Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The importance of the AUKUS agreement and greater defence spending to Australia's security and prosperity.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

TAYLOR () (): Authoritarian regimes around the globe are flexing their muscles. They are flexing their muscles. We saw it with Russia's attacks on Ukraine. We are seeing it with the unprecedented military build-up, driven by the Chinese Communist Party, to our north. We saw it with the attacks on Israel on 7 October by Hamas and we have seen it with the support that Iran and the IRGC has given to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others to attack democratic countries—in fact, the only democratic country—in the Middle East. We saw that brutal attack on Israel on 7 October—the beheading of men, the raping of women—that absolutely brutal attack by those monsters. We know that the IRGC has supported, funded, armed and trained Hamas for many years. That is why two years ago, in 2023, we called for the IRGC to be listed as a terrorist organisation in this country.

When that brutal attack occurred, a couple of years ago, which we are all shocked by—I think everyone in this House would say that—it was hard to imagine that one of the sponsors of that attack, one of the funders of that attack, one of the supporters of that attack would participate in the kind of activity in this country we have heard about in the last couple of hours, but that is exactly what has happened. We know the Iranian government, and the IRGC, has sponsored, driven and been part of these attacks in Australia on Australian citizens, an attempt to harm Australian citizens—

I take the point of the minister, that it has harmed Australians. It has harmed Australians. He's absolutely right about that. We appreciate and support the fact that the government have now made the decision that they have, to list the IRGC. But there was good reason to do that two years ago, and it is important to make that point.

This does raise the broader point of the importance of free and democratic countries, at a time like this, working together in alliances against these authoritarian regimes—these regimes who want to destroy our countries and destroy our democracies and who do not believe in the values that we hold dear in this great country of Australia. Alliances with countries like the United States and the UK at this time are more important than ever, because we face the most dangerous environment we have faced since the Second World War and we need to behave in a way, alongside our allies, that reflects the danger of that environment.

Central to that is our relationship, as I said, with the US and the UK, and that relationship has long been formalised in arrangements—the Five Eyes arrangements, ANZUS and so on. But we have also, more recently, formalised it in the very important arrangement under AUKUS. AUKUS is important not just because it's about nuclear submarines that can project force at a time when we need to be able to do that, because the Chinese Communist Party—let's face it—is militarising at an unprecedented rate. This is about peace, not war. This is about deterrence. This is about making sure our region, the Indo-Pacific, stays in peace. We all want to see that. But peace is achieved through strength, and strength is achieved through alliances. The AUKUS alliance is central to that. It is also crucial because of the technology that it brings to bear. Tranche 2 of the AUKUS agreement is all about those technologies, and they are incredibly important.

But the AUKUS agreement is also about the relationship between our countries and between the leaders of our countries, and it is incredibly important at this time that our leaders work together to make sure that AUKUS is successful. We learned today that the Minister for Defence has failed to get a meeting with the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, in the United States. He's gone all the way over there. He's not here this week, so we can't ask questions of him, and he hasn't even got a meeting with the Secretary of Defense. He certainly doesn't have a meeting with the President of the United States. Of course, at a time like this and under these circumstances, you would think that the Prime Minister of Australia would have had, after I can't remember how many days—we must be getting close to 300 days now—a face-to-face meeting with the President of the United States. But no. He has had three meetings with the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party but no meeting with the President of the United States. In every major war or conflict since Federation, we have fought alongside the United States. They are our greatest friends. You can have whatever opinion you like about the leadership of the United States at any point in time, but the US-Australian alliance is absolutely crucial to peace in the Indo-Pacific, the security of our part of the world and the prosperity of our part of the world too. In fact, our prosperity—let's face it—is built on peace in our region, which has been achieved through our relationship with allies and, in particular, the United States.

It is also crucially important that we properly fund defence at a time like this, and a defence budget near two per cent of GDP is just not up to scratch. There's no shortage of experts who are telling us exactly that. John Storey, Director of Law and Policy at the IPA, has said:

… Australia's defence budget is not sufficient to rebuild capability and arm the nation to provide a credible and effective deterrent from foreign aggression.

