Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (10:31): Senator Conroy, if the next generation of Australian submarines is so critical to Australia's defence—as it is—then why did the government of which you were a member do nothing about it for six years? If a competitive tender process is so important, then why did you, as the minister responsible for the NBN—which was the biggest public expenditure on a project in Australian history—not allow a public tender process for the NBN? If a public tender process is so important, Senator Conroy, why did you interfere with what you yourself described as the 'corrupted' tender process for the Australia Network and set aside the choice of Sky, which had been adopted by the umpires, not once but twice, and substitute the ABC? So, Senator Conroy, when you speak about the importance of Australia's next generation of submarines, when you talk about the importance of a competitive tender process then, as always with the Labor Party, don't worry about what they say; just look at what they did— Senator O'Sullivan: Or didn't do. Senator BRANDIS: Indeed, Senator, O'Sullivan: in this case, what they didn't do. If the Labor Party want to bring on a debate about who is better capable or who is more to be trusted with Australia's defence policy in the years ahead, make my day! If the Australian Labor Party wants to have a debate about who is more to be trusted with Australian defence policy and defence procurement, between Senator Stephen Conroy and my friend Senator David Johnston, bring it on! Senator Heffernan: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I just want to make a note of the fact that 'gutless' Conroy has left the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Senator Heffernan, that is not helpful and it is not contributing to the debate. Senator BRANDIS: As Senator Heffernan rightly says, Senator Conroy has slunk out of the chamber. Senator Conroy has, in a shame-faced and weasly way, slunk out of the chamber, because he cannot face the truth of his record in government, both in his own portfolio and on matters of defence policy. We know, and Senator David Johnston said in his statement to the Senate this morning, that yesterday in question time Senator Johnston made a rhetorical flourish, eight words, for which he has apologised and expressed his regret. And he has not been slow in doing so. We also know what Senator Conroy said more than nine months ago, at estimates on 25 February this year. Senator Stephen Conroy, who is the Labor Party's alternative minister for defence for this country—let us never forget that: this man who cannot even face the chamber when Senator Johnston is under attack in the chamber, who does not have the courage to stay in the chamber—nine months ago did not make a rhetorical flourish, he did not make a slip of the tongue, he did not let verbal exuberance get the better of him for a moment in question time. No. He made a deliberate, calculated and disgusting slight on one of Australia's most distinguished soldiers: Lieutenant General Angus Campbell. In Senate estimates he accused Lieutenant General Angus Campbell of being engaged in a political cover-up. When Lieutenant General Campbell—a better man than Senator Conroy could ever be—said, 'Senator, I would like to put on the public record that I take extreme offence at the statement that you have made', and when the chair of the committee required Senator Conroy to apologise, he was steadfast in his refusal. He mocked the chair, over two pages of Hansard, it is reported, to the eternal disgrace and shame of this individual, Senator Stephen Conroy. The committee retired for a few minutes and afterwards: still no apology from Senator Conroy. In a formulaic way, he said, 'I withdraw'. But, to this day, nine months and more after this disgusting slur was made on the integrity of one of Australia's finest soldiers—a three-star general, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell—there has been no word of apology to that gentleman from Senator Stephen Conroy. That is the quality of the individual who was the alternative defence minister of Australia, and then he chastises. He seeks to make endless rhetorical capital out of the fact that my friend Senator David Johnston made a slip of the tongue for which he, promptly and in a timely way, corrected and expressed his regret in the chamber this morning. We could spend this morning debating the relative merits of Senator Stephen Conroy as the alternative minister for defence and Senator David Johnston, a very fine Minister for Defence, but it would be perhaps more fruitful to debate the record, because the other thing we did not hear from Senator Conroy in a 20-minute-long contribution was anything about Labor's defence policy. Not a word of defence of the Labor Party's record in this portfolio in the six years of the Rudd and Gillard governments. We heard a lot of sleazy ad hominem attacks on Senator David Johnston. We heard a lot about industry policy but nary a word about defence policy. That is the problem with the Labor Party: they do not see the difference. They do not have a