Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 and move the amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:

(1) Australia faces the most challenging strategic environment since World War II, increasing the importance of bipartisan support for our ADF and strategic priorities;

(2) AUKUS represents a generational opportunity to:

(a) transform Australia's defence capability and industries;

(b) create highly skilled jobs; and

(c) deepen investment links between Australia and our security partners;

(3) the scope of Australia's strategic challenges will require increased defence spending over the next decade;

(4) membership of this committee should be predicated on support of higher spending on defence, a recognition of the threat environment, and support for the success of AUKUS;

(5) this bill has been modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which has operated consistently and successfully scrutinised Australia's intelligence community on a bipartisan basis for decades with membership exclusively composed of the Opposition and Government parties of the day; and

(6) any breaching of similar appointment conventions would represent a serious departure and politicisation of our defence force at a time of increasing danger for our region".

This is an important piece of legislation, not just for what it seeks to achieve but how it stands to be implemented. Australia faces the most dangerous set of circumstances since the Second World War, a fact that mas made clear in the government's own Defence Strategic Review but also confirmed recently by Defence officials at estimates. We see increasing cooperation between an axis of dictatorships, theocratic states, that seek to upend the world order and reshape the institutions and principles that have delivered an era of great peace, prosperity and liberty to billions around the globe.

The war against the West that commenced during the early 2000s has spread from one led by non-state actors to one championed by dictatorships. Every day, Australians read and watch with sadness the great human cost of conflict in Europe and the Middle East. As defence officials made clear to Senate estimates, Australia is not immune to these conflicts. Whether it's the foreign interference of Iran launching attacks on Australia's Jewish community or the cyberattacks of the Chinese Communist Party highlighted in ASD's latest threat assessment—and, let's be clear, it's been attributed; it is very clear that the Chinese Communist Party was involved in those cyberattacks—or the startling revelations about the importation of sanctioned Russian oil, Australia cannot ignore the realities of a more dangerous world or the new reality of modern strategic competition around the world, where nations seek to achieve their strategic ambitions without firing a bullet.

Whether it's the unacceptable and unprofessional conduct of the People's Liberation Army aircraft against our Australian surveillance fleet in the South China Sea or the photographs of former premiers on stage in the family photos with many of the dictators responsible for this global instability and these global threats, the message is clear: these choices and these threats are on our doorstep. We face increasing trade-offs between the liberal and positive impulse to trade—the impulse for free markets and for faith in international order—and our security interests. In short, prosperity and security have never been so interlinked. They've always been interlinked.

Prosperity and security go hand in hand, and we forget that, having gone through such an extraordinary era since the end of the Cold War, which was so pivotal in shaping my views of the world. After the Cold War came to an end, we came to believe that prosperity and security automatically happened. It was just part of a new world where the international rule of law was upheld and managed, but the truth is that we are facing real threats to that right now, which is why it has never been so important that we invest more in our Defence Force. It has never been so important, given that there needs to be more funding. There must be more funding, and there must be, and there are, more demands on our Defence Force than has been the case in the past. It's incredibly important that, in that context, we have clear and strong parliamentary oversight of how that money is being spent.

While building consensus around Australia's strategic priorities, the coalition has long supported the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee on defence, but it must be implemented in a way that strengthens bipartisanship, not politicises it. Defence is not a political plaything. It demands continuity, consensus and competence, and the test of this bill is whether it will build that or undermine it. The government has said that this committee will mirror the successful model of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That is the right model, but only if the same conventions are upheld as have been upheld in the case of that very successful Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

For two decades, PJCIS has earned the confidence of Australia's security community precisely because it has remained bipartisan and disciplined. Its membership has typically been drawn exclusively from the government and the opposition parties of the day. Any breach of that precedent—any decision to appoint Greens or Independents to a classified defence committee—would be serious and dangerous. It would risk politicisation of our national security architecture. It risks weakening trust with our allies, which is more important than it has been for a long, long time. It would risk jeopardising the handling of classified information and send exactly the wrong message to those who seek to test Australia's resolve and the resolve of our alliances, which are absolutely central to that interlinked prosperity and security I talked about a moment ago.

