My question is to the Minister for Defence. Following a wasted decade in the defence portfolio, what action is the Albanese Labor government taking to clean up the mess?

I thank the member for her question. Front and centre, one of my responsibilities over the course of the last year has been cleaning up the mess that has been left by the single worst government on national security in our country's history. We inherited a capability gap with our submarines as the former coalition government were in and out of a deal with Japan, in and out of a deal with France—giving rise to a decade of indecision. We inherited 28 different programs running a combined 97 years over time. What we've now learnt is that in their last five years, the former government effectively engaged in $20 billion worth of cuts to the Defence budget, including taking billions of dollars secretly from the defence budget in a single strategic reserve adjustment alone.

The Leader of the Opposition was the last defence minister in that government but, to be fair, it was not all his fault because what preceded him was a revolving door of defence ministers: Johnston, Kevin Andrews, Senator Payne, Pyne, Senator Reynolds. It's hard to remember them all! But what is really clear about that revolving door is that the former government regarded the defence portfolio as a trophy, and they saw the Defence Force as an opportunity simply to raise money for the Liberal Party.

The Liberals believe that they had a brand advantage—

The Deputy Prime Minister will just pause so that I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

As well as being a widely inaccurate melange of factual misstatements—

What's your point of order?

The point of order is on relevance to the question. This minister has spent well over a minute on matters carried out under the previous government. Your ruling has been that the appropriate thing for the minister to do is to speak about what he's doing, and I'd suggest to you he should be brought back to that requirement.

And we're telling Christopher too!

The member for Gippsland is warned! The Leader of the House?

To the point of order, the objection that the Manager of Opposition Business is making is actually an objection to the question. The question was in order, and they didn't object to it. The Deputy Prime Minister is certainly being relevant to every part of it.

The Leader of the Opposition?

Whilst you're considering the matter, Mr Speaker, there was an improper imputation that the minister suggested, and he should withdraw that. He should withdraw that unparliamentary remark that was quite offensive, quite separate to the other valid points made by the Manager of Opposition Business.

The Leader of the House?

To what was just raised—because I know there's an increasing trend to try to seek anything be withdrawn if it upsets someone, even in a political sense—what the Deputy Prime Minister did was explain a point of fact about when donations were sought, and points of fact should not be sought to be withdrawn.

I'm just going to remind the Deputy Prime Minister to be careful with his language, so it's within standing orders. On the point of order: the question was about 'following a wasted decade in defence, what action the government is taking to clear up the mess'. Whilst the minister is allowed some compare and contrast, he needs to remain his answer within standing orders. I'll listen to him carefully to make sure he is complying with that. I'll hear from the member for Wannon.

Mr Speaker, there was an imputation. I would ask you to look at it. It would help the House if the minister withdrew. If he doesn't, I would ask you to look at that and come back and advise us why he hasn't.

Government members interjecting—

Order! The member is entitled to raise a point of order. I shall review what the minister said and write back to the member for Wannon. I give the call to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Astonishingly and infamously, they actually tried to do it. The Liberal Party think they have a brand advantage on national security, but that has made them lazy. Theirs is not a party of defence strategists; it's a party of defence dilettantes. If they ever did have a strategic advantage on national security, one achievement in the last decade is that those opposite totally and completely obliterated that. The country has moved on. This government has now removed the capability gap when it comes to our submarines. We have re-tasked our Defence Force for the first time in 35 years. We have got the defence budget back in order, focusing the defence spend on where defence needs it the most. We are serious people running a serious government, making serious decisions.

The proper reading of Australian history is that, when times have been difficult for our national security, Australians have always looked to Labor. The First World War, the Second World War, the Cold War—Fisher, Curtin, Hawke. As our country faces the most complex strategic circumstances since the Second World War, another Labor government, the Albanese government, is committed to keeping Australians safe.

The member for Riverina can now be warned alongside the member for Gippsland—two of you!