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

I rise to speak on the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025, legislation that the coalition supports not because it is perfect, not because it is sufficient but because it is necessary. It is necessary because the first operational test of AUKUS is fast approaching.

Submarine crews from the United States and the United Kingdom are set to begin rotating through HMAS Stirling from 2027, less than two years away. The preparation must begin now. Housing must be ready well before the first submarine arrives. Timelines are tight, and failure to deliver on this front will send all the wrong signals to our allies. Put simply, this is a test. If we can't adequately host their submariners, why would they have confidence we would be able manage our own?

This bill enables Defence Housing Australia to provide accommodation for those allied forces, our closest and most trusted partners as part of the Submarine Rotational Force—West. It is not a symbolic gesture; it is a foundational step in operationalising AUKUS. Without housing, we cannot host; without hosting, we cannot train; and without training, the AUKUS partnership falters at the very first hurdle and we can kiss goodbye a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a new nuclear defence maintenance industry in Western Australia.

Let's step back and be clear on why this all matters. AUKUS is not a slogan or a branding exercise; it is a hard-nosed strategic partnership designed to keep Australia safe in a rapidly deteriorating security environment. The government itself acknowledges we are facing the most complex and challenging strategic circumstances in 80 years—and they're right. But acknowledgement without action is not enough. The threats are real. The rapid expansion of China's People's Liberation Army, described by the Minister for Defence as the largest conventional military build-up since the Second World War, is reshaping our region. To add to that, this expansion has happened without any strategic reassurances from the Chinese government as to why this is occurring. The first duty of any Australian government must be to keep Australians safe and our nation secure. That duty intensifies in moments like this, particularly when the government itself concedes the situation is dire.

This bill, whilst small in scope, touches on a much larger question: are we serious about defending our country? That's where the government's record falls short. Yes, the bill enables Defence Housing Australia to support our allies. Yes, it expands eligibility for housing. And, yes, the coalition supports these changes because, quite frankly, they are necessary for the success of AUKUS. But let us not pretend this is some comprehensive plan, because it is not. There is no new funding in this bill, no increase in housing supply, no structural reform to meet the rise in demand and no funded pipeline to build the homes we need to support this commitment. The bill simply expands Defence Housing's remit but not its resources. This is a serious problem because defence policy is no longer about long-term hypotheticals; it is about immediate readiness and about being able to act, not just talk. Our government should be working to make us as strong as possible as fast as possible, but the blunt reality is that, under this Labor government, Australia's defence posture remains overcooked, underfunded and underdelivering.

The coalition has been clear: defence spending must rise. We took to the last election a commitment to increase defence investment to three per cent of GDP within a decade because we believe that's what it takes at a minimum to meet the demand. Increased funding means we will be able to afford to build and operate our own nuclear submarines while not skimping on other defence priorities. Lifting our defence spending to at least three per cent is not an arbitrary figure; it is consistent with what our allies expect from us. Just last month NATO nations committed to lifting core spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP with an additional 1.5 per cent directed to broader security investments by 2035. That's total of five per cent for national resilience. Meanwhile, here in Australia, we remain stuck at just two per cent of GDP under the Albanese government, with no clear pathway to increase the funding.

We cannot afford to drift while the rest of the world wakes up to the scale of the challenge. Make no mistake, the United States is watching us closely. The US is currently US$37 trillion in debt. It's not just our region where the US is being asked to do more. The outbreak of war in Ukraine has meant they are being asked to do more in Europe, and as the war in the Middle East remains, more resources are required in that region as well. The Trump administration has made asking allies to bear more of the burden of our collective defence a 'core focus'. The Trump administration has already called on Australia to lift our contribution. AUKUS is under review—we all know that. Our alliance credibility is being tested in real-time.