Bec Shrimpton from ASPI has said:

As a nation, we need to accept the need for higher defence spending. Hoping that conflict won't come is not a viable strategy. If we are prepared for war, we have a better chance of deterring and hence averting it.

Kim Beazley, a former Leader of the Labor Party, said:

We can't afford to run our own game; people are full of piss and wind on that.

He added:

We have to be mindful that we've got our limits …

He also said:

We have to up our spending to 3 … per cent.

It's colourful language from a former Leader of the Labor Party, a former opposition—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Hume, notwithstanding the fact you're quoting, that is unparliamentary. It is not to be repeated, nor is protection to be sought by putting it in a quote.

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

He is a very good man, and he made a major contribution to our country, but—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not for debate, but it is unparliamentary language and wouldn't have been used in the House.

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

I accept that his language is occasionally a little too colourful for this place.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So I'm asking you to withdraw that and then move along, please.

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

I withdraw.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

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

It's colourful language, but, nonetheless, I think Kim Beazley is absolutely on the money in what he says there.

But it's not just about funding for the submarines or for the technology; it's also about all the complementary investments we have to make to make AUKUS work. We need to have submarine bases that can support submarines. We have to have those at Stirling in Western Australia, for instance, but also on the east coast. We've seen those opposite say they're going to have an east coast base. But we wait, month by month—where's it going to be? There's no answer on that. We've got to have places to build and sustain these submarines. I was over at Henderson in Western Australia just last week, and what we have seen committed from this government so far is $127 million to building the facility at Henderson that's going to build and sustain the submarines. And yet we know from Bechtel that the actual cost of what's required here is 100 times that. None of that funding is there. So it's no wonder the Americans are worried. They should be worried, because we are not serious about defending our great nation—well, we are, on this side of the House, sorry. The government are not serious about defending this great nation, they are not serious about AUKUS and they are not serious about the importance of the US alliance. That puts the prosperity and security of our great country at risk.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since our first day in government, we have worked hard making Australia stronger in the world and safer at home. This is being manifested in the investment in our capability and in our development assistance, our diplomacy and our defence—what I call the three Ds, which work together as tools of statecraft. Australia does have an important role and responsibility to engage in our region and the wider world. We have a responsibility to collective deterrence and to ensuring we have the defence capabilities to protect the stability of the Indo-Pacific and the security and stability of our region, from which our prosperity as a trading nation flows.

I agree, and I think most of us in this parliament would agree—make no mistake here—that we are in a global strategic contest. It's currently underway. AUKUS is a trilateral exchange that is so important—it's actually critical—to that strategic contest, giving us the capabilities to engage in that contest. The work that we do with the United States and with the United Kingdom to enhance our defence capability makes us an even more capable security partner. We will be able to make a better contribution to collective deterrence so that both state actors and non-state actors—adversaries—are deterred from pursuing their objectives with force or violence. AUKUS not only symbolises but substantiates the strength, unity and joint commitment to securing the peace and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific.

It is also, I think, a substantive joint commitment to democracy as a governance model—a model increasingly under threat in the contest that is underway against authoritarianism. As the National Defence Strategy reconfirms, we confront the most challenging strategic circumstances since World War II, and we do so at a time when Australia's economic connection with the world has never been greater. Because of that, we clearly need to support the ADF with a much greater capacity to project so we can defend our nation and contribute to regional security and stability.

Now, the AUKUS Pillar I investment in conventionally-armed nuclear-powered submarines is fundamental to this. It will ensure our ADF has a much greater capacity to project. Similarly, the fundamental purpose of Pillar II is to enhance our joint capabilities and our interoperability in what is also a massive scope. It spans technological, commercial and communication spheres. We're talking about undersea capability, quantum technologies, AI, autonomy, advanced cybercapabilities, hypersonic capabilities, electronic warfare and so on.

