Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

I rise to take note particularly of the minister's response to the question of national security and defence spending. Once again, we've seen Labor dodge, deflect and ultimately disrespect the seriousness of Australia's strategic circumstances and the question of national security. I asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister why the Albanese government had abandoned its previous commitment to set defence spending targets as a proportion of GDP. In 2022, Labor claimed it was vital to set such targets in response to rising global threats. Yet now, as the world becomes even more unstable, the government refuses to follow through. That commitment was not made lightly. It was announced in the context of an increasingly volatile Indo-Pacific, with rising military assertiveness from authoritarian powers and our most important allies urging Australia to pull its weight.

Yet today that commitment has disappeared into thin air without sufficient explanation, without accountability. The minister notes an increase in defence spending but fails to answer why it is not to the sufficient level promised. And what did we get from Minister Wong? We got a distraction from one inconvenient truth. That truth is that Labor doesn't take defence seriously. This government has no credible plan to lift defence spending to the levels our allies and even their own Defence Strategic Review say are needed. Instead of providing a real answer, the minister threw around weak excuses.

I also asked whether the Prime Minister has ever attended or participated in an Australian military exercise. As someone who joined our troops during Exercise Talisman Sabre, I've seen firsthand the professionalism, sacrifice and strategic importance of what they do. The minister talked about herself, about the Minister for Defence, but not about the Prime Minister. I acknowledge her efforts and appreciate her involvement, but it is not unreasonable to expect the Prime Minister of this nation to show up for our troops. Some might think otherwise, but those on this side of the chamber do not.

Finally, I raised the Prime Minister's decision to spend six days touring China while choosing not to attend Talisman Sabre. He had time to meet with People's Liberation Army officers but not with our own troops or allied commanders. I asked why he made time for China's military leadership but couldn't find time to stand beside Australian soldiers during our most significant joint defence exercise. What was he doing there? Patting pandas in China—pandering to China, some might say. He had time to stroll down memory lane in China, paying tribute to past Labor figures and visiting tourist sites, but he couldn't find the time to visit the troops. He didn't even bother to show up. The Prime Minister of this country chose to shake hands with officers from China's People's Liberation Army instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with Australian soldiers and our allies during a critical moment for our regional defence posture. That's not just poor optics; I believe that it is a failure of leadership.

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Supplementary questions were put to the minister, but, again, there were no real answers. Is it true that the Prime Minister has never attended an Australian military exercise? There's no denial; just more waffle. And why did he prioritise a six-day China tour over meeting our defence personnel? Again, nothing of substance. It certainly doesn't pass the pub test. Labor wants the headline without the hard decisions. They want to talk about strategic competition, but they won't fund the capabilities. They want to mention AUKUS, but they're asleep at the wheel when it comes to delivery. Our defence industry is at stake.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Un-Australian is what this is.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no continuous building program, nor are there rules about local content, to the detriment of our national security. It's easy to talk about hard power when you're behind a podium in Canberra, but it's much harder to actually stand up at Shoalwater Bay, stand next to our soldiers and prove you understand the stakes.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, sit down. I'm not going to call anyone until there's order in the chamber. Senator Ayres, some of your contributions have been very unhelpful to order in the chamber. You had the right to stand up and take a point of order, Senator Ayres. Instead you decided to interject from your seat. That is highly disorderly. Senator O'Sullivan?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President, further to what you've just ruled there, I'd ask Senator Ayres to reflect on the fact that you were directing him to be quiet and he was forceful in the way that he spoke when directing his comments through to Senator Collins, and I thought the way that he was addressing it through you was entirely inappropriate.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everyone in this chamber has the right to take a point of order if they have a legitimate point of order to take against a speaker. Clearly, you knew there was no point of order to take, Senator Ayres, which is why you did it from your seat. However, we should continue with taking note of answers.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we just saw in question time with the question, and with this response, from a very new senator—and I will acknowledge that she gave a very thoughtful contribution yesterday in her first speech—is a clear misunderstanding of how a proper cabinet government that is disciplined undertakes the share of the work, distributed across all of those people for whom there are responsibilities. Both the defence minister and the Foreign minister attended Talisman Sabre. I'm glad that the new member has arrived and has had the experience of sharing some time with the ADF, but dripping with sanctimony about two or three days with the ADF is no argument of any substance at all.