defence policy. They did not release a defence policy before the 2013 election. That is how much they care about defence. They did not even bother to release a defence policy before the 2013 election. But why would that surprise you? When they were in office Prime Minister Gillard did not even bother to go to meetings of the national security committee of cabinet. She did not even bother to attend the most important subcommittee of cabinet. In fact, as we know from the memoirs of some of her ministers, she sent her bodyguard. So, when the Labor Party cry streams of crocodile tears about defence policy, remember this: no defence policy before the 2013 election and no attention to the national security committee of cabinet by the Prime Minister of the day. I might say that I had the honour to sit in the national security committee of cabinet with Senator David Johnston. Without breaching the confidentiality of that committee I can tell you that Senator David Johnston, one of the great quiet achievers of this government, is not very quiet in that committee. He constantly astonishes us with the depth, granularity and sophistication of his knowledge of defence systems and defence procurement. Senator David Johnston has a depth of knowledge and understanding of this portfolio, in particular the complex issues of defence procurement, the like of which I have never seen in a defence minister. Of course, one can understand that the Labor Party when they were in government never came up with a minister with a grasp of the issues, because in six years they had three defence ministers. They lost their first— Senator O'Sullivan: They had three prime ministers. Senator BRANDIS: That is true, but one of them was a retread. But do not say that in front of Senator Wong, because it is a little embarrassing for her—the circumstances of the fall of Julia Gillard— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Address your remarks through the chair. Senator BRANDIS: But we will not go there. Three defence ministers in six years. The first of them, Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, was required to resign under circumstances which reflected very poorly upon his personal character. They reflected very poorly upon him, and he was required to resign. The second defence minister they had was Senator John Faulkner, who has marketed himself for many years as a great scholar of strategic matters. Senator John Faulkner lasted in the portfolio until just before the 2010 election, and then he basically gave up. It was all too hard for him; so, having been in the portfolio for less than 18 months, this very senior member of the Labor cabinet said, 'I'm sorry, I am not going to continue on the front bench; I am going to resign.' Then, for the second term of the Labor government—that unlamented, unhappy government—we had in the defence portfolio a minister, Mr Stephen Smith, who did not even want to be there. He wanted to be a foreign minister, but he was forced into a portfolio in which he had no interest and for which he had no evidence aptitude in order to create a political fix to look after Mr Kevin Rudd so that Mr Rudd could take his former portfolio. And he did not make the distance either, because on 27 June last year Mr Stephen Smith said: 'I'm not continuing. It's all too hard for me too. I'm not contesting the 2013 election.' And the last 2½ months of the Labor government, as it limped to its sorry end, we had a lame duck defence minister. That is the quality of the people that the Labor Party put into the defence portfolio, and now we have this buffoon, this clown, Senator Stephen Conroy, as the shadow defence minister whose only contribution to Australian public life thus far has been as communications minister presiding over the greatest destruction of public wealth in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia—that is, the NBN. Of course, when you have indifferent ministers, disengaged ministers, incompetent ministers in a portfolio, that has a cost, and the cost it had was to Australia's defence policy. As I said at the start of my remarks, if you want to know what the Labor Party did for the next-generation submarine program, the program described as so critical by the shadow defence minister, for six years they did nothing. Not a word. Not a word, not a decision, not an appropriation, not an action, nothing for six years; and, as a result, when the Abbott government was elected and Senator David Johnston was given one of the toughest jobs in the government—to clean up this aspect of the Labor Party's mess—he found a blank sheet of paper and a capability gap. Senator Edwards interjecting— Senator BRANDIS: There it is, Senator Sean Edwards. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Edwards, that is not helpful. Senator BRANDIS: That is what the Labor Party did for Australia's submarines over the six years in which they lurched from one disengaged defence minister to another: nothing. Not one thing. But it was not just in submarines that defence suffered under Labor. Senator O'Sullivan, do you know how many defence projects were delayed during the six years of Labor government? