David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that Defence is a critical responsibility of the Australian Government, which:

(a) requires substantial investment in order to ensure Australia's military preparedness; and

(b) suffered from material budget cuts under the former Government in recent years;

(2) recognises the plans of the Government to make no further cuts to Defence expenditure, and to increase Defence expenditure to 2 per cent of GDP within a decade; and

(3) commends the Government on this approach to Defence expenditure planning.

Defence expenditure is critical for this parliament, for this government and for our nation—and not just today but also into the future. We find ourselves in a situation today where defence spending as a proportion of GDP is the lowest it has been since 1938—that is, since before the Second World War. Defence spending now is just 1.59 per cent of GDP. This low figure is a consequence of a number of politically expedient cuts to defence spending which were made by the previous Labor government, particularly towards the end of its term in office. The coalition is determined to ensure that there are no further cuts to defence spending—and, indeed, to work towards increasing defence expenditure to 2 per cent of GDP within a decade. This is a very important goal because we need to ensure a significant level of defence expenditure to enable our military to prepare for the challenges that lie ahead. We are now spending six times more on social security and welfare payments than we are on defence. Again, that is a reflection on the lack of emphasis on Defence spending under the previous government.

Back in 2009, the Labor government put in place a Defence white paper which called for three per cent real growth in Defence spending through to 2017-18 and 2.2 per cent thereafter. But of course that did not happen; in fact, what happened was that the Labor Party made some substantial cuts to Defence expenditure to the detriment of our military, particularly in the final years of office.

In 2007, according to the Defence Intelligence Organisation, 5.7 per cent of nominal government spending was in Defence. But by 2012 that had fallen to just 4.9 per cent. So it was 5.7 per cent in 2007, when Labor came into office; 4.9 per cent by 2012. That is a very significant change in the budgetary priorities of the nation. Labor cut Defence spending by almost five per cent in 2010-11 and then by a massive 10.5 per cent in 2012. The 2012 cut was the largest reduction of the Defence budget as a percentage since the end of the Korean War. That is just an extraordinary and unexpected cut to Defence expenditure.

We are now sitting down at 1.59 per cent of GDP on Defence and, when you compare that to a number of another nations around the world, that is a very low figure, unsustainably low. Singapore spends 3.6 per cent of GDP on Defence; Vietnam is 2.4 per cent; South Korea is 2.5 per cent; Russia is three per cent; the UK is 2.5 per cent; and the USA spends 4.5 per cent of GDP on military expenditure.

It is critical that we get our Defence spending back to that level of two per cent of GDP to enable us to plan for the challenges that lie ahead. You have to ask yourself: why did we end up in this situation? Why did Labor cut Defence so substantially? You very rarely, if ever, hear an argument where somebody says 'the right thing to do is cut military expenditure'. Nobody says that. The Labor Party does not say that publicly but, when it is politically convenient and when they want to move some money around to account for the fact that they have so inefficiently spent money elsewhere, Defence is a politically convenient place to cut.

There were huge blow-outs under the previous government: $6.6 billion in border protection; $2 million advertising a border security plan targeted at people smugglers within Australia, which is a shameful waste of money. Of course we had the bungled BER scheme, and the NBN which lurched from one disaster to another under Labor. There are a whole range of failures in budget planning which left Labor in the position of looking for places to cut. They spent nearly $70 million advertising the carbon tax. They spent $100 million on an assistance package for the live export industry. They only had to spend that money because of the knee-jerk decision to basically end the trade overnight. They spent nearly $70 million on set-top boxes that cost $350 each; when you can walk into Harvey Norman and buy one for about $150. And let's not forget the pink batts home insulation scheme, which cost just under $3 billion.