Our defence capability is about enhancing deterrence and avoiding conflict. The investment is to avoid going into conflict. I'm not sure how many in this place would know what percentage of GDP the defence spend was during World War II. Anyone? I'm looking for a heckler; I don't have one. You don't know. It was 38 per cent, because, in the midst of war and conflict, all of the nation's efforts and resources go into defending the nation. So an investment now in defence and defence capability and deterrence is an investment in avoiding conflict and war, because it deters others from seeking to change the strategic circumstances based on their use of force.

The more we strengthen and enhance our defence capability, the more we can build that global collective deterrence, which lessens the possibility of the factors that may lead to conflict, as I've said, but also, importantly, is a safeguard to what is beneficial to us and in our national interest, and that is the liberal rules based order—the set of rules of the road and international law which we and other countries abide by and which is beneficial to all of us as we trade with each other globally.

We're delivering AUKUS.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop talking about it and get on with it.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection. I heard, 'Get on with it.' We are delivering AUKUS. Since the announcement in March 2023—

I'll answer that interjection.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, for a moment.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here is a tangible—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, just take a moment, please. Goading of interjections is problematic. Responding to them is even worse. So let's calm that down and get back to the debate.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for reining us in. We were formerly good colleagues on the PJCIS—and still are. But I will go to that point, because, since March 2023, we have seen tangible progress on a number of fronts and we recognise the significant investment that we've made. AUKUS is one of the greatest industrial endeavours Australia has ever undertaken, supporting industry, jobs and infrastructure over a number of decades, and it's an opportunity to build a future made in Australia by having Australians be involved in record numbers in defence, skills, jobs and infrastructure. It is a whole-of-nation undertaking.

That tangible progress is real. We've bridged that capability gap that we inherited, and we will acquire the conventionally-armed nuclear-powered submarines a decade earlier than the timeframe that we inherited. It will lift Australia into an elite group internationally, as one of only seven countries to operate a platform of this calibre and capability.

This year alone we announced the Geelong treaty between Australia and the UK, which will underpin bilateral cooperation and deliver the SSN-AUKUS. We've invested $480 million in our shipbuilding and submarine workforce, with the build of the skills and the training academy in South Australia. We built a new industry-led supply qualification program, with the largest military shipbuilder in the US, including Australian companies now qualified and entering the pipeline, and we've started an AUKUS submarine industry strategy.

In March last year, we announced the selection of ASC and BAE Systems to build Australia's SSN-AUKUS, and they are working in Osborne. I was there just recently. I saw the infrastructure build that's occurring. The 'getting on with it' is actually happening. We've seen that with jobs as well, with the Jobs for Subs program enabling around 200 new entry-level recruits from the ASC, to positions for graduates, apprentices and trainees in critical skills—in engineering, in electrical, in machining and fabrication trades and in project management. It's significant. It's happening. We are getting on with it.

All have you to do is to go down and visit the Osborne shipyards and you'll see the work in progress. As I said, I was there recently with Premier Malinauskas, as well as a number of US congressmen, looking at the work that's being done—over 4,000 jobs created in South Australia to build the infrastructure; an additional 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in the direct shipyard jobs as well, to create the build for the nuclear-powered submarines in South Australia. We have invested at least $2 billion in South Australia to support infrastructure. And this is happening in Western Australia as well. We're investing up to $8 billion to upgrade HMAS Stirling, creating around 3,000 direct jobs and ensuring 500 direct jobs for the Submarine Rotational Force West. There are about 200 entry-level positions in the ASC as well—upskilling those positions—and around 200 of our people over in Pearl Harbor are learning on the job about maintenance of the Virginia class.

Now, I know the opposition wants to play political games with defence spending and national security. Let's be really clear. This government has invested an additional $10.6 billion over the forward estimates and almost $58 billion over the decade in defence. We brought forward billions of dollars in our budget in March in the forward estimates as well. This is based on the work through the Defence Strategic Review as well as the National Defence Strategy, and we've gone through the proper processes. We are a government that decides what we spend on defence based on the capability needs that we have, and that's exactly what we're doing. We are committed to ensuring that our Defence Force capabilities meet the strategic challenges of the moment—of the time. And it's not about playing political football with this, because it's too important. We have had the largest increase in defence spending in peacetime since World War II. Some historians might want to correct me, but that is a fact, and you can't change those facts.

