|
representatives vote 2014-11-26#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2015-01-08 11:06:05
|
Title
Motions — Defence Procurement, Minister for Defence- Motions - Defence Procurement, Minister for Defence - Let Opposition Leader put motion
Description
<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I second the motion. Rather than defend the Defence minister the government have decided they would rather shut down debate. We have given them the opportunity today for the Prime Minister to come into this chamber and decide whether or not they have a Defence minister worth defending. One by one, they have all lined up and said, 'No'. They would rather not have the debate. They would rather not have the discussion or be forced into a situation where someone on that side has to claim, 'We have a fit and proper person in the Defence portfolio.' Last night, the Prime Minister of Australia hung his own defence minister out to dry. We had the member for Mayo going out as a member of the executive, completely disowning the comments of the Minister for Defence. We have Senator Birmingham completely disowning the comments of the Minister for Defence. We have the Prime Minister, in a statement, distancing himself from it. This is now a test of leadership for the Prime Minister of Australia. Either he backs his defence minister or he backs his federal Liberal MPs. The Prime Minister, if he has no confidence in the defence minister, should accept the challenge to get rid of his defence minister.</p><p>Just think: we have a defence minister showing no confidence at all in Australia's capacity to build our own submarines, with everything that means—and the defence that he put up on radio this morning! I never thought I would hear a defence minister for our nation use this line:</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2014-11-26.3.2) letting the Leader of the Opposition, Mr [Bill Shorten](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/maribyrnong/bill_shorten), put a motion condemning the [Minister for Defence](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/david_johnston).
- ### Wording of the motion
- > *That so much of the [standing and sessional orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html) be suspended as would prevent the honourable Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith—*
- > *That the House:*
- > *(1) notes that the Minister for Defence:*
- >> *(a) promised on 8 May 2013 that the Coalition "will deliver those submarines from right here at ASC in South Australia. The Coalition today is committed to building 12 new submarines here in Adelaide.", and then [broke that promise](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-07/build-australias-new-submarine-fleet-in-adelaide-promise-check/5731260) worth $20 billion;*
- >> *(b) cut the real pay, Christmas and recreation leave for Australia's Defence men and women; and*
- >> *(c) insulted the highly skilled and dedicated workers at [ASC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASC_Pty_Ltd) on 25 November 2014 by saying he "[did not trust them to build a canoe](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-25/johnston-wouldnt-trust-submarine-corporation-to-build-a-canoe/5917502)";*
- > *(2) calls on the [Prime Minister](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/warringah/tony_abbott) to immediately attend the House and confirm:*
- >> *(a) why he has failed to direct the Minister for Defence to withdraw his insulting remarks; and*
- >> *(b) whether he retains full confidence in the Minister for Defence; and*
- > *(3) should the Prime Minister fail to attend the House, that the House:*
- >> *(a) condemns the Prime Minister for his failure to stand up for Australia’s Defence personnel; and*
- >> *(b) calls on the Prime Minister to sack the Minister for Defence.*
<p class="italic">That was a rhetorical flourish that I don't want to be taken literally.</p><p>The Minister for Defence on radio said to Australia and to the world, 'Please do not take me seriously.' He has also apologised to the South Australian opposition leader, Stephen Marshall, saying:</p><p class="italic">I'm happy to apologise if he is offended by this …</p><p>When he was told that some of his colleagues want his job, that they could do a better job, he said, 'Of course everybody would say that.'</p> <p class="speaker">Opposition Members</p><p>Opposition members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Yes, they would. Yes, they would—because of all the people, of all the jobs where somebody might be a situation where you would think they would be backing in—</p><p>An honourable member interjecting—</p><p>I have just been told, just while people were starting to vote, that there is apparently a reason why the Leader of the House was late—although he did get to the chamber in time. He was apparently in a radio interview and he was asked to express confidence in the defence minister in that radio interview. He did not take the opportunity.</p><p>Opposition members interjecting—</p><p>He did not take the opportunity to express confidence in the defence minister. No doubt he is working on a petition right now to work out what should happen to the defence minister.</p><p>We have the embarrassment of a government in chaos in front of us now. Of all the portfolios where you cannot afford chaos, it should be that of the defence of the nation. It should be the defence minister. We have a very happy, smiling pretender here at the table right now, seeing opportunity right in front of him. But there is no opportunity here for the Australian Defence Force if there is a defence minister who no-one has any confidence in. There is no opportunity for the people of South Australia if our own workers are being bagged and having their work put down by the defence minister of Australia.</p><p>On 22 October the defence minister did not attend the national security meeting of cabinet. When asked why, he told a Senate estimates hearing that the reason he had not attended was: 'I was not going to add too much to what was going to inform the National Security Committee.'