So there has been huge mismanagement of the finances of the nation under Labor. As a consequence, they looked for places to cut, and Defence was somewhere they found. They consistently overestimated revenue. They took rosy financial forecasts and tried to bank the money before the revenue came in. It is always a problem when you spend money before you have it, and that is what they did consistently. As my colleague the member for Fadden has said, Labor used Defence as its personal ATM, to help it address its ongoing budget blow-outs, and that was a shameful piece of budget management.

The Rudd Rebellion by Bruce Hawker is a tremendously interesting work. He made some comments about Labor's expenditure review committee and expressed a relief that Labor decided to focus its saving plans on less politically sensitive areas such as defence. In that statement I think we see a lot about the thinking—or lack thereof—that the previous, Labor government put into our defence planning.

The previous government had their own white paper in 2009, which set out a certain level of spending that was required. That government said, 'Yes, we'll do that,' and then they did not. Not only did they not meet the relatively modest increases called for in the 2009 white paper; they actually did the opposite. They very substantially cut defence expenditure.

So we are now in this situation where our defence spending, as a percentage of GDP, is the lowest it has been since before the Second World War. That is an extraordinary situation, and not one that this current government supports. The Lowy Institute has said that, under short-term political pressures—that is exactly what it was: short term political thinking—the Rudd and Gillard governments began deferring much of their own plans to modernise the nation's military. I emphasise that these were the previous governments' own plans. They delayed or cut more than $20 billion in defence investment.

The Lowy Institute went on to say that the impact of that 10.5 per cent budget cut in 2012 is only now being fully understood. Maintenance, logistics and training are underfunded. Some capabilities, such as tanks, have been effectively mothballed. That has a very significant impact, and it is certainly something that this government will address.

We cannot be sure of what security challenges we will face in the future. The area is inherently uncertain. History tells us that we cannot always predict security challenges before they arise. But one thing we can be sure of is that it is better to be prepared for eventualities than not to be prepared. This government is strongly committed to preparing our military to face the challenges that may arise in the future.

The Labor Party's record in this area is one of political expediency. It is one of taking money out of Defence because of budgetary problems that occur in other areas. Imagine the government of the day putting out a defence white paper—a lengthy process in 2009—committing to the targets, and then, when the going got a bit tough politically and, particularly, financially, basically abrogating those targets and walking away from them completely. That was absolutely the wrong thing to do. This government is committed to turning around investment in our defence forces. That is why I am moving this motion today.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Banks. There is no greater responsibility for government than the defence of Australia and Australia's interests. In May 2013, the former, Labor government delivered the 2013 defence white paper, which outlined Labor's plan to maintain a strong Australian Defence Force which was capable of meeting Australia's national security challenges. It included major new capability commitments which are critical to Australia's long-term defence and security and which ensured Australia maintained world-class defence capabilities. In the 2013-14 budget the former, Labor government provided Defence with a record $114 billion across the forward estimates, and funding guidance of over $220 billion over the subsequent six years from 2017-18 to 2022-23. We committed to increase defence spending towards a target of two per cent of GDP.

The former, Labor government had a comprehensive equipment modernisation program. From the release of the 2009 white paper until the 2013 federal election the Labor government granted 141 approvals, with a total spend of around $21.1 billion. Consequently, over this period Defence took delivery of a number of major new systems including C-17 heavy lift aircraft, F/A-18F Super Hornet combat aircraft, Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles produced by Thales in my home state of Victoria, and two large amphibious sealift vessels.

As a consequence of this investment and diligence, at the November 2013 Senate estimates hearing, senior Defence personnel confirmed that Defence capabilities had been significantly enhanced under the former Labor government. Last week, in a speech at a dinner hosted by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and Boeing, the Chief of Army, Lt Gen. David Morrison described Army today as being in its best shape ever. Although the coalition government repeatedly said before the election that levels of Defence spending were at their lowest since 1938, they failed to provide the public with an accurate description of Defence funding—this should come as no surprise.

