Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Science) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, good buddies. It's good to see. On top of this failure to meet the President, the Prime Minister's decision to distance Australia from the US alliance with his Curtin oration and his decision to spend almost a week in China, walking the Great Wall and taking selfies with pandas, also sends the wrong message. It is important to get things back on track.

This bill and our ability to deliver on it is not a footnote; it is serious signal. It will be read in Washington, London and Beijing alike. If we fail to house the rotational force on time, the message we send is that we simply are not serious and that we cannot be taken seriously—that we are not capable and that we cannot meet even the basic logistical commitments that underpin the once-in-a-lifetime generation agreement, that we're not up to the mission.

Let's remember for a moment the significance of this agreement that the Morrison government was able to secure. The United States has shared their nuclear submarine technology with only one nation—the United Kingdom. Providing this technology to us is no small thing. Obtaining our own nuclear submarines in the 2030s will serve as a significant deterrent to future attacks on the Australian homeland.

I just would like to digress for a moment to speak in an area that I think we do seek further investment in. As shadow minister for cybersecurity, I want to be clear: Defence spending must also include cyber, because cybersecurity is national security. It's not just about data breaches; it's about protecting critical infrastructure, safeguarding communications, preventing coercion and deterring foreign interference. It is about resilience in the face of adversaries who are already operating inside our networks. The government's own annual cyberthreat report makes it plain: state-sponsored cyber actors are gathering intelligence, exerting coercion and working to pre-position themselves in our allies' critical systems. Should the strategic environment deteriorate further, these same actors will be capable of launching disruptive and even devastating cyberattacks on our country. So when we talk about Defence spending we must expand our thinking to include the spectrum of threats. I note this is one of the aspects our NATO partners are investing in, and they are taking it seriously.

Cyber investment is not optional; it is integral to Australia's ability to project strength, deter aggression and respond to modern conflict. If we do not build our own capabilities urgently and credibly, we risk finding ourselves overwhelmed in the opening phase of a crisis. This has been the longstanding position of the coalition, and I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that our $10 billion commitment through project REDSPICE was significant. This commitment expanded the capabilities of the Australian Signals Directorate to combat sophisticated cyberattacks and expanded our own offensive cyber arsenal. The government says a lot of the right things, indicating that they understand the seriousness of the threat before us; however, our credibility with allies depends not on what was say but on what we do. The United States and the United Kingdom have skin in the game. They are committing real resources, real personnel and real political capital to this agreement. The question that we all have to ask ourselves is: do we?

This bill is meant to show that we're ready to host allied forces; that's the point of this bill. But, with no new money, no plan for rapid housing development and no long-term commitment to the enablers of AUKUS, the risk is that we fail before we even begin. We must house these personnel to the same standard we offer our own; that is what alliance credibility demands. We cannot allow a situation where the expansion of DHA's remit ends up crowding out housing for Australian Defence Force personnel and their families, especially in Western Australia, where housing pressures are already acute. I add that the WA government obviously has a role to play in this as well.

This must fund additional supply. It must back this bill with real delivery. Otherwise, we are simply expanding the mission without expanding the means, and that is a recipe for failure. That is why the coalition has moved a second reading amendment highlighting many of the issues that I have raised here today. Whilst we support this bill, we do not accept the complacency that surrounds it. Let this be the beginning of serious delivery, not another announcement without action. Australia has never secured peace by standing still. We have never defended our sovereignty simply by hoping for the best and keeping our fingers crossed. Today is no different. In fact, the stakes may be higher than they have ever been. Our adversaries are moving fast. We cannot meet that threat with bureaucracy, complacency and delay. We simply cannot achieve that just with words. Deterrence begins with credible capability, and credible capability begins with investment.

This bill before us today touches on all the right things—readiness, sovereignty, agility and people—but it falls short where it matters most, and that word is 'funding'. Legislation without investment is not strategy. The coalition supports this bill. We support our amendment, but we urge the government to match it with funding, urgency and a clear path to get this right.

See this speech in context