Over on the other side, the shadow defence minister at the time of the election, the member for Canning, was saying, about the coalition's position during the campaign, that it became 'very difficult' to talk about defence without a policy—without a policy. Senator Henderson said after the election campaign that it looked like they were talking about defence policy 'as an afterthought'. That's coming from their own members.

In conclusion, I will say this. Our job over the coming years is clear. We have a laserlike focus on ensuring that we make the commitments and investments in defence capability that we need to ensure the stability and security of the Indo-Pacific, our place in the world, and the prosperity that flows from that. We have a laserlike focus on that endeavour, and that's why we are delivering every day when it comes to AUKUS and our defence forces.

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

Australia's strategic environment is at its most dangerous level since World War II. They aren't my words. They are the words of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and every national security analyst across Australia. We debate all manner of things in this place, but let's remember that the first duty of the Australian government is to keep Australians safe and our nation secure. This duty only intensifies when the government declares the situation is so dire. The intent behind this matter of public importance is to call on the Prime Minister to match those words with action.

As a former minister for defence industry I was proudly part of the team that secured the AUKUS agreement. I'm proud of this agreement because it is about more than just submarines. It is about strengthening ties with our closest of allies, it is about securing peace through strength and it is about anchoring Australia's prosperity in a world where authoritarian powers are testing the resolve of free nations. AUKUS is the most strategic significant bequest our country has ever received. It gives us access to technology that only the closest of friends would share.

This agreement matters for all Australians but especially for Western Australians. WA will be the beating heart of Australia's naval capability. HMAS Stirling, the Submarine Rotational Force West and the Henderson precinct—they are central to AUKUS delivery. While we may not get our first submarines until the early 2030s, US and UK submarines are set to begin rotating through HMAS Stirling in 2027. That means that WA carries a nationally significant responsibility. But I have to say I do not have confidence that the Albanese government is going to meet that initial test—because it is a test, and I'm very disappointed that we may fail that initial test.

Despite repeated promises, Henderson's planning runs only to 2027, Commonwealth funding is a fraction of what is required and housing for Allied personnel under SRF-West is still not locked in—2027 is just around the corner. With the United States now reviewing aspects of AUKUS, the questions our allies are asking are simple: Can Australia deliver? Is Australia up to it? And yet, at precisely the moment when reassurance is needed most, we have a prime minister who has not even managed to meet the President of the United States. It's been 293 days now since President Trump was elected, and yet there has still been no meeting.

We know that President Trump is not exactly a conventional politician and that for him personal relations are particularly important. Look no further than the positive results that the UK prime minister was able to secure for his nation because of his relationship with President Trump. Maybe even more concerning is that we don't even seem to have support from people around President Trump. We know the ambassador, for example, has struggled to make progress on tariffs and the AUKUS review.

A meeting isn't just a symbolic thing. It would provide an opportunity to do exactly what we should be doing, which is making the strongest possible case to the United States. We are a proven ally. We have fought together for more than a century. We share intelligence, we share values and we share risk. Our case should be simple in that Australia strengthens the United States by being their capable partner in the Indo-Pacific. But, to make the case, words are simply not enough and we need to pull our weight. We need to lift our defence spending, A defence budget hovering over two per cent of GDP is just not enough; it's not credible for the risks that we face. The coalition believes in a clear, costed path to at least three per cent, because that is what is required for us to operate and maintain these submarines while not skimping out on other defence priorities.