That's why the amendment I move today lays down a simple but very clear principle: that membership of the committee should be predicated on support for defence spending—indeed, there should be higher defence spending—and a recognition of the threat environment we face. It should also be predicated on an unequivocal commitment to AUKUS. This is not a committee that should question whether AUKUS should exist; it's a committee that should ensure every dollar being spent on AUKUS and the rest of the ADF is a dollar well spent, in getting to the strength that we need to ensure that the deterrence that is so central to the peace and prosperity we all want to see occurs.

It is very clear that this proposal we're talking about today stands on the shoulders of three great advocates for parliamentary oversight and defence reform. The late senator Jim Molan was a close friend of mine, a good man and a man who stood up for the strength of our great nation. Right to his last, he was writing and talking about the importance of ensuring that we have a national security strategy for this nation, and he strongly advocated for a parliamentary committee that ensured we had accountability for our ADF—the ADF he was part of for many years, of course, and he felt very strongly that it needed to be fully accountable. Former senator Linda Reynolds was a strong advocate for ensuring we had a committee of this nature, and former senator David Fawcett—again, a good man and a great contributor to defence policy in this country—carried the torch on this issue, demonstrating tireless commitment to policy contestability, capability delivery and industrial reform, ensuring we have sovereign capability in this nation, and he continues to argue the case about this. He worked across the aisle to build support for this committee, ensuring it would reflect the success of PJCIS while being tailored to defence. Both Jim Molan and David Fawcett made immense contributions to strengthening Australia's strategic culture and to bringing realism, accountability and unity to defence policy across this parliament. Their legacy and Linda's legacy should guide how this committee operates—not as a political forum but as a disciplined, trusted body that strengthens defence through insight and commitment, not ideology.

The Prime Minister will now face the same test that has confronted every prime minister since the Howard government first legislated the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The law hasn't changed. Almost every prime minister since John Howard, Labor and coalition, has respected the convention that membership of these committees should be limited to the government and opposition parties of the day—the parties of government. The Prime Minister does not need new legislation to appoint crossbenchers; he has the power to do so now. But whether he chooses to exercise it will speak volumes about his character and his judgement. If he honours the conventions that have served our nation well, he will demonstrate respect for our Defence Force and for the bipartisanship that keeps us strong. If he breaks those conventions, he will politicise the very institution that keeps Australians safe and, in doing so, betray his own defence minister's assurance that this committee will remain composed of an appropriate group of people who support the Defence Force and, importantly at this time, AUKUS.

As I said, the Australian government's own Defence Strategic Review recognised the deteriorating strategic environment we face. We are seeing unsafe intercepts of Australian aircraft, cyberattacks on our institutions, and foreign interference of increasing magnitude and regularity in our communities. The ADF is being asked to do more with less while recruitment falls and capability timelines stretch further out into the distance. That's why bipartisan oversight must go hand in hand with bipartisan resolve, including higher defence investment each year.

Australia must move from rhetoric, and we've heard a lot of rhetoric. We always hear a lot of rhetoric from those opposite, and that in itself might be okay, but it's got to be rhetoric accompanied by readiness and reality. The committee established by this bill, properly constituted, can play a constructive role in that task. It can improve contestability of ideas, strengthen the parliament's understanding of classified issues and give Australians greater confidence that both sides of politics are united in securing this nation's defence. But the committee is not a substitute for delivery. Accountability and transparency must not be an excuse for delay. We can't afford capability gaps. We can't afford a paper ADF, as ASPI has put it. This is the risk. In the new world of geopolitics—a world which resembles worlds we've seen in the past; there's a realism about what we are seeing around the globe right now—deterrence is only achievable through strength. We have dictators in the world today who show no respect for the international rule of law. They couldn't care less. The only message they understand, the only thing they understand, is strength. Strength is the key to deterrence, and that's why—putting aside conflict itself—a paper ADF is completely unacceptable if we want stability and prosperity.

