Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers from Senator Ronaldson and Senator Brandis. In relation to Senator Ronaldson's answers, I want to put on the record on behalf of a number of veterans' organisations that are very interested in the particular subject of veterans becoming homeless, that I think his answer was less than ministerially appropriate. There are occasions in question time when you can have a good joust across the chamber, but there are certain questions that really do require ministerial competence when you are answering them. Bluff and bluster are no substitute for ministerial competence, and sneering denigration of the questioner and the opposition is no substitute for ministerial competence, either.

We know from the submission of the minister's own department to the 2012 inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into the care of ADF personnel wounded and injured on operations, that between 4,000 and 6,000 personnel leave the ADF each year. The DVA cited a Defence survey stating that 60 per cent of the serving personnel had reported being deployed, with 43 per cent reporting multiple deployments. The DVA stated that, as of June 2011, there were around 45,000 surviving veterans with operational service from conflicts since 1999, with a significant sub-group of reservists—21,554—with operational service. There is a lot of community interest in this. The simple facts are that people who serve their country and have then been discharged will, in a lot of cases, eventually resurface a number of years later and get some form of assistance and payments. It would be prudent and appropriate to make contact or, as Mr Moose Dunlop OAM says, that the DVA should keep track of these people. Rather than letting them go to the bottom of an inevitable path if they do suffer from post traumatic stress or some other thing they should be contacted, looked after and, at the very least, there should be a survey to find out what is going on. The last ones to do that were the Labor government of 2009.

Returning to my well-trodden path on submarines, it is interesting that, amongst the many, many people who have now joined the voice of those calling for submarines to be maintained, sustained and built in Adelaide—lo and behold, it has been revealed after a freedom of information request that the high-level departmental advice to the government noted an overwhelming preference for the Adelaide-based, government-owned shipbuilder, ASC, to do the bulk of the work. That is what the department advised the minister. We have now had a comment from the Prime Minister in an article titled 'Abbott denies subs snub':

The Prime Minister has fended off allegations that he ignored the advice of the department for the majority of the construction of Australia's new submarines to be built in Adelaide.

Freedom of information has revealed the advice, and the advice was very clear. We now know that, along with most of the Liberal members from South Australia either in this House or in the other House, the department is on side as well. Not only is the majority of the population in South Australia wanting to maintain, build, sustain, develop and to get every bit of work that we can get out of the submarine project done in South Australia, but the only one who is on the outer is the Prime Minister and his National Security Committee.

Very clearly, common sense was prevailing. However, a chance agreement between Prime Minister Abe of Japan and Prime Minister Abbott of Australia looks like facilitating the Japanese into the competitive evaluation. We know that the Japanese are having their own meeting to see whether they will share their secrets. But the reality is that in South Australia you cannot move without being approached about this. We need to build, maintain, develop, sustain and design in South Australia.