This is a critical time for our nation, and so far Labor has failed us every step of the way. They've cancelled projects. They've delayed capability. They've left our Navy shrinking. During these precarious times, Australians rightly expect their government to step up. AUKUS is too important to fail. Let me repeat that: AUKUS is too important to fail. I call on the government: get your act together, get serious on defence and secure this agreement immediately.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm proud to rise today to speak about the significant role my home state of South Australia is playing in our nation's defence sector and in the AUKUS partnership. The decision to build SSN-AUKUS class nuclear-powered submarines at the Osborne shipyard in South Australia, where I proudly used to work, is a targeted and informed one. At Osborne we have the knowledge, the workforce and the burgeoning infrastructure that the SSN-AUKUS class submarines need. This is not just a defence acquisition; this is a generational project that will shape our national security and economy and build jobs for South Australians for decades to come. The program places South Australia at the very heart of one of the most important defence projects and strategic partnerships in our nation's history.

AUKUS is structured around two important pillars. Pillar I delivers a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines for Australia, while Pillar II serves as a platform for advanced technology cooperation in areas such as cyber, quantum, artificial intelligence, undersea systems, hypersonics and electronic warfare. Together these pillars provide an optimal pathway to transforming the Australian Defence Force into one that can operate at the cutting edge of technology and security in an increasingly complex geopolitical and security environment. AUKUS is at the core of the Albanese government's national security policy, designed to protect our nation, our supply chain and our interests and security, as well as to keep Australians safe. We need this investment to support the development of an Australian Defence Force with a much greater capacity to project so that we can deter adversaries, defend Australia and contribute to regional security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. Why is this so important? It is because Australia is an island continent. Our security, our trade and our prosperity rely on safe and open sea routes, and submarines are the most effective way to guarantee that security. Nuclear-powered submarines, in particular, offer unmatched endurance, stealth and reach. They allow Australia not only to defend our approaches but also to deter threats before they emerge.

The Indo-Pacific is one of the world's most strategically contested regions, and in this environment Australia must remain a strong and credible partner with our allies, including the US. The SSN-AUKUS class of submarines will be amongst the most advanced platforms in the world. They will combine stealth, endurance, strike power and intelligence systems that no conventional submarine can match. With world-class sensors and surveillance capabilities, they will give us the ability to see further, act faster and respond most effectively to challenges in our region.

Crucially, AUKUS places South Australia at the centre of this national effort. At Osborne, the submarine construction yard and a new skills and training academy, the STAC, will be established. This phase alone will create up to 4,000 jobs designing, building and equipping the facilities we need. Once submarine production is underway, a further 4,000 to 5,500 shipyard jobs will be created in South Australia to design, build and sustain the fleet. These are high-value, highly skilled and secure jobs that will endure for decades. This means opportunities not just for today's workforce but for future generations. Young people growing up in South Australia will be able to see a pathway to meaningful well-paid work in our great state. Children not yet born will one day train at the academy, mastering advanced skills and helping to defend our nation. That is the scale of the opportunity before us.

Yes, this investment is significant. We recognise this. But the cost of being underprepared would be far higher. AUKUS is a generational decision. It strengthens our sovereignty, it deepens our alliances and it ensures Australia has the capability to deter others and defend itself. This is more than just a defence capability. AUKUS is an opportunity to build a future made in Australia by Australians. It is a once-in-a-generation transformational investment in our security, our industry and our people.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this matter of public importance because AUKUS is one of the most important military defence arrangements that we as a country have ever entered into. Pillar I includes $368 billion dollars worth of nuclear propelled submarines. I sit here and I listen daily to those members opposite. I heard the member for Wills, the Assistant Minister for Defence, talking about the importance of AUKUS. I heard him talking about the strategic dangers that we now face in this country, and everybody seems to be acknowledging that we are now absolutely in the most geostrategically challenging times since 1945. But I tell you what; this government continues to let AUKUS slide.

When AUKUS was first announced, in September 2021, it was announced by the coalition government, and it was groundbreaking. As has been said previously, AUKUS provides Australia with a technology that very few countries in this world have, with the exception of the United States and the United Kingdom. This technology represents the crown jewels of defence equipment. Yet this government still has defence spending at around two per cent, a tick over two per cent, of GDP. What this government has done is pull funding from the Army and the Air Force and stick it into the submarine program. It's okay to be putting money into the submarine program. We need these submarines, but not at the expense of the Army and the Air Force.

