they want to talk about the consequences of the last Labor government. Kevin Rudd was elected 16 years ago. That is the debate they choose to bring today on this very day, given the seriousness of these issues. It says everything about how hopeless they are that they want to talk about the last Labor government 15 or 16 years ago.

I would prefer a debate about strategic policy but those opposite chose this. This is what those opposite chose to bring here—their choice. Why, you might ask. They are desperate to distract from their decade of dysfunction and dithering and delay on defence. I will quote the shadow minister, my favourite line from his 10 minutes of Churchillian-like application for the Leader of the Opposition's job one day. He drifted from defence matters into the economy to things which must underpin our prosperity. I like the wing cut collar. That is a nice touch, shadow minister. He said, 'Look forward, as you'll find no inspiration in your past.' Never truer words were spoken in relation to the opposition's record on defence. Those opposite are hoping Australians will forget that they were the government for the last 10 years, a long decade—well, nine years.

There were three prime ministers: Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison—the ATM government. And wasn't it an ATM! The cash just whirred out. There was a trillion dollars of Liberal debt and nothing much to show for it. Billions of dollars in compensation was paid for submarines that we did not get—another broken contract. There were three Treasurers, six defence ministers—you've got to go to two hands for that. I haven't had time to total up the number of ministers who churned in and out of the portfolio over their decade in office. It was chaos. They cut promised defence investments and failed to deliver projects on time. There were 28 projects running a cumulative 97 years late. Year after year on the audit committee, which I've been on, it was like goldfish: around in the bowl we go again, major projects report after major projects report.

The cover-ups! It was all announcement, no delivery. They must have run out of Australian flags for the number of announcements they made, hundreds of flags flying behind them, on billions of dollars of new investment, none of which was delivered. Too little capability is the key point here: battlefield airlifters which can't fly to a battlefield, patrol boats with substandard aluminium and rust problems. Then there were the submarines. How did the Japanese submarines go? Tony Abbott left; that stopped. How did the French submarines go? Billions of dollars were paid out when Malcolm Turnbull left. There's AUKUS—no submarines ordered. As a defence minister has said to this House, you can't take a press release onto the battlefield. You can't hold up the budget papers and say: 'Don't shoot! We haven't got any missiles yet, but they're coming in the forward estimates or sometime thereafter.'

Yes, I'm someone—a proud lefty—who says that we are going to need to spend more on defence as a percentage of GDP. The progressive side of politics must never cede national security to those opposite, given their dismal record. During the Second World War, Australians called on a Labor government, with John Curtin and Ben Chifley, to save us at that time. But it's the quality of the spend that matters. It's not how big the spend is; it's what you do with it that counts. And you deter from a position of strength.

The finance department—let's be honest—don't like defence. They say, 'You want to spend how many billions of dollars on stuff you hope you'll never use?' Well, that's the point. But if deterrence doesn't work, if the very worst happens—the absolute, ultimate failure of politics—then the men and women of the ADF deserve the very best. And that's what we're committed to giving them, in contrast to the record of those opposite. They brought this debate. It should be above politics, but they chose this. (Time expired)

See this speech in context