An article published by Derek Woolner, visiting fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, in September 2013 gave a far more comprehensive description of Defence spending. It is interesting to reflect on this for just a moment. The Australian government spent £9,357 on Defence in 1937 and £17,006 in 1938. Those numbers, if converted to today's current figures, would represent around $778 million and $1,114 million respectively. In financial year 2012-13 the Department of Defence spent more than that every three weeks in its annual budget of $25.4 billion.

For six of the 11 budgets the coalition handed down from 1996 to 2007, Defence spending fell to the lowest level since 1938 as a percentage of GDP—a point worth reflecting upon, although no doubt those opposite will avoid it. In 2009, under the former Labor government, Defence spending rose to 1.94 per cent of GDP. Labor has come closer to achieving a target of two per cent than those opposite ever have.

Typically, the coalition has outperformed Labor in the polls when it comes to the question of Defence. This has had the unfortunate effect of making the coalition 'defence lazy'. The notion that the coalition is strong on defence policy actually emboldens the coalition to do little or even nothing. Recently, we saw the coalition use its defence credentials to avoid articulating any meaningful Defence policy and to avoid presenting detailed or even coherent Defence policies. Instead, the coalition followed Labor.

The Minister for Defence, the Hon. Senator Johnston, has on numerous occasions described Defence as 'an unsustainable mess'. While he continues to denigrate Labor and the Defence department, it is worth remembering: at the 2013 election, the coalition promised, eloquently, to spend $113 billion over the forward estimates. Labor budgeted approximately $114 billion, so that was nothing more than echoing a Labor budget.

At the 2013 election, the coalition promised to increase spending to two per cent of GDP 'within the decade' following a Labor commitment to increase Defence spending to two per cent of GDP 'when financially responsible to do so'. Once again, we have the coalition doing nothing more than echoing Labor. The Labor party can do nothing but commend the coalition government for promising the same dollars, the same time frames and the same procurement plans as the former Labor government. That mimicry does not seem to stop the government from indulging in continuing misrepresentation of their position and indeed that of the former government.

The coalition government has made no progress on Defence since the election—a simple fact. The delay of a new White Paper and Defence Capability Plan has ensured that scenarios such as the so called 'valley of death' in ship building, which Labor had effectively solved, will now come to fruition. The government plans to spend half a term writing a new White Paper—what an extraordinary plan that is. It has made no commitment to provide any additional funding to Defence, beyond what was already committed by the former Labor government. A fine example of how this government's persistent inaction in Defence is costing jobs, hurting our economy, damaging Defence Industries and risking Defence capabilities is this 'valley of death'.

The 'valley of death' of course is the foreseeable and dramatic decline in shipbuilding that exists between the completion of the landing helicopter docks and the air warfare destroyers and the commencement of the Future Frigate and Future Submarine programs. It is well understood that having assembled a skilled workforce able to build first-class warships for Australia, the dispersal of this workforce from mid-2014 would not only cost up to 1,100 jobs, but also create avoidable and dire challenges for a viable shipbuilding industry in this country—but none of that seems to matter to government.

The former Labor government developed a plan to manage the so-called 'Valley of Death'. Labor was committed to the construction of two replacement supply ships here in Australia. The replacement of our ships HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius is vitally important to our Navy. Labor was able to marry the interests of our defence industries and our ADF capability requirements and take a solution to the last election. In recent months we have seen this solution wither. By sitting on his hands for some six months, Senator Johnston has now made the so-called 'Valley of Death' a certainty. Instead of dealing with an 'unsustainable mess', Senator Johnston is creating one.

The JSF, the Future Submarine and the LAND 400 project for replacement armoured vehicles were three flagship projects of the last two white papers and, indeed, the former Labor government. All are now under a cloud of uncertainty. There are now rumours swirling throughout defence and the ADF that LAND 400 will not achieve first-pass approval in April, the original time frame under Labor. It may be pushed back to September, it may be significantly slashed in scope and budget and it may suffer significant delays in schedule. That will leave our soldiers with an increasingly obsolete fleet of armoured vehicles. That is an unsustainable mess.