To make matters worse, the failure to lift Defence spending isn't the only counter-productive action from this government. It has been more than 260 days since President Trump won the US election and yet our prime minister has not secured a face-to-face meeting. With previous US leaders this may have been excusable but, as we all know, President Trump is unique. Personal relationships matter to President Trump and are key to securing positive results. Look no further than Labor UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has met with president Trump several times since his election, and he has secured tariff exemptions for the UK.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting

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

Yes, good buddies. It's good to see. On top of this failure to meet the President, the Prime Minister's decision to distance Australia from the US alliance with his Curtin oration and his decision to spend almost a week in China, walking the Great Wall and taking selfies with pandas, also sends the wrong message. It is important to get things back on track.

This bill and our ability to deliver on it is not a footnote; it is serious signal. It will be read in Washington, London and Beijing alike. If we fail to house the rotational force on time, the message we send is that we simply are not serious and that we cannot be taken seriously—that we are not capable and that we cannot meet even the basic logistical commitments that underpin the once-in-a-lifetime generation agreement, that we're not up to the mission.

Let's remember for a moment the significance of this agreement that the Morrison government was able to secure. The United States has shared their nuclear submarine technology with only one nation—the United Kingdom. Providing this technology to us is no small thing. Obtaining our own nuclear submarines in the 2030s will serve as a significant deterrent to future attacks on the Australian homeland.

I just would like to digress for a moment to speak in an area that I think we do seek further investment in. As shadow minister for cybersecurity, I want to be clear: Defence spending must also include cyber, because cybersecurity is national security. It's not just about data breaches; it's about protecting critical infrastructure, safeguarding communications, preventing coercion and deterring foreign interference. It is about resilience in the face of adversaries who are already operating inside our networks. The government's own annual cyberthreat report makes it plain: state-sponsored cyber actors are gathering intelligence, exerting coercion and working to pre-position themselves in our allies' critical systems. Should the strategic environment deteriorate further, these same actors will be capable of launching disruptive and even devastating cyberattacks on our country. So when we talk about Defence spending we must expand our thinking to include the spectrum of threats. I note this is one of the aspects our NATO partners are investing in, and they are taking it seriously.

Cyber investment is not optional; it is integral to Australia's ability to project strength, deter aggression and respond to modern conflict. If we do not build our own capabilities urgently and credibly, we risk finding ourselves overwhelmed in the opening phase of a crisis. This has been the longstanding position of the coalition, and I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that our $10 billion commitment through project REDSPICE was significant. This commitment expanded the capabilities of the Australian Signals Directorate to combat sophisticated cyberattacks and expanded our own offensive cyber arsenal. The government says a lot of the right things, indicating that they understand the seriousness of the threat before us; however, our credibility with allies depends not on what was say but on what we do. The United States and the United Kingdom have skin in the game. They are committing real resources, real personnel and real political capital to this agreement. The question that we all have to ask ourselves is: do we?

This bill is meant to show that we're ready to host allied forces; that's the point of this bill. But, with no new money, no plan for rapid housing development and no long-term commitment to the enablers of AUKUS, the risk is that we fail before we even begin. We must house these personnel to the same standard we offer our own; that is what alliance credibility demands. We cannot allow a situation where the expansion of DHA's remit ends up crowding out housing for Australian Defence Force personnel and their families, especially in Western Australia, where housing pressures are already acute. I add that the WA government obviously has a role to play in this as well.

This must fund additional supply. It must back this bill with real delivery. Otherwise, we are simply expanding the mission without expanding the means, and that is a recipe for failure. That is why the coalition has moved a second reading amendment highlighting many of the issues that I have raised here today. Whilst we support this bill, we do not accept the complacency that surrounds it. Let this be the beginning of serious delivery, not another announcement without action. Australia has never secured peace by standing still. We have never defended our sovereignty simply by hoping for the best and keeping our fingers crossed. Today is no different. In fact, the stakes may be higher than they have ever been. Our adversaries are moving fast. We cannot meet that threat with bureaucracy, complacency and delay. We simply cannot achieve that just with words. Deterrence begins with credible capability, and credible capability begins with investment.

This bill before us today touches on all the right things—readiness, sovereignty, agility and people—but it falls short where it matters most, and that word is 'funding'. Legislation without investment is not strategy. The coalition supports this bill. We support our amendment, but we urge the government to match it with funding, urgency and a clear path to get this right.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hume has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.