Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The government's Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 is a welcome step towards meaningful parliamentary oversight of our defence. But, unless the committee guarantees crossbench representation, it risks becoming an echo chamber rather than an opportunity for scrutiny and oversight.

Defence decisions are among the most consequential decisions we make. They shape our security, our economy and our sovereignty for decades. When stakes are that high, Australians expect rigorous scrutiny. They expect evidence based decision-making and clear accountability. But, often when it comes to defence, we see the major parties unwilling to probe and much more likely to go along with the other side without asking questions. Why? No-one wants to be labelled weak on defence. This bipartisan alignment minimises sensible debate. AUKUS is a case in point—a multidecade $300 billion undertaking that will define our defence strategy for decades to come. That kind of commitment deserves rigorous testing of assumptions, trade-offs and alternatives, not silence. AUKUS may well be the best defence strategy for Australia to pursue, but the only way we can test those assumptions is through investigation and oversight.

The bill amends the Defence Act to establish a parliamentary joint committee on defence with powers to: review administration and expenditure of Australian defence agencies; scrutinise capability development and acquisitions; consider strategy and planning documents; examine operations in war and significant non-conflict operations; request briefings from the heads of defence agencies, the Inspector-General of the ADF and the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence; inquire into other matters relating to Australia's defence agencies under the committee's own initiatives; and report to the minister and to both houses.

Let's start with the good things about these changes. This provides a secure statutory forum so the parliament can see classified material on capability, schedules and risks, something that Senate estimates cannot reliably provide. It provides an end-to-end remit across strategy, capability, acquisition and operation so the committee can trace decisions from concept to delivery. It provides continuity across parliaments for multidecade programs, like AUKUS and shipbuilding, with safeguards against inappropriate disclosure. It provides oversight of independent regulators, such as the Inspector-General of the ADF, so integrity and safety can't be sidelined.

There is a strong argument that this bill doesn't go far enough on transparency. Let's set that aside for now; it is at minimum a step in the right direction.

The bill has one serious problem. It has no guaranteed crossbench representation. The bill sets up a committee with 13 members, seven from the government and six non-government members, but there's no guarantee of crossbench participation amongst the non-government members. The nomination process also requires consultation with 'recognised political parties' but no obligation to consult independents. So, in practice, membership can be stitched up between the two major parties.

If parliament is serious about independent oversight, it must include independents in its membership. Let's remember that in the last election independents and minor parties received 34 per cent of the national primary vote—more than the coalition, on 32 per cent, and just slightly below Labor, on 35 per cent—so it's vital that our committees, which play a crucial role in scrutiny and oversight, reflect the composition of the parliament and the will of the Australian people.

The bipartisan bind on AUKUS is the perfect sample of why crossbench scrutiny of Defence decisions is necessary. Let's remember that when AUKUS was unveiled in September 2021 Labor's shadow cabinet backed it within 24 hours of the initial briefing. That is classic evidence of both sides rushing to avoid a political wedge rather than inviting open national debate. I have no problem with the major parties deciding to agreed when it's based on substance, but this was bipartisan support for political reasons not necessarily because AUKUS was the best way to go. Neither major party wants to ask hard questions on costs, delivery, feasibility, conditions attached by allies or opportunity costs—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:51 to 12:03

Neither major party wants to ask hard questions on costs, delivery feasibility, conditions attached by allies, or opportunity costs. Crossbenchers are often willing to ask the hard questions and do the work. AUKUS may well be a good thing, but, to build public trust, rigorous review is needed. Your average citizen doesn't want or need to know everything about our defence strategy, but they do want and need to know that people acting in the public interest have made the best decisions they can based on the best information available—the right people making the right decisions for the right reasons. They need to know that people who are acting for them, not for political benefit or career progression, are having a good, hard look at it.

