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

I very much appreciate that, member for Gellibrand. Much of the member's contribution I earnestly agree with, particularly the need for this sort of joint committee on defence. This is why this Defence Amendment Bill is so important. The proposal implements longstanding bipartisan support for Defence oversight. This particular committee was first proposed by the late Jim Moland AO DSC, the late, great senator, who'd probably forgotten more about defence than most of us in parliament will ever actually know. Indeed, it was not only his advice, knowledge and firsthand experience as a very decorated military man. It was complemented by the fact that he wrote very authoritative books on matters pertaining to national security, particularly in the Asia-Pacific.

It was also put forward by the much maligned Linda Reynolds CSC. I say 'much maligned' because the former senator was unfairly treated. She was. But her contribution to this place will continue, even though she no longer has a seat in the red chamber. The efforts she went to and the knowledge she brought to the military space are very much appreciated and recognised. Then there's David Fawcett. I know his work, too. His intimate knowledge of defence matters has been critical.

Australia is unique among AUKUS partners in lacking a dedicated parliamentary defence committee. One would think that this particular amendment and committee will rectify that. For the coalition, it was very much when this was first mooted by Labor—of course, we brought it up initially, but it was when Labor cottoned on to this idea—there was talk about the make-up of this committee. Very much a line in the sand for the conservative side of parliament was the potential appointment of Greens or crossbenchers. With all due respect to the member for Kennedy, who is in this chamber at the moment—I have the utmost respect for him, and he knows that, but I'm particularly referring to the Greens and teals in this regard. They do not share the same values for our military, and oversight thereof, that Labor, Liberal and National members of parliament and senators would have. The defence minister—again, someone I've got the greatest respect for, the member for Corio—has assured the committee that committee members must, firstly, support the Australian Defence Force and increased resourcing for defence. That's absolutely bottom line. And, secondly, they must support AUKUS.

When it comes to AUKUS, that is a wonderful thing. It will enhance our security with our two most trusted and longstanding friends, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. In late 2019, then prime minister Morrison tasked Defence officials to look into the feasibility of acquiring nuclear powered submarines after doubts over the French contract. In May 2021, then prime minister Morrison presented the AUKUS proposal to the full National Security Committee. I was on it at the time. He was given permission to approach US and UK leaders with an official government policy.

This was groundbreaking; this was landmark. In June of that year, he met with then US President Joe Biden and then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson—they being the leaders of those two nations at the time—on the sidelines of the G7 and agreed to an in-principle deal. On 15 September 2021, AUKUS was announced. Obviously, since then we've had multiple meetings between the three nations. Prime Minister Albanese met with President Trump recently to strengthen the deal and to ratify the US's involvement in this arrangement with Australia.

For America, Australia and the Asia Pacific rim are very vital geopolitical spaces. What is happening with incursions into the Pacific is as worrying for the US, or should be, as it is for Australia. As I said, with US Marines coming into the Top End on a rotational basis, anyone who has been to Darwin at that time of year when the Marines are at their full strength would know how important and how critical Australia's geographic and geopolitical position is for Washington.

In September 2021, an 18-month consultation period began into how Australia would acquire nuclear powered submarines and which model it would proceed with. I know there has been a lot of conjecture and I know there has been a lot of debate. I know that during the recent federal election, in one of the lead-up fora in Wagga Wagga, I had equal the most number of opponents as anyone in Australia, as did the member for Calwell. At that particular debate I was the only one of those candidates who supported spending of billions of dollars into Defence for AUKUS, for the submarines. I make no apology for that, particularly as a former assistant minister for Defence, as a former veterans affairs minister and someone who was largely responsible for the more than $1.4 billion being spent to upgrade RAAF Base Wagga and Blamey Barracks, 'home of the soldier', at Kapooka, home of the First Recruit Training Battalion. All of our Army recruits—at the moment they range in age from 17 to late-50s—go through that particular facility.

Wagga Wagga is also home to a strategic naval presence, where—Member for Kennedy, you'll be interested in this—we have 80 personnel from the Navy. Member for Kennedy, you would know that Wagga Wagga is a long way away from the nearest drop of seawater, but it's an important strategic base. Along with the Air Force at Forest Hill, and they do a power of good and a power of work and they produce a power of benefit for the nation's military endeavours.

I'm pleased that when Labor won the election in May 2022—I'm not pleased about the fact that they won, but I am pleased about the fact that they have continued with the coalition's military objectives, with AUKUS. What I'm not particularly enamoured about was the recent report in the Australian, in October 2023, under the heading 'Defence orders brutal cost cuts'. The introductory paragraph by Ben Packham says:

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.

The story continued:

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 is a concern. That is a worry. That is something that needs to be addressed, because, as the member for Gellibrand quite correctly pointed out, if there were ever a time that we needed to be full steam ahead, where we needed to be absolutely putting the accelerator down on defence spending, it is now.

I've heard the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and many others say on any number of occasions, on the floor of the nation's parliament, that we are living in the most challenging, difficult and dangerous times since the end of World War II in 1945. We are, and we need to be at all times ready. We have what has been going on in the Middle East. I know we've got a very fractured, tenuous and fragile peace being enacted at the moment, but that is a tinderbox that could go up again at any time. It was also interesting, in the last fortnight, to have had conversations with the Ukraine Ambassador to Australia, His Excellency Vasyl Myroshnychenko, and today with the Australian Ambassador to Ukraine, His Excellency Paul Lehmann, in relation to what is happening with Russia's illegal aggression, which has now been going on for way too long—one day would be way too long. But what Moscow is doing in Ukraine at the moment is unforgivable. I was interested to hear Ambassador Lehmann this morning say that one thing you won't see is Ukrainians giving up, and good on them for that.

I was disturbed that the Ukraine ambassador mentioned last week—and it was well publicised—that Australia could be stepping up its efforts and that Australia had not done as much as would have been desired, liked or preferred this calendar year, 2025, to assist and aid the efforts in Kyiv. While the capital of Ukraine is very much protected, and there is a strong military presence particularly in the east of that country, they are under constant bombardment from drones and from incursions. Planes are grounded in that country. People are getting in and out via other means. It is a worrying situation; it truly is. I would implore and ask the government to go back and revisit what you are doing, insofar as helping our Ukrainian friends out. As much as you can, wave that gold and blue flag, but do more than that—put some real, genuine military efforts into helping, in whatever capacity you feel is desirable.

But the expected composition of this particular bipartisan committee is seven ALP and six coalition. Any deviation by the Prime Minister to appoint any member from the Greens political party or the Independents would be a captain's call and would absolutely and totally breach any convention and the good faith that the coalition is bringing to this particular bill.

We know that the Greens political party do not share our—as in, the political party's—view on how the world should be, on how Australia should stand up its national security. They want to change all things military. They don't believe in even the executive having the authority to send people into war. If it were up to the Greens, quite frankly, if trouble started, they would want parliament recalled. They would want to get their travel entitlements. They'd want to have sit-down lunches and discussions and Senate inquiries and go backwards and forwards. And, in the meantime, the country would probably be invaded. You just can't rely on them. You just simply can't rely on them. That is the truth of the matter.

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025—provided it meets all the tick-offs and with the ruler being put over it by the right people—is supported, is good and is to be encouraged. But let's never have those teals or those Greens, in any way, shape or form, on this committee or anywhere near its discussions or deliberations.

See this speech in context