David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I assumed my current position as Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, one of the things I was looking forward to was the opportunity to debate defence issues with the shadow defence minister, Senator Johnston. But I have been sadly disappointed. Not only is Senator Johnston a shadow but he seems to be a silent shadow. For a senior shadow minister, he has had very little to say about defence matters.

This year, according to Hansard, he has spoken only four or five times on defence matters, not counting condolence motions. To the best of my recollection, in this calendar year he has not asked a single question without notice of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. So I was delighted this week to see Senator Johnston making a major statement on defence policy. I was of course surprised that he chose not to do this by way of making a statement in the Senate, which I would have thought was the correct thing to do. He did not even issue a general media release. Instead, he announced his new policy through an exclusive interview with the Australian. I suppose that should not have surprised me. The opposition seem to have outsourced most of their policy work to the Australian, since they are happy to just get up in the morning and, indeed, every day in the Senate and read out whatever the Australian has said that morning.

Nevertheless, I have to give Senator Johnston credit for his courage in announcing his policy statement and, as it turned out, his politically suicidal courage. I say that because Senator Johnston has put forward a sweeping revision of defence policy, a revision not only of this government's policy but also of the broad consensus that has existed between the major parties on defence policy since, at least, 1984.

The core of Senator Johnston's new policy is massive cuts to the defence procurement program, outlined in the 2009 Defence white paper. In fact, Senator Johnston wants to scrap that white paper entirely and write a new one.

The two biggest cuts Senator Johnston wants to make are to halve the number of F35 Joint Strike Fighters we buy and to scrap the plans for 12 new Australian made submarines under the Future Submarine Program. Apparently, he thinks he can save $30 billion to $40 billion by scrapping these two programs. Why is Senator Johnston proposing to gut our defence procurement program in such a radical way? The answer is obvious: the coalition is committed to cutting government spending by something in the order of $70 billion. Slashing our defence procurement is Senator Johnston's contribution to achieving that objective.

Senators opposite do not like being reminded about the $70 billion black hole they are committed to creating in our budget. Let me remind them what they have been committed to. The shadow treasurer, Mr Hockey, said on 16 August:

Finding $60, $70 billion is about identifying waste, identifying areas where you don't need to proceed with programs.

Apparently our nation's defence is an example of waste, and defence procurement is of one of these pesky programs we do not need. The shadow finance minister, Mr Robb, was specifically asked, on Meet the Press on 4 September, about whether defence is to be included in this massive cutting of government programs. He said:

We are looking at $70 billion as a sort of out-marker … We are looking at every area, there's not one area of any portfolio that is protected.

Let me repeat: 'not one area of any portfolio'. I think that is a line that may come back to haunt the opposition. So we know where Senator Johnston got the idea that he was expected to cut defence procurement by tens of billions. He got it from Mr Hockey and Mr Robb. We might have assumed that he also got it from Mr Abbott, but we learn today that Mr Abbott does not want to accept the logic of Senator Johnston's policy, and is hanging the senator out to dry.

I will come back to that fascinating question in a minute. But first let us ask the serious question: what would be the effect of scrapping our commitments to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and to build new submarines for our Navy? It would be to create a massive capability gap for both our Navy and Air Force. It would grievously affect the ability of the Defence Force to carry out the tasks Australia will expect of it over the coming decades. It would also deal a death blow to our defence manufacturing capability. Australia has been intimately involved in the JSF project since its inception—one of the Howard government's better decisions, and one which has always enjoyed bipartisan support. The plane is tailor-made to meet our defence aviation needs for the next 30 years. The JSF is expensive, to be sure, but when the cost is considered over the expected lifetime of the planes, it is not excessive. Senator Johnston himself has acknowledged how important submarine capability is to our defence needs, as an island nation with vulnerable trade routes and offshore assets, in a region in which the naval power of other regional players is growing and expanding. The future submarine program, like the JSF, is expensive, but also like the JSF it will be a long-term asset that will prove its worth over coming decades.

