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

I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. This is an important piece of legislation. It seeks to entrench parliamentary oversight of defence through a new joint committee, a structure that, if implemented with discipline and respect for convention, can strengthen accountability, transparency and public confidence in the way we defend our nation. The coalition supports the principle of this bill, but with an important caveat: the committee this bill creates must remain bipartisan, serious and focused on the national interest.

Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. This is a hard truth that must be confronted, and this reality demands seriousness in all that we do—seriousness in our policy, in our spending and in how this parliament exercises its responsibilities. This bill can contribute to that, provided it is implemented in the right spirit.

I'll begin by commenting on the composition of this committee, and I make no apologies for supporting the member for Hume's amendment, which explicitly calls for the membership of the new joint committee to be limited to members of the opposition and the government parties of the day. This is a proven model which is already in place with respect to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and has been the convention for more than two decades.

For doubters of this approach, let's consider what would happen if a member of the Greens political party were included on this committee. Let's consider what their goals might be if they were a part of the membership of this important committee. This is a party that took to the last election a policy to cut defence spending, cancel AUKUS and end our alliance with the United States. They also have on their website that the decisions made by the Liberal and Labor parties have escalated tensions with our neighbours. You see, in their view, the acquisition of nuclear submarines and other capabilities, which are designed to protect Australia, don't contribute to deterrence but instead make conflict more likely. It is their view that Australia would be in a stronger position if we had fewer alliances and a weaker arsenal.

The Greens' defence policy fundamentally diverges from what is required in the current strategic environment. In this context, entrusting them with a committee whose purpose is to enhance parliamentary oversight of key defence decisions would risk diluting the bipartisan consensus required on capability, readiness and deterrence. This would not be in the national interest. Also, beyond policy positions, there is a demonstrated lack of alignment with respect to Australia's service personnel and commemorative traditions.

When the Australian War Memorial was defaced with politically-charged graffiti, the Greens leadership at the time declined to unequivocally condemn the desecration. WA Greens senator Jordan Steele-John described the memorials as 'not politically neutral spaces' and suggested that the vandalism—which is a crime, by the way—was a valid form of free speech. Over 103,000 Australians have died in war, protecting this nation. The Australian War Memorial is a monument to their sacrifice, which provided us with the very freedom to hold elections and be elected to this place. For the Greens to come into this place and excuse the vandalism of our memorials, our sacred sites, is an absolute disgrace that should not be forgotten.

In light of the Greens' extreme views, the Prime Minister should have no trouble in ruling out a member of the Greens from sitting on this committee. I use the Greens as an example, but they aren't the only anti-AUKUS, anti-Defence representatives in this place, so I again stress that membership should be limited to only government and opposition parties.

I want to reflect on how we got to this moment. This idea builds on the work of coalition senators and members over a long period of time—people like the late Jim Molan, Linda Reynolds and David Fawcett—who each recognised that effective parliamentary engagement with Defence is essential to good policy. Major General Jim Molan in particular devoted much of his time in this parliament to improving the way that elected representatives understand and scrutinise Defence. In the 2018 Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report called Contestability and consensus: a bipartisan approach to more effective parliamentary engagement with Defence, the late Jim Molan wrote:

Defence is one of the most important priorities of any national government. Greater bipartisanship on defence, reached through debate and contest on this new committee, will help to produce better policy outcomes to develop the capability Australia needs to defend ourselves into the future.

We are debating this bill at a time when Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. As I outlined last week in a keynote address at the 4th KAS Australia and the Pacific Security Conference, the rules based order is being tested across multiple fronts. Russia's invasion of Ukraine shattered any illusion that interstate war in Europe was a relic of the past. China's behaviour in the South China Sea challenges freedom of navigation and projects power into the Indo-Pacific. Iran and its proxies fuel instability from Yemen to Lebanon and Gaza, with the atrocities of 7 October 2023 being the worst massacre of Jewish lives since the Holocaust. We have recently seen the influence of this wicked regime in Australia, with attacks on our own Jewish community, resulting in the undermining of our social cohesion. North Korea keeps advancing its nuclear and missile programs. Cyberattacks, disinformation and economic coercion blur the line between peace and conflict.

The coalition understands the situation we are in at the moment and that what is required right now is peace through strength. Unlike the approach of the Greens, we recognise that, when you have a neighbour that is engaging in the largest military build-up since the Second World War without strategic assurance, it is not an escalation to invest in your own capabilities. That is why the coalition is committed to a credible, costed pathway to spend three per cent on defence. This target reflects the gravity of the strategic moment that we currently find ourselves in. We cannot prepare for tomorrow on yesterday's budget.

On that, I'll turn to AUKUS. Obtaining conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines through AUKUS remains the most ambitious defence and industrial partnership in our nation's history. It will transform not just our Navy but our economy, our workforce and our place in the world. We recognise that obtaining nuclear submarines is not a cheap exercise. It requires a genuine increase in defence spending.

Yesterday, I was very lucky to secure leave from this place to be able to attend the IndoPac in Sydney. Inside the exhibition hall were hundreds of Australian defence industry companies. They represent the potential for Australia's defence capability going forward. It was a clear view from the many groups that I talked to that if you aren't involved in submarines, you are unlikely to get any form of financial assistance or contract from the current federal government. AUKUS cannot come at the expense of the rest of our defence capability needs.

Also at IndoPac yesterday, I was delighted to visit the first Navy Life Expo, which was designed to attract new recruits to the service. I was very happy to run into three young people who had just joined the Navy, one through the gap year program and two through the standard enlistment process.

I will conclude by saying that it is my hope that this new committee will help parliament's oversight of defence so that we can better understand what those young people need in order for us to defend our country. Again, this committee must be about strengthening Australia's defence, not weakening the conventions that protect it. It must help build a defence force that is properly funded, properly equipped and properly supported, one that can deter aggression, defend our sovereignty and protect the freedoms that generations of Australians have fought and died to secure. That is the standard the coalition will uphold and that is the test by which this government will be judged.

See this speech in context