The United States has recently come out and said that it wants its allies to be shouldering more of the burden of the defence of the Western world. No longer are NATO countries investing two per cent or thereabouts of their respective GDPs. They are now investing 3½ per cent in defence expenditure and another 1½ per cent on defence infrastructure. For NATO countries, five per cent of their respective GDPs is now being spent on defence, and yet our prime minister says, 'We'll decide how much money we spend on defence.' Our most important defence ally, the United States, is saying, 'Prime Minister, please lift Australia's defence expenditure.' We went to the last election with a commitment of lifting it to a minimum of three per cent. This government has got to increase its GDP expenditure on defence. It is not business as usual. In the times we're in, you cannot, on the one hand, say, 'We live in the most geostrategically challenging times since 1945,' and still spend two per cent of GDP on defence. I would have thought that was not rocket science.

Every country in NATO, with the exception of one, has agreed to lift their expenditure to five per cent, and yet here we are, still around two per cent—I think 2.02 per cent is the latest figure. The Prime Minister said, 'We'll decide,' but look at who is saying we need to increase our expenditure—the likes of Angus Houston, a former CDF. He, the author of the Defence strategic review, is saying, 'We need to increase our defence expenditure.' Greg Sheridan is saying the same. Peter Jennings is saying the same. Every expert on defence is telling your government, 'You must increase defence expenditure,' and yet this government, led by your prime minister, is saying: 'We'll decide how much we spend on defence. No-one will tell us what to do.' It is an absolute debacle. Get real.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on this matter of public importance because it gives me a chance to talk about Bendigo and our proud defence manufacturing history. Before I do that, I want to take a moment just to talk about the Liberal and National parties' policy that they took to the last election. The biggest problem with their proposal to lift defence spending to three per cent of GDP was there was no detail of what they were actually going to spend the money on. That's the equivalent of me saying, 'You know what? I'm going to spend $250 at Coles so I get the free delivery,' and then putting a bunch of things in my trolley that I don't really need. If you set the target without knowing what you're going to spend it on, you might buy things that we don't necessarily need. That is the problem with the coalition's policy: setting a target without any detail of what we actually need.

When they were in the government, they went to the 2022 election and had not locked in any contracts for the Bendigo Thales site. We went to the election in 2022 with those opposite not locking in a single contract for that site. If they had won the 2022 election, the Bendigo Thales site would have closed. That was despite the fact that we had donated Bushmasters, which are built in Bendigo at Thales, to the Ukraine and we had a capacity gap in the Army that they had created by not securing replacement contracts for Bendigo. They would have seen, if they had won the 2022 election, the Bendigo Thales site close, ending an era of defence manufacturing. What our government did, on winning that election, was invest in the site at Bendigo. In three years, we have invested over $3 million in defence manufacturing contracts in Bendigo Thales, building the Bushmasters that our Army need to ensure that they continue to have the capability they need going forward.

Not only have we invested in the Bushmasters and secured hundreds of jobs in Bendigo in defence manufacturing, but Bendigo is now down to two players bidding for the StrikeMaster contract. For those who haven't seen it, I have a model in my office. It is a Bushmaster with missiles on the back of it, which are aimed to support our army. It is cutting-edge capability, based upon what our country needs, based upon what our army needs and based upon what our navy needs.

Those opposite are up here ranting, saying that we have dropped the ball. We have not. We are building and investing in the equipment that our country needs. We are focused on delivering sovereign capability in Australia. Let's be real about that. We are talking about local manufacturing. We're not talking about cutting sweetheart deals with other countries that see equipment built overseas. We want to prioritise local builds.