In summary, this motion is a sad nonsense. It is perhaps a breakthrough for the other side to note that defence is a critical responsibility of the Australian government—but, for the rest of the country, that is mere common sense. It does require a substantial investment. Labor made that investment. We were the first government in this nation's history to ever budget more than $100 billion in defence spending across the forward estimates. The best the other side can do is promise the same defence expenditure over the next four years that Labor committed.

The government says it will make no further cuts to defence expenditure but the evidence now is not so plain. The replacement supply ships will not be built as quickly as they would have been under Labor. Replacement armoured vehicles now face the threat of delay and perhaps a reduction in scope. As a sign of the times, we have seen 480 Protective Service Officers, who are used to secure ADF establishments and other vital assets, issued with potential redundancy notices.

In 2009 Labor's defence spending reached 1.94 per cent of GDP. That is the high watermark of defence spending in the modern era—and it is a Labor high watermark not a coalition one. Throughout the Howard years, we saw defence spending wither. Under the Howard government, defence spending reached a peak of 1.87 per cent of GDP in 1996—their first year. It then trended down over the rest of his term, reaching 1.68 per cent in 2007, with an average percentage of GDP for the four terms of office of 1.78 per cent.

So you might very well make the rhetorical claim that Labor used defence as at ATM, but that of course does not bear scrutiny. When we strip away the government's rhetoric we find that they promise the same spend over the next four years and they have the same aspiration of 2 per cent. But worse, they have no record to be proud of in defence. Inadequate spending and inadequate strategic guidance is their legacy. The only reason they can afford to squander half their term writing a new white paper, without doing lasting harm—Time expired)

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As someone who represents a defence community in this place, the Holsworthy Army Barracks and the School of Military Engineering, I am very pleased to second this motion moved by my colleague and my neighbour along the Georges River, the member for Banks. Defence is just another sorry mess that we have inherited from the previous Labor-Greens government. The member for Banks raised a very good point when he highlighted the fact that defence funding was simply used as a personal ATM by the former government—stripping defence funding to its lowest levels of GDP since 1938. May peace be in our time. It is a sad indictment of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments that they saw the men and women on the frontlines of Australia's security as an easy target to rip cash out of so that they could pay for their roof batts, their school halls and many other examples of horrendous and wasteful expenditure that we saw through those six embarrassing years.

Let us start with the facts. The former Labor government cut defence spending by five per cent in the 2010-11 financial year. The following year, 2012, it made a further 10.5 per cent cut. This is something unprecedented in the past 50 years. In fact, we have to go back to the end of the Korean War to find a time that a government of this country cut Defence spending as the previous Labor government did. The background to this is that in its 2009 white paper Labor promised, going into the 2010 election, to increase Defence spending by three per cent annually every year on to 2017-18. That was the commitment; that was the promise; that is what our Defence Forces were told—a three per cent annual increase. But what did we see? We saw five per cent ripped out in the first year and 10.5 per cent ripped out the following year.

It is interesting to see what our nearest neighbours were doing at that time. They were doing the exact opposite to the previous Labor government. While Labor was taking the axe to Defence spending, our northern neighbours were increasing their defence spending significantly. One thing that I find most difficult to comprehend is that, while Labor was cutting our Defence spending to the lowest level since 1938, at the very same time they gave away $416.4 million to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in foreign aid. That is all very nice—our foreign aid budget is important—but last year, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam reportedly purchased 12 Sukhoi Su-30MK2 fighter aircraft from Russia for $450 million. Let's not forget that those 12 advanced Sukhoi fighter aircraft will add to the 20 the Socialist Republic of Vietnam have purchased since 2009. And that is on top of Vietnam's recent purchases from Russia of six new Kilo Class submarines, costing approximately $3 billion, and four new Russian built Stealth Frigates, costing $350 million each.