The defence of the nation is a critical part of what this government does. There's overlap in all sorts of other areas with state governments, but defence is the responsibility of the federal government. It's so important that, of all the things that could be spoken about in the address-in-reply, we had the Governor-General put these words on the record:

There is no greater responsibility for government than keeping Australians safe and securing our nation's future.

We stand by that, we are committed to that and we seek, in these incredibly tumultuous times, bipartisanship on that. But there is no way that this undisciplined mob, who lost so spectacularly at the last election, are capable of rising to that challenge. The Australian people need a lot better than what's on offer from the opposition in terms of accountability of the government with regard to the defence of the nation and the very existence of our country.

The twee points that were made in what I thought was a terrible set of questions—and a disgraceful contribution then, frankly—belie the fact that, under the opposition, we had $42 billion worth of announcements for defence, with zero dollars allocated in the budget for it. When you're after a headline and you're seeking to be sanctimonious and superior, we get the kind of contribution we had today. When you're dedicated to delivering for the nation in a real and practical way, you do the investment and you make the announcement at the same time. You don't make an announcement and leave it hanging with no allocation. That is the record of those opposite. No wonder Senator Collins expects the Prime Minister to be in 15 places at once. Let's face it: she's used to having a prime minister who gives himself six portfolios. That's how they run the government. What a joke!

What I'm really concerned about is that what we saw in question time today is edging towards a shift away from the bipartisanship that is vital to this nation. The facts belie the image that was attempted to be re-created here today. The facts are that the Albanese government has increased defence funding to record levels. That includes acquiring new capabilities for our Australian Defence Force of whom we are all proud. We honour their service. We honour their sacrifice to this nation. And nearly every single one of us around this chamber has been out with the ADF, in the program that we're provided for, to go and experience it firsthand and see what's happening. We know there are challenges, and that's why the Albanese government not just announced but actually added $10.6 billion over the forward estimates to our defence budget and $57.6 billion over the decade.

Those opposite can try and make points about what happens in our day-to-day interactions with others and the responsibilities that we need to take on as a government, but the money that we're investing in defence is an indication of how committed we are to that primary job of protecting our nation—not $42 billion of announcements, but $56 billion of cold, hard Australian earned cash to make sure we are protected. It's not a game; it's not to be played with. What we saw today was an absolute disgrace. The Albanese government will continually assess our defence capabilities, and we will resource them—no headline-grabbing stunts and no pretence, but real hard work—in an orderly way, with hard dollars to back it in. (Time expired)

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I want to congratulate Senator Collins on an excellent contribution. We know it was excellent—and the people listening today know it was excellent—because she's taking a lot of flak. When you're taking a lot of flak, you know you're over the target and you know that Labor is very, very sensitive about this. They're very, very sensitive about this issue of defence spending because they've got lots to be sensitive about. They are doing nothing right now to protect our nation's defence. They make announcements, like Senator O'Neill just mentioned, of billions of dollars of money to be spent in the future but never in the present. It's actually what happens in the present that's going to make the difference between us being able to properly defend our nation and not being able to.

I first want to pick up on something that Senator O'Neill accused the coalition of: somehow departing from bipartisanship here on this issue. It is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black here because the Labor Party over the last few years have, time and time again, accused the coalition of destroying the relationship with China. Apparently, it was our fault that China took unilateral, illegal action to ban our exports because we had the temerity to say they couldn't build their Huawei network and we had the temerity to ask for a proper explanation of how the hell coronavirus was unleashed on the world. Both things were very reasonable to do, and the Labor Party didn't oppose them. But then they took China's side. They took China's side on the illegal trade actions China took and gave them credence and, somehow, justification to ban our coal, our barley, our lobster and our red wine. Instead of standing up for Australia's right to say, 'We will decide who builds our 5G network'—which pretty much every other Western country has joined on us now—they decided to take the Chinese Communist Party's side on the illegal trade action it took. Instead of defending Australia's sovereign right to pass foreign interference laws—which we did, and, again, China had a disagreement with us on that, but we had the sovereign right to do it—they sided with the Chinese government. And now they come in this place and say: 'You can't criticise us for our defence policy, because that would be un-Australian.'