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Address your remarks through the chair, Senator Brandis. Senator BRANDIS: One hundred and nineteen defence projects were delayed during the period of the Labor government, 43 projects were reduced and eight were cancelled altogether. That is the Labor Party's record on defence as it limped from one indifferent, disengaged, incompetent defence minister to another. There were 119 projects delayed, 43 reduced and eight cancelled altogether. 'But that is all right,' said the Labor Party, 'because we are going to produce something called the Defence Capability Plan.' Do you know what happened to the Defence Capability Plan? It went the same way as the Labor Party submarines—it was never heard of again. So the key strategic document of the Labor Party's defence policy never saw the light of day and meanwhile not a step was taken to address the issue that Senator Conroy hypocritically this morning said is the most important issue in Australian defence policy—that is, the next generation of submarines. The Labor Party during its six years in government achieved in this portfolio a deficit of $12 billion—there was a $12 billion overspend. You might wonder how you do that when you are doing even less—when you are delaying, reducing or abolishing hundreds of projects. They were actually doing less than had ever been done for defence, nevertheless the Defence portfolio came in with a $12 billion deficit. Meanwhile defence spending was reduced as a proportion of GDP from not quite two per cent, where it was when John Howard left office in 2007, to 1.56 per cent—a reduction of a quarter in the amount of money committed to defence and the lowest defence spend as a proportion of GDP since 1938. That is your legacy. Even then, such was your commitment to this portfolio and such was your interest in this portfolio as you staggered from one uninterested and disengaged minister to the next, even though you reduced the outlays by a quarter you still ran it at a $12 billion deficit on the budget papers. That might have something to do with who the finance minister was too, just by the way, but let us not go there either. When Senator David Johnston came into this portfolio—and if you speak to any service man or woman they will tell you the same thing—the Australian Defence Force was recovering from the greatest period of neglect, the greatest period of policy confusion and the most serious period of underspending in its proud, more than a century long history. For six years of the Labor government—from Joel Fitzgibbon, who was forced out, to John Faulkner, who gave up, and to Stephen Smith, who did not want it in the first place and ended up as a lame duck minister—the record of the Labor government in this portfolio is one of shame. Then we have had this buffoon come into the chamber and say to Senator David Johnston, who has been given the task of cleaning up the mess, 'You put national security at risk,' when Senator David Johnston has worked night and day with commitment, intelligence, zeal, interest and genuine knowledge and understanding to redress the capability gap that the Labor Party left in Australian defence policy. The key to defence policy is procurement—procurement of the right equipment, the right assets, at the right price in a timely way so that those assets come on stream when they are needed. So what do you think is going to happen in relation to what Senator Conroy tells us is the most important single defence procurement, the most important single defence asset that Australia will acquire in the next generation—that is, the next generation of submarines? Nothing was done for six years so of course we are going to face a capability gap. The responsibility for that capability gap lies entirely in the hands of those indifferent, uninterested, disengaged defence ministers who let that capability gap occur. That is the Labor legacy when it comes to submarines. That is the mess that Senator David Johnston inherited. As defence minister he has been doing a magnificent job in redressing the capability gap. In the time available I have not had time to touch on the other Labor debacles like the air warfare destroyer program, which is more than two years behind schedule and was the subject of massive cost overruns as a result of the Labor government. You could go to almost any area of defence procurement and the story of the inheritance David Johnston acquired is a story of one catastrophe piled upon another, so do not come in here and lecture us about a slip of the tongue for which Senator David Johnston, unlike Senator Stephen Conroy, was prepared in a timely fashion to correct and express his regret for. Let us look at the substance—six years of neglect and at long last a minister who is determined to fix the problem. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Before I call Senator Wright I remind senators that some terms may be parliamentary when used in a normal manner but when they are applied as a pejorative slur on another senator they are most unparliamentary. I would prefer it if that did not happen.