As I have said, I am a supporter of foreign aid, but when rash cuts were made and reduced the Defence budget to the lowest levels of GDP since 1938 and when the Labor government was hopelessly in debt should we really have been sending $416 million to a country that at the same time could afford to buy expensive and highly sophisticated military weaponry? Do they really need Australian taxpayers to pay for their roads and bridges, when we have to borrow that money? In reality we are borrowing money from China for our foreign aid. We cannot afford it—we are in debt—and then we give the money to countries like Vietnam, which frees up their budget so that they can afford to buy advanced Russian fighter jets. I have some great concerns about this policy. Defence is very important, and the coalition has made a commitment. The difference between the coalition and Labor is that when we make a commitment, we will stick to it.(Time expired)

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the subject of Defence expenditure. It is a subject very close to my heart. I worked in Defence for many years before I was elected to parliament, and my electorate of Canberra is home to many Defence personnel, both civilian and military, and their families. Last year I was honoured to take on the role of shadow parliamentary secretary for Defence. I am deeply interested in this issue. I thank the member for Banks for this motion, and on his first point we are agreed: Defence is a critical responsibility of the Australian government. Labor has a proud record in its stewardship of Defence while in government. I acknowledge my colleague, the member for Batman, for his work in this area and his detailing of Labor's proud record a moment ago.

I have a particular interest in Defence procurement, and one of Labor's achievements that I am especially proud of is the Projects of Concern process. This was established by Labor to improve the procurement process by focusing the attention of the highest levels of government, defence and industry on remediating problem projects, ultimately delivering tangible benefits to the men and women of the ADF. I am also deeply interested in the health and welfare of Defence families, and here too Labor has a proud record. I was very pleased when, not two weeks ago, the member for Brisbane praised one of Labor's policies in this area: the National Australian Defence Force Family Health Program. The program, which provides free, basic medical services for Defence families, is one of which Labor is incredibly proud, and Labor is pleased that this is one of the initiatives that those opposite have chosen not to cut. I thank the member for Brisbane for her kind words about Labor's initiative and for recognising Labor's leadership in this area. It showed great bipartisanship.

But it is on the member for Banks' second and third points that I have some concerns. The member for Banks said the Abbott government plans to make no further cuts to Defence expenditure, and moved to commend the government on its Defence expenditure planning. I wonder if the member for Banks has spoken to the Minister for Defence, because it would seem they are on two very different pages. While the member for Banks said there are to be 'no further cuts' to Defence, the Minister for Defence said the Department of Defence is 'too heavy' and needs 'trimming'. In fact, the minister said he is going to 'methodically and carefully trim' the department—which sure sounds like cuts to me.

I wonder, too, if the member for Banks is aware of a little process the government is undertaking at the moment called the Commission of Audit. Perhaps he has not heard of it, or has not heard any detail about it. If he had, he would know that by its own admission the government is waiting to be told what to do, and where to cut, by its Commission of Audit—and that nothing, including cuts to Defence, is being ruled out. The member for Banks must also be unaware of the two separate reviews the government is currently undertaking into the Department of Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation. And perhaps he did not hear that in January the government announced—one of the very few announcements that have been made by this government in the Defence portfolio—that it would be cutting the pay and conditions of Australian Defence Force personnel serving in Afghanistan and the Middle East, leaving some ADF personnel facing a pay cut of as much as $19,000.

As for the commitment to increase Defence expenditure to two per cent of GDP within a decade, I think the member for Batman has rightly, and very well-articulated, his and Labor's views on that. I ask, and I know the Australian people are asking: how can a government as hell-bent on austerity, cuts and slashing support to those most in need credibly make such a commitment? Analysis by senior Defence economist Dr Mark Thomson of ASPI says that a commitment of two per cent of GDP within a decade requires an annual real increase of five per cent.