No. What is un-Australian is to not stand up for our defence interests right now and point out what is going wrong right now. The biggest issue here is that the Australian government, unfortunately, does not seem to be engaging with our most important friend and ally, the United States. They have not provided a considered response to the request from the United States for our country to lift our defence spending and to work with them on a number of specific defence projects. We can have a reasonable debate about whether we should lift our defence spending or not. But it is at least legitimate for our friend and ally, who provides us with significant military support and with whom we have engaged in the most significant military agreement since the Second World War, the AUKUS agreement, to request that we life our load and contribute to the relationship.

When US Defense Secretary Hegseth made this request at the Shangri-La conference a few months ago, he gave a very considered speech that I encourage all senators to read. He obviously spent a lot of the speech talking about China and the aggressive actions they are taking in our region, threatening many of our friends and neighbours. But one thing that has gone unremarked is that the country he mentioned the second most was Australia. He mentioned us seven times through that speech. All of those mentions were very positive, but many of them indicated how he wants to work with Australia. He mentioned how the American government is establishing a project in Australia to repair P-8 radar systems. He mentioned how he'd like to work with Australia and for us to develop guided weapons and explosive ordnance supply chains. He mentioned how he'd like Australia to produce 155-millimetre ammunition, which is the bedrock of every defence force. A major issue is that Russia can produce more of that type of ammunition than the entirety of the NATO countries can right now in any one year, so it's very important for us to produce 155-millimetre ammunition. When we were in government, we supported a facility in Maryborough to do this.

Why aren't we working with the Americans on this? Pete Hegseth gave that speech, a very considered speech and an olive branch to our country. The Prime Minister was asked about it, and he said:

Well, we're a sovereign nation. And the idea that we, you know, respond to every comment that's made … what we do is serious policy.

That is an insult. That is an absolute insult for our Prime Minister to respond to a considered speech like that by saying, 'We don't respond to every comment.' I mean, get serious, guys. Take seriously what the US Defense Secretary says, instead of making juvenile and naive responses like that. I am very worried about where our country's defence policy is right now, because our government doesn't seem to be in control. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to concur with the comments made by my Senate colleague Senator O'Neill. I think today demonstrates that those opposite still haven't learnt anything—not even after going through another election where they were defeated. We are investing in defence spending, as they well know. But they've come in and taken a shot at the Prime Minister, when we have a Minister for Defence and when they know very well that a Prime Minister cannot be at every event that he or she may want to attend. But the reality is that we've had to undertake a massive clean-up of the messes that you guys left behind after 11 long years of being in government. Defence is just one of those.

Let's talk about something that impacts every Australian just as much as national security and our Defence Force, and that is aged care. Let's talk about aged care, shall we? In 11 years, they had five failed ministers for aged care—five! In government, they had to call a royal commission into their own failings. Now, I would be turning away, too, if I were you, Senator Cash, and ignoring the fact that what I'm saying is absolutely right. They were your own failings; you had to call a royal commission. And what was the name of that report? Can anyone tell me? 'Neglect'—neglect!

So, again, we've had to come in and take the time because there are so many messes. Aged care is just one of those. The investment that we've made into aged care has been so significant. Residential aged care in this country was in a shambles, thanks to those opposite. They didn't invest the money needed to ensure that we had a well-educated, trained workforce. No, they didn't do that. Did they ensure that home-care packages were meeting needs? No, they didn't. Are we an ageing population? Yes, we are. Unfortunately, that's increasing all the time, so the demand is always going to outstrip the capacity of any government to deliver everything that we want. But for you to come in here and lecture us and ask about home-care packages, with your failings—I mean, let's be real: five failed ministers!