That's where I want to talk about AUKUS and our commitment. AUKUS is absolutely critical to our sovereign capability. We've heard why we need to go down the path of nuclear powered subs. But what is most critical in AUKUS is the fact that it will create local jobs and secure manufacturing. We will have the sovereign capability of building subs here in Australia. As a Victorian, I have to say I am jealous of the job opportunities AUKUS will create in South Australia and in WA. I have learned firsthand about that opportunity that South Australia and WA will have in terms of jobs, because in the last parliament and in this parliament I chair the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. AUKUS came to us in the last parliament and will again in this parliament. It's where we can actually look at the opportunities that exist under that agreement. It is generational change; it is jobs for a generation—those 'jobs for life' that we have quite often talked about losing in manufacturing. AUKUS recreates them in this country.

As for the program—we have seen this—we are on track and delivering under the milestones that we have set. We are dispelling a number of the myths that are out there in relation to AUKUS and ensuring the community of its safety. The jobs alone—the STEM jobs—cannot be understated. Over 30 years, there will be 20,000 jobs. It's a unique opportunity for generations of Australians. These are good, secure jobs. At the same time, it creates the capability that our navy needs to keep us safe. I want to acknowledge the work done not just by our cabinet and our ministers but by local MPs to bring communities along with this agreement.

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

It gives me great pleasure to rise on this matter of public importance debate on the importance of the AUKUS agreement and greater defence spending to Australia's security and prosperity, moved by the shadow minister for defence, the member for Hume. It is very important. I listened closely to the member for Bendigo, and she mentioned the Bushmaster. Indeed, she is correct—this is Australian manufacturing at its best. She talked about equipment, and she talked about sovereign capabilities. She didn't talk about people. They are our most important asset when it comes to our defence, and we need to lift dramatically the number of people that we have in Defence.

The member for New England will follow me, and I'm sure he will use his favourite phrase at the moment, which is that we need to get as strong as possible, as quickly as possible, when it comes to military matters. We do; we absolutely do. Indeed, with the Bushmaster, I cannot understand why this government, when the previous government made a commitment to providing Bushmasters to Ukraine, delayed that. They did. The Bushmasters were very slow in getting to Ukraine in their fight against the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. I cannot understand, also, why we outsourced our national security to a Virgin co-pilot. That particular pilot warned Australia about the Chinese navy circumnavigating our nation, firing test missiles very close to our open waters—our international waters. We saw a situation where China was just mocking us. It's simply not good enough.

AUKUS stands for Australia, UK and US. We have got to realise who our friends are at this important juncture in time—it's the most critical geopolitical situation we have faced since 1945. We heard the Minister for Defence, the Deputy Prime Minister, utter that pronouncement and he's right. So I cannot understand why he's in America at the moment and cannot get a meeting with his US counterpart, the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. I would have thought that would have been prearranged before he actually stepped on the aircraft to fly to the United States.

It's critical that we meet with the US President. I've been closer to the US President this year—at the Pope's funeral—than has the Prime Minister. Indeed, I had a conversation with Sir Keir Starmer, the UK Prime Minister. I had a very good discussion with former US president Biden about trade and military matters while in Rome. It was quite a lengthy discussion. It beggars belief that our Prime Minister cannot get a face-to-face meeting with President Trump. This is important. I appreciate that members have mentioned HMAS Stirling in WA, the Henderson shipyard in WA and Osborne in South Australia. These are going to be very important naval shipbuilding and collaborative places to lift our military arrangements.

I'm very proud to come from a unique city, Wagga Wagga, where we have all three arms of Defence, which is unique for a regional inland centre. We've got the 'Home of the Soldier', Blamey Barracks, where we've got Colonel Gerard Kearns, who I believe has the most important position in the Army because he is leading the new recruits for our nation. If you spend any time in the Air Force, you'll end up at RAAF Base Wagga at Forest Hill, where air power begins here in Australia. Even though we're a long, long way from the nearest drop of seawater, we have an important military presence, as far as the Navy is concerned, which is in conjunction with RAAF Base Wagga. We are very proud of our military contribution to this nation in Wagga Wagga.