When the government has broken every other promise it has made on cuts—promises like no cuts to health, no cuts to education and no changes to pensions—when it has already made cuts to Defence, how can the Australian people give any credibility to this government's promises on Defence expenditure?

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the member for Banks' motion. Maintaining strong, financial support for our nation's defence is of particular importance to my electorate of Ryan, which is home to Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera. Many service men and women have spoken to me about the harsh and sudden cuts under the previous government and the compromising effect that had on the Australian Defence Force. There is no greater responsibility for our national government than the defence of our nation, our people and their interests. This requires complex strategic judgements about risks and opportunities in the international environment. It means providing the necessary financial support to ensure an effective Australian Defence Force that is able to make its contribution in meeting current and future challenges.

The Obama administration announced a military and diplomatic 'pivot' towards Asia. Hillary Clinton, the then United States Secretary of State, emphasised the importance of the Asia-Pacific, noting that nearly half the world's population resides there, making it vital to American economic and strategic interests. Australia is able to draw the same conclusion, as our closest trading partners are from within the Asia-Pacific region, and it is in our interest to help maintain order within our own neighbourhood.

The 2013 Defence white paper understood the importance of an ongoing economic and military shift to the Indo-Pacific as a natural extension of the 2009 Defence white paper's emphasis on Australia's interest in the stability of the wider Asia-Pacific region. Growing trade, investment and energy flows across this broader region are strengthening economic and security interdependencies. These two factors combined are also increasingly attracting international attention to the Indian Ocean, through which some of the wold's busiest and most significant trade routes pass. For Australia, this increasingly more complex Indo-Pacific environment will make it more challenging for us to achieve or influence outcomes. Asian countries will balance a broader range of interests and partners, and Australia's voice will need to be clearer and stronger to be heard.

It is understood that defence planning is, by its very nature, a complex and long-term business. Defence planning is one area of public policy where decisions taken in one decade have the potential to affect Australia's sovereignty and freedom of action for decades to come. Defence spending is primarily tied up in long-term contracts for infrastructure and equipment, as well as long-term commitments of personnel to foreign aid deployments and other international security programs. This does not leave much room in the defence budget for short term cuts and 'efficiencies'.

The previous government pushed a Defence-wide cultural change towards operational efficiency. This is most certainly a positive idea, as all areas of government, including Defence, could be made more efficient. However, even when Defence is on board to move towards a more efficient operation, such a cultural shift will require incremental change over at least a five-year period. The original incentive for a cultural shift towards efficiency within Defence was made on the promise by the previous government that any savings made would be able to be reinvested by Defence for defence purposes.

The problem occurred when the Labor government then turned around, after having taken a wrecking ball to the economy, and decided to take the money 'saved' by the efficiency measures from Defence even before the measures had been realised. The previous government allocated insufficient funding to provide for all of Australia's defence needs. The real cost of military equipment continues to rise and the operational demands and strategic challenges for our defence forces remain high and yet the previous government insisted on ripping the innards from defence. It is vital that we maintain the effectiveness of our nation's defence force and spontaneously cutting funding is a certain way of undermining its strength. Similar issues can arise when defence spending is increased too rapidly. Defence planning, by its nature, requires long-term preparation to enter into new contracts, recruit new personnel and invest in new infrastructure with lasting budget certainty.

I am proud to stand on this side of the chamber where we recognise the crucial role our defence force plays in securing Australia's borders, strengthening our relations with our neighbouring countries and protecting our interests overseas through our commitment to steadily and incrementally increase defence expenditure to two per cent of GDP within a decade. The coalition is proving our commitment to protect and defend our people and to enhance Australia's national security interests, by bolstering our defence capabilities.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to note the Prime Minister's claimed commitment to increase defence spending by two per cent of GDP over the next 10 years. I note this with interest as it suggests that the government believes Australia's defence industry is a growth industry. This will appeal to constituents in Melbourne's west, given the thousands of jobs that have been lost in the manufacturing sector from Melbourne's west and Geelong in previous weeks.