If the government is serious about bipartisanship—and I certainly hope it is—it will honour the conventions that have protected our intelligence and security institutions for more than 20 years and ensure this committee's membership is confined to those who believe in defending Australia, who support AUKUS and who back the investment needed to make our Defence Force ready, resilient and respected not just within Australia but across the globe. This is the spirit in which the coalition approaches this bill. We are strong supporters of this committee, and we will not oppose this bill's passage through the House, but we will hold the government to the standard it has promised and the standard that Australians expect. This committee must be built on clarity, strength and unity of purpose.

I'll finish with a couple of comments about our broader view on defence policy, which will be reflected in the way we approach this committee. We have begun outlining our priorities for defence. Our priorities are focused on results and reality, not just rhetoric. Part of what is required there is to get defence spending to three per cent of GDP, not because anyone else has asked us to do it but because it's the right thing for us. It's right thing for this nation. We have seen multiple experts tell us that, in order to implement the recommendations of the government's own strategic review, it is necessary to lift spending to three per cent of GDP—with real money, not with accounting tricks or creative accounting. That's not how you do it. We need to see a real commitment to getting to three per cent of GDP. In the absence of that, what we are hearing and seeing is that the funding necessary for AUKUS is being taken from the rest of the Defence Force, which is being completely cannibalised. In fact, both are underfunded. AUKUS is underfunded and the rest of the Defence Force is underfunded, and we're going to continue to see that. One of the areas we'll see that in is sustainment, where it's clear there is a serious underfunding of sustainment of equipment across the Defence Force.

We're going to continue to see some of the results of that. We saw that recently with the LHDs. The report from the ANAO has made that very clear. But we're going to continue to see it in other areas as well, and I think that will continue to have an impact on the morale of our Defence Force and the ability to attract, retain, excite and motivate people in our Defence Force. We have great people, incredible people, in our Defence Force. I meet them every day and I am so privileged to see and meet these incredible people who are motivated by not just their own interests but, more importantly, the interests of this great nation. Every single day they get up to serve our nation in uniform, and we should be very proud of these people. But we've got to make sure they have what they need to get their job done.

Within that our priorities are clear. We have to move from rhetoric to readiness, and stand on our own two feet. We have to have sovereign capability in critical areas—sovereign missile manufacturing, for instance. We've seen a lot of false starts on that over the last little while with GWEO. We need to make sure that that sovereign manufacturing is going into place to support our Defence Force. There's no point in having critical inputs that we need in a conflict coming across the ocean over long periods of time with the risk of blockades. You've got to have the most critical items here in this country.

We need to make agility a strategic asset. What we've seen in Ukraine—and I saw it just last week in the Middle East—is a need for rapid innovation in defence capability, because the world is innovating at a pace that I haven't seen in a long, long while, with drone technology and missile technology, electronic warfare, space—all of this is now intersecting in ways we could never have imagined even a few short years ago. The Ukraine conflict has really brought this home. This is a fundamentally different-looking conflict to conflicts we've seen in the past, because technology has changed. With it, agility becomes an asset in itself. If you do not have agility in this modern world of warfare you do not have strength. You will be outdone every single time by more agile adversaries. It's a real challenge for a big organisation to show the sort of agility that small organisations are usually responsible for, but that's what we have to be able to do.

And we have to put people at the centre of national security. It is great people who are responsible for agility, for readiness, for standing on our own two feet. As I said, we have great people in our Defence Force, but we've got to make sure that we have the right mix of people. The government has fallen seriously short of its own targets in terms of recruitment and retention, and that is really showing in our Defence Force.

These are not slogans. Readiness is not a slogan. Sovereignty is not a slogan, nor is agility. These are things that we must have if we are to be in the position we need to be in, in a world, as I said, where we face greater strategic dangers than we have faced for a long time. These principles are the foundation of a Defence Force ready to deter aggression, defend our sovereignty and uphold the peace that generations before us fought to secure. I commend this bill and this amendment to the House.

See this speech in context