Senator Johnston does not deny that cutting the JSF procurement and scrapping the future submarine program would harm our defence capability. So he has proposed a couple of patch-up solutions. He intends to expand the existing F/A-18 Super Hornets, in the hope that they will do the job that the JSF is being bought to do. And he would buy cheaper off-the-shelf submarines from somewhere in Europe, despite the fact, which he has acknowledged himself, that they would not meet our very specific operational needs. He would give our Air Force inferior planes, and our Navy inferior submarines—a submarine fleet designed to patrol the Baltic rather than Australia's sea and air approaches.

Near enough is apparently good enough for Senator Johnston. Well, it's not good enough for this government. We have a serious commitment to giving Australia the best possible defence capability. Given our location and our strategic environment, and the best projections of our future strategic environment, that means serious investment in air and naval assets. Senator Johnston is not a stupid person, and I expect he reads the same reports on these questions that I have read. He knows what I have said is true. He knows why we are committing these large sums to these important procurement projects. He also knows that winning public support for defence spending requires bipartisan commitment. Yet he is being driven into this reckless folly by the ideological fetishes of his party and the short-term tactical manoeuvring of his leader. He is being driven into a policy which is dangerous, which is irresponsible, and which he knows he will have to reverse if he ever finds himself as defence minister.

I would think, however, that Senator Johnston's chances of becoming defence minister have been considerably reduced by the reception that his announcement in the Australian has received from his own party colleagues. Did it not occur to Senator Johnston that his decision to scrap the future submarine program might be received with something less than ecstasy by his South Australian colleagues? Did he not know that the submarines are most likely to be built in Adelaide, which, under the strong leadership of Premier Mike Rann, has become a defence manufacturing hub? Apparently not, and apparently also Senator Johnston forgot to warn the honourable member for Sturt, Mr Chris Pyne, of his plans. Mr Pyne rushed to repudiate Senator Johnston's announcement. He told ABC Radio in Adelaide this morning:

I'm making it perfectly clear this morning to you that there is no intention on the coalition's part to reduce our defence capabilities, no intention to reduce the defence budget and South Australia is the pre-eminent place to build and maintain defence infrastructure whether it's through Saab systems or BAE or the Australian Submarine Corporation, we'll continue our history of being the defence hub for this country.

Mr Pyne also said:

Well, there's a very good reason to maintain a capability to build ships and defence infrastructure for Australia's national interest and for our manufacturing sector.

I don't often agree with Mr Pyne but that is an absolutely correct statement.

It is pretty hard to top Mr Pyne's comments as a public slap in the face for Senator Johnston. But Senator Johnston's leader, Mr Abbott, has also rushed to repudiate him. He told Chris Uhlmann:

The coalition will never make savings at the expense of the operational capabilities of our Defence Force.

Since it would of course be impossible to cut the JSF program in half or to scrap the future submarine program without affecting the operational capabilities of our Defence Force, it seems that Mr Abbott has overruled Senator Johnston on both these questions.

This is not the first time Senator Johnston has floated a thought bubble on an important defence matter only to have it shot down almost at once. Last October he sought to lecture the Army on how they ought to be fighting the war in Afghanistan, telling them that they should be deploying our Abrams tanks there. The then CDF, Air Chief Marshal Houston, had to gently remind Senator Johnston that most of Afghanistan is mountains, and neither the terrain nor our operations were suitable for the deployment of heavy armour.

This whole episode is typical of the tactics of the opposition. They tell us that they must cut the budget by $70 billion, but they won't say how or where they will do it, and they deny any specific cut when they are asked about it. One minute they tell us that 'there's not one area of any portfolio that is protected', and the next minute they tell us that 'the coalition will never make savings at the expense of the operational capabilities of our Defence Force'. They cannot all be right. Their policy is a swamp of confusion and contradiction. By flagging specific cuts, Senator Johnston has broken the rules of the opposition's game, and that is why his colleagues have been so quick to hang him out to dry. Better luck next time, Senator.

Senate adjourned at 19:29