If we want to go back and talk about the pandemic and what happened in aged care in this country during that time—who was in government? That's right; it was those opposite. How many people died in residential aged care because there was no registration of aged-care workers in this country? Those workers, who were earning lower wages than most Australians, had to have a second job, so they were going from one residential care home to another. So don't come into this place and try to lecture us about not doing enough. We have set the foundations in our first term around aged care.

We have had to re-establish our international reputation because of the way those opposite, when they were in government, ruined it in so many areas. And let's not even talk about what their reputation was in the Pacific with our closest neighbours.

Now they want to attack the Prime Minister, who is doing his job. The Minister for Defence is doing a great job—Minister Richard Marles. He's very good, he's highly respected, and he's working with Defence, making the strategic decisions about how and where we invest our money.

Then there were questions today about Closing the Gap targets. We have been investing in our Indigenous brothers and sisters, wanting to lift up their opportunities in this country. But, again, you haven't got a very good track record on this issue yourselves.

We want to talk about artificial intelligence. We've engaged with the union movement and want to see good, highly qualified, skilled jobs in this area where there's a lot of opportunities. We should be getting people to invest in AI in this country. But what do those opposite do? They pluck another thing out of the air. They just want to come in here and say that we're not doing enough, or we're dealing with the wrong people. Maybe some of you should pick up the phone and have a chat with some unionists— (Time expired)

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having just been re-elected for my second term of six years, I've spent a little bit of time—and I'm sure others in this place are in the same boat—pondering about what I've achieved and what needs to be achieved over this term. One of the things—and I know you know me well, Deputy President Brockman—that really drove me to run for parliament in the first place back in 2018-19 was this issue of closing the gap. Those who know me know I spent 10 years working in that space, particularly in the employment area, working to close the gap in employment and see that unemployment rate reduce. My firm belief is that while employment won't change everything, without it nothing will change. If you can increase that economic empowerment and economic independence, not only do you change the life of the individual; indeed, they change it for themselves, their entire families and the community.

Unfortunately, one of my great disappointments—and this isn't a political statement; I'm not pointing fingers at any individual, any party or any situation—is that we haven't seen enough progress in this space, in terms of closing the gap. It's very disheartening. We get the pleasure of a job like we have here in this place but the reality for people at the coalface of dealing with this, for individuals in communities across Australia that are facing the many challenges that are represented by the stats we've seen reported on today, it's very confronting and it's very real.

One of the concerns I've got about the way this government is handling this issue is in the area of economic participation. It's great to see that the economic participation target is somewhat on track; they're saying that 55.7 per cent of people aged 25 to 64 years were employed in 2021. It's good that that's on track, but I question how that is being measured and what's going on behind that statistic. We know the government have made the decision—admittedly, with the support of the Coalition of Peaks and others who have informed this important tracking process—to include participation in, for example, the Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program and the rangers type programs. I don't want to denigrate them, because those programs have a place, but, ultimately, the real measure needs to be whether or not we're getting people participating in an economic space that is independent of government, that is a market job rather than a government directed or government funded job. A lot of the programs and the jobs that are funded through these programs are very dependent on government and, in many cases, are displacing real jobs that exist within the marketplace, in the common labour market.

I'm very concerned that, when we measure things like the Closing the Gap targets, we measure outcomes that really matter and that we measure those in a serious way so we can get people liberated and off their dependence on welfare and government. You could be on a program like this for long enough to get long service leave, being in a welfare-driven, supported program, whereas we really need to be getting people into sustainable jobs that are not dependent on government continually having to prop up those jobs. I don't denigrate the good work that is supported by many of these programs, but if we're limiting ourselves and we're not thinking with the blue sky thinking we need, where we lift our vision for Australia, then I fear we will continue to hold people back and prevent them from having the full benefits of being liberated, from an economic point of view.

Question agreed to.