The Prime Minister's recent White House meeting secured a verbal confirmation from President Trump that it's full steam ahead on AUKUS. That reassurance matters. It lowers near-term sovereign risk and signals allied resolve, but it's not a reason to suspend scrutiny. Even at that meeting, the US Navy secretary said that there were some ambiguities in the deal. Let's consider how many uncertainties remain in the AUKUS Pillar I agreement that Australia is spending $300 billion on. These demonstrate why scrutiny is required.

Firstly, will the Virginia class submarines actually be effective? There are advantages in being much harder to detect than traditional submarines, but the detection technology will improve significantly by the time we start receiving these subs in the 2030s. How do we know the summaries will be effective if and when they eventually arrive? Some have argued that a larger fleet of traditional submarines may be as, if not more, effective.

Secondly, will the US have the capability to deliver the submarines? US Virginia class production is below target. Independent reporting confirms actual output at about 1.2 boats per year since 2022, with the plan not yet achieved to lift to 2.0 and then 2.3 to cover US needs and AUKUS transfers. That gap is material to our timelines. If the US does not meet its own capability, it does not have an obligation to provide us with our subs. There is a real risk that the US will not even meet its own targets let alone build the summaries for us.

Thirdly, even if the US has the capability to double its submarine production, will it deliver the subs to us? It feels really risky to have all our defence eggs in a single basket, especially when the basket is currently controlled by Donald Trump. We need to ask and answer these questions to have confidence that our $300 billion is actually being directed into a project that will support the defence of our borders. The major parties will not ask questions for fear of exposing their political party, but the crossbench will.

Beyond AUKUS, the Australian National Audit Office has found a range of concerning features in defence agencies and expenditure. That demonstrates why real oversight and questions are required. The ANAO has found persistent schedule risk. The 2023-24 NPR reports a 25-month average slippage across major projects. Slippage reduces capability availability and increases cost risk. It has also found procurement governance and probity gaps. The 2025 munitions audit found important governance weaknesses and probity gaps. Defence formally accepted the findings and recommendations. The ANAO has also found that domestic industry participation has not been maximised. The '25 audit concluded that Defence's arrangements were only partly fit for purpose and did not effectively implement or monitor industry participation commitments in sampled contracts, and Defence agreed to nine recommendations around this.

The ANAO also found that public reporting on the Integrated Investment Program was only partly effective. It found that gaps in the framework guiding public reporting on the Integrated Investment Program were a real problem and recommended stronger governance and transparency. These are not isolated blips; they are consistent weaknesses in one of the Commonwealth government's most important functions. This is why parliamentary oversight is a good thing and why this oversight needs to involve a genuine and constructive examination of the issues, something the major parties may not deliver for fear of being labelled weak on defence.

The opposition has proposed a second reading amendment of this bill requiring that membership of the committee be dependent on holding particular beliefs about spending threats and AUKUS. Even if I happened to hold these beliefs, I see this as being deeply problematic and really quite ridiculous—so much for the separation of powers! The parliament and parliamentary processes are meant to hold the executive to account. The questions that can be asked in these committees should be able to cover and express any range of views. Our big spending in this area should be able to stand up to rigorous examination, so I find this deeply, deeply problematic.

This is part of the broader political shenanigans that are going on in this place at the moment about committee roles. It makes a farce of the separation of powers and the accountability checks that we are meant to have in our democracy. Committee positions should not be used as treats or weapons for domestic political purposes but as a really important part of our system to ensure we are making good decisions. I would encourage the opposition and also the government to stop their silliness and take on their roles, and recognise that committees play an important and serious accountability role.

In closing, I support the creation of a parliamentary joint committee on defence. It is a necessary accountability measure. But who sits on it will determine what it actually does and the scope of its inquiries. So I think the government should guarantee crossbench representation and mandate consultation with Independents, when nominating members, not just recognised political parties. Our defence deserves proper scrutiny and examination. And this isn't a radical ask. There are other committees that specify that the crossbench should be represented on those committees. Putting Independents in the room would certainly be a step in the right direction to ensure genuine engagement—open-minded and fearless engagement—with the issues, and also honour the purpose of committees as an accountability measure in our democracy.

See this speech in context