Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister inform the House why a sovereign defence industry capability is vital to Australia's national security and international interests and how this differs from other approaches?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. I know that she, like many members on this side of the House, takes a sovereign defence capability seriously. Obviously, in the last 12 months, this government, the Turnbull government, has made the decisions necessary to undo the wrongs that were committed by the Labor Party in the six years that they were in government. This is the government that decided to build 12 submarines, nine future frigates, 12 offshore patrol vessels and 21 Pacific patrol vessels—54 vessels over the next few decades, creating not just jobs but also sovereign defence capability, which is vitally important to Australia if it wants to be a good ally and partner to our allies and partners around the world and also to have the capability where we can enforce the support that we have for the international rules-based order and we can defend our own national interests.

When Labor was in power, spending on defence dropped to the lowest levels since the appeasement period, since 1938: 1½ per cent.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I see that they are very exercised about this answer. Of course, Labor's actions in government belie the way that they have behaved since they were in opposition, particularly when we see the weakness that they have attracted to their foreign policy with respect to the South China Sea. In the last week or two, we might have started to see an inclination as to why the Labor Party have changed their mind about the South China Sea over recent times, or at least significant people within the Labor Party, because Sam Dastyari, who was a senior member—Shanghai Sam, as my colleague the Treasurer dubbed him—said about the South China Sea:

The South China Sea is China's own affair. On this issue, Australia should remain neutral and respect China's decision.

And now we know why, because, when Senator Dastyari had bills that he needed to have paid, he simply sent them to the piper. We know that the person who pays the piper calls the tune, and that is what happened with Sam Dastyari and these Chinese businesspeople. What we really need to know, though, from the Leader of the Opposition is: what did he do?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just remind the Leader of the House he should refer to senators by their correct title.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Speaker. What did the Leader of the Opposition do when it became apparent that Senator Dastyari had this significant problem? How did the Leader of the Opposition satisfy himself that Senator Dastyari did not have a reason to resign? In the past, when these issues have arisen, a proper inquiry has been sought and the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister has satisfied themselves as to the efficacy of the person's story. This Leader of the Opposition did absolutely nothing. He took no action. Who knew that Sam Dastyari would have higher standards than the Leader of the Opposition? He knew to resign when Bill Shorten still did not. (Time expired)