By increasing defence spending, we could see an increase in work for our military suppliers, researchers and shipbuilders over the next decade, particularly at the Williamstown shipyards in my electorate. But the life of the Australian naval shipbuilding industry is currently measured in weeks, not decades.

The Prime Minister would do well to take his eyes off the horizon on defence expenditure and focus on the immediate obstacles facing the shipbuilding industry. I speak of the precarious immediate future of the BAE shipyards in Williamstown, whose workers have produced for 150 years the high-tech warships that the Australian Navy requires. These shipyards have recently undertaken important work on the air warfare destroyer and landing helicopter dock projects. Over 1,000 workers have used their skills and expertise in the production of these warships. But the work on these projects is nearing completion, and the Abbott government's promises of work to come have not yet translated into concrete defence contracts.

The Williamstown shipyards are fast approaching the infamous Valley of Death, where unless new defence contracts are delivered the shipyards will close and the skills and expertise of this sector will vanish. We will see the loss of another 1,000 manufacturing jobs from Melbourne's west to complement the 2½ thousand jobs we recently lost at the Toyota plant in Altona. Such job losses are symbolic of the Abbott government's inability to make the transition from opposition to government. It is all very well to promise an increase in defence spending of two per cent of GDP while acting as an opposition attack dog; but a one-sentence slogan is not a coordinated strategy for the future of our defence program. Rather, a coordinated strategy requires dealing with the practicalities that our defence industry faces now so that any obstacles in the way of a brighter future are fully addressed.

Australia's shipyards ought to have a bright future. The shipbuilding needs of the Australian Navy require the construction of 80 ships worth $100 billion, and constructing them here would ensure a thriving shipbuilding industry in Australia for decades. With an additional eight frigates as part of the Future Frigate project, 14 patrol boats, six landing craft, two supply ships and more than 20 patrol boats included on the shopping list of the Navy, Australia's demand for warships has rarely been greater. As I know the member for Charlton would agree, there is no better place to build these ships than in Australia; we have workers with high-tech skills who wish to do their part to build the warships to defend our nation. The member for Charlton may disagree with me, though, when I say that there is no better place to build these ships than in Williamstown. But I stand proudly for the efforts of the workers in my electorate. I know that their expertise has built the best ships that the Australian Navy could ask for, and I know that the loss of the jobs of these workers through the sheer neglect and incompetence of the Abbott government will leave a far worse scar on Melbourne's worse than the sight of abandoned shipyards.

We need to support the future of these workers, and we need to do it now. A coordinated strategy is required so that the shipbuilding industry is safe in the immediate future and does not experience the peaks and troughs of haphazard defence planning in the long term. There is only so much that a company such as BAE can do when it relies upon Defence contracts for most of its work. The Abbott government needs to step up to the challenge and create a plan to secure the future of Australian shipbuilders. Luckily for the Prime Minister there is already a plan which he can use and which is sensible, has widespread approval and shows an appreciation of the realities facing our shipbuilding industry. The previous Labor government's plan would have prevented the valley of death both in the short term and in long term. Labor announced in August 2013 that the government would fast-track the replacement of HMAS Sirius and HMAS Success to offset the valley of death.

It is time for action. Last week the Victorian Premier met with the Prime Minister to again discuss the future of employment in Melbourne's west and in Geelong. There are no jobs in these meetings; there is no satisfaction in these meetings for the thousands of BAE workers facing unemployment. I do not want to see the Premier of Victoria touring the Williamstown shipyards after they have closed as he has so recently toured the many failed businesses in Victoria. It is time for the Prime Minister to look beyond the easy simplicity of a one-sentence slogan and to endorse the plan for the future of our shipbuilding industry that Melbourne's west so desperately needs. It is about time that the former Leader of the Opposition became a Prime Minister and acted to secure the jobs of thousands of workers in my electorate.

Debate adjourned.