</p><p>Opposition members interjecting—</p><p>Even the defence minister knows he has nothing to offer. Liberal MPs know he has nothing to offer.</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>Those on my left should give respect to their own speaker.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>The Prime Minister of Australia refuses to back him in and yet no-one has the courage to say to the defence minister, 'It is time to move on. 'This is a government that has gone for something in the order of 250 days since we have had an Assistant Treasurer. Now we discover we have a defence minister who they do not want either. The Prime Minister should be called into the chamber now. The Prime Minister should come into the chamber and make clear whether or not this defence minister is going to stay or whether Australia is going to have the humiliation of a defence minister no-one will defend. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Stuart Robert</p><p>Well, this is rich, isn't it? This is extraordinarily rich.</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>I remind those on my left that the same rules apply with regard to behaviour being disorderly as applies during question time. We will have some silence while we hear the speakers.</p> <p class="speaker">Stuart Robert</p><p>If there was ever a shiny example of a whitewashed tomb and hypocrisy, it is this. Not content with handing over to our government a situation where $16 billion was ripped out of Defence, the Labor Party had a revolving door of three Defence ministers. The first one Labor took into power was described as an electrician in a suit.</p><p>Not content with taking levels of Defence funding as a proportion of GDP to levels not seen since 1938, not content with reducing project-spending capability—the Labor Party impacted 46 per cent of all projects through their cuts—and not content with having 14 ministerial reshuffles over their six moribund years in parliament, the Labor Party comes in this morning to cry foul. Seriously, are you kidding the nation?</p><p>The legacy that Labor left when it comes to defence should have their heads hanging in shame. A 2009 white paper went completely and utterly unfunded. Capability was thrown to the winds. At the height of what the Labor Party was doing in Defence, capability spending as a proportion of the total budget was a mere 18 per cent. That is absolutely and utterly appalling.</p><p>This is the party that decided to cut counter-IED phase 2 funding whilst we were doing combat operations in Afghanistan. And this party has the hide, the temerity and the audacity to come in and lecture this government about how defence is done. This is the first year in seven years when Defence funding has been stable—$3.9 billion more in Defence funding has been provided, in macro terms, this year than the previous year.</p><p>Defence funding as a proportion of GDP is 1.8 per cent this year. What was it under the Labor Party? It was 1.56 per cent—the lowest level since 1938. I do not think that any of those opposite were born prior to 1938, which means that there is no-one on the other side that has seen Defence funding drop to such a low level under their watch.</p><p>With that as a background—as a history; as a stinking, rotten carcase sitting over the shoulders of the Labor Party—they walk in here and have the temerity to lecture this government on exactly how defence should be managed. Let's look through the history of exactly what the Labor Party did in government. The then Prime Minister—the ultimate minister when it comes to national security—Prime Minister Gillard, could not be bothered attending the National Security Committee of cabinet. Who did she send? She sent her bodyguard. That is how the Labor Party treats defence. Their Prime Minister sent her bodyguard along to the National Security Committee of cabinet.</p><p>What did Prime Minister Rudd do? Let's look at the consistency of the Labor Party. Prime Minister Rudd sent an adviser to the National Security Committee of cabinet. That is the extent to which the Labor Party treats the National Security Committee. It is simply extraordinary.</p><p>Opposition members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>The member for Charlton will desist.</p> <p class="speaker">Stuart Robert</p><p>The Defence minister has made it very clear this morning, in terms of rhetorical flourish in his comments regarding submarines.</p><p class="italic">Dr Chalmers interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>The member for Rankin will desist.</p> <p class="speaker">Stuart Robert</p><p>He has made it very clear. He has been very open. He has been very honest, as you would expect a competent minister to be.</p><p class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>The member for Sydney will desist.</p> <p class="speaker">Stuart Robert</p><p>He has been extraordinarily honest in terms of his comments.</p><p>We all know that the submarine process has at least six months to go. Why does it still have six months to go? Because for six, long, horrid, wintry years, the Labor Party made zero decisions on submarines. Zero decisions were made on our submarine capability—to the point where we are facing a very real capability gap. The Labor Party refused to make a call on the next generation submarine and now demand that we as a government clean up all of their mistakes. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. It is no wonder we were forced to shut down the Leader of the Opposition. Not even his own side could sit quietly and believe what he had to say. It is extraordinary.</p><p>Let us look at the other failures of the Labor Party when it comes to defence—because the failure is extraordinary. We saw everything from a white paper that was not funded to defence capability plans that were not approved. We saw everything from Labor saying they would index DFRDB pensions and failing to do so through to reducing our forces to impotence. The Labor Party are especially good at spin, but—</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>Order! The time allotted for this debate has elapsed. The question is that the Leader of the Opposition's motion be agreed to.</p>
|