Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Hasluck has moved a private member's motion acknowledging the government is going to make available an initial $12 billion towards the Henderson defence precinct to deliver continuous naval shipbuilding and an AUKUS presence in Western Australia—thank you, former coalition government; thank you, former member for Cook Scott Morrison. In the motion, she notes that there will be a record investment across shipbuilding and in AUKUS in the west—thank you, former coalition government; thank you, former member for Cook Scott Morrison. She notes 'support for approximately 10,000 direct jobs over the next two decades'—thank you, former coalition government; thank you, former member for Cook Scott Morrison. She notes 'opportunities for small and medium sized businesses across the state and Australia'—thank you, former coalition government; thank you, former member for Cook Scott Morrison. And 'certainty for industry that will partner on the construction of infrastructure and facilities'—you know where I'm going to go with this, don't you?—former coalition government, thank you very, very much; thank you, former member for Cook Scott Morrison.

In times of volatility—and our geopolitical situation has never been more precarious since World War II—what we need is to know who our friends are. Indeed, we saw at the White House just last week two friends making a pact, strengthening an alliance, and I acknowledge that. I acknowledge the coming together of Prime Minister Albanese and President Trump to say yes to AUKUS, and again I say, 'Thank you, former coalition government, for coming to the table, for having that vision,' knowing that, in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, we have two firm friends—friends for decades. We've fought alongside one another, we've bled beside one another, and we're going to go forward with one another to ensure that the rights of democracy are upheld, and national security is absolutely paramount.

But, a warning—not long after that important White House get-together, the Australian reported:

Defence is being ordered to delay projects, slash maintenance costs and cut workforce spending in a severe austerity drive, as the soaring costs of nuclear submarines and new shipbuilding programs undermine the nation's readiness for conflict.

What Defence cannot do is cut the cloth to fit the tailor, to suit the tailor. What Defence needs to do is absolutely make sure that it lobbies government through the right channels for more money. The pie is only so big, and we need to acknowledge, as a government, as a parliament, what is critical at the moment: national security. Don't just take my word for it; you only have to look at what is happening in our Pacific Rim to see that there is trouble afoot and that we need to absolutely make sure that AUKUS is solid—and also that all the other spending that we're doing on defence is being kept up.

I had the acting prime minister—the member for Corio, the Defence minister—in Wagga Wagga last week. He visited the Air Force base at Forest Hill and he visited Blamey Barracks at Kapooka, where soldiering begins. That's where they do the recruit training for our nation, for our Army. He was very pleased to see the almost $1½ billion being spent on infrastructure at those two bases—funding that I acquired when I was in the position to do so as assistant minister for defence. Again I say, 'Thank you, former coalition government,' because it is vital that we not only spend money on those regional bases where so much of the training and so much of the strategy are being done and acquired but, indeed, continue to spend the money that we need not just on AUKUS but on Defence as a whole.

That report in the Australian is disturbing:

Days after Donald Trump declared "full steam ahead" for the AUKUS pact, the Australian can reveal the Chief of the Air Force, Stephen Chappell, has initiated reviews of capability and sustainment costs as part of a service-wide push to "mitigate overspending" and "address budget challenges".

That report from Ben Packham on 22 October is worrying, because we need to make sure that we maintain the spending—indeed, increase the spending—as we've been asked to do to meet our commitments in a difficult international situation and for the national security of our nation.

See this speech in context