We need to lift our defence spending. We need to lift our profile and we need to make sure that we keep cohesion going. Today of all days, when we're kicking out—thank goodness—the Iranian ambassador, we've got a very dangerous situation building and we need to be very prepared. The price of peace is eternal vigilance.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At its heart, AUKUS is about keeping Australians safe. It is a core pillar of the Albanese government's national security policy. By protecting our nation and safeguarding our interests, we are ensuring that, in an uncertain world, we have the means to defend ourselves.

The National Defence Strategy is clear: we face the most challenging strategic environment since the Second World War and we face it at a time when our economic connections to the world are deeper than ever. Security and prosperity are bound together. The lesson is simple: to defend our nation, physically, economically and ideologically, whilst contributing to regional stability, the ADF must have greater capacity to project power. Importantly, AUKUS is not just an announcement; it's a partnership that's being delivered. Since March 2023, progress has been real and measurable. That is why we are investing in conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines. They will give Australia reach and capability we have never had before. They place us alongside only six other nations able to operate platforms of this calibre.

AUKUS is one of the greatest industrial undertakings in our history. It will create around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years in South Australia. It will underpin industries and supply chains across the nation. To solidify AUKUS, this year alone we have signed the Geelong treaty with the UK, underpinning SSN-AUKUS cooperation. We've invested $480 million in the new Skills and Training Academy campus in SA. The member for Sturt and I attended the sod turning earlier this year with the Premier of South Australia, along with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence.

We've launched an industry led supplier qualification program and we have released Australia's first AUKUS Submarine Industry Strategy. AUKUS is about not only security but also prosperity. This is a future made in Australia, by Australians, with skills, training and jobs that will last for generations. This sits within a bigger picture for Australia. The Albanese Labor government has increased defence funding to record levels, the biggest peacetime increase in our history, because this is a partnership that the Albanese government believe in and we see the benefits of it in the short and the long term. That's why we're backing it in financially. The 2025-26 budget included an extra $10.6 billion over the forward estimates and $57.6 billion over the decade. Defence spending is now 2.04 per cent of GDP, rising to 2.36 per cent by 2033-34.

Last year Defence spent $16.6 billion on acquisitions—a record. This year it will exceed $17.4 billion. So, even when the coalition gave us a hospital pass and slashed defence spending by $20 billion, we are the ones yet again cleaning up their mess. But what would the coalition know about proper defence policy today? Their election policy on defence was nothing short of a piece of fiction. Now, having stood before the Australian public and not provided any detail about where their defence money was coming from or going to, we have the member for Hume saying we aren't spending enough as a percentage of GDP. Senator Henderson said it best herself when she stated that the coalition's policy on defence is just 'an afterthought'. Quite frankly, I agree with the member for Canning himself when he said it was embarrassing to campaign in the election with no defence policy.

The opposition should be looking inward and reflecting. What were their plans for an underfunded Defence Force? Would they ever have provided some concrete numbers for the Australian people or just continued to cross their fingers and hope? Would they have just let our international partnerships and relationships wither and perish?

The way I see it, the difference could not be clearer. On one side there is the Albanese Labor government—$57.6 billion in new defence funding, record acquisitions, the delivery of AUKUS, jobs and skills for Australians. On the other side, there is confusion, cuts and neglect. The Australian people expect more than rhetoric. They expect results. This government is providing them. AUKUS is how we strengthen our security; defence investment is how we guarantee our prosperity. It's a simple equation, isn't it? And it's one we believe in, because security and prosperity together are how we secure Australia's future.

In closing, I had the very good fortune of being on Talisman Sabre for a week just prior to us sitting. That was a bloody good example of just how well equipped our Defence Force is, with the cooperation between 19 countries across this globe.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Spence will withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the Vegetius treatise De Re Militarii, there's a very apt thing, 'Si vis pacem, para bellum', which means 'If you want peace, prepare for war.' You have to be strong to deter people. He was under the Emperor Valentinian. But some time before him, in the 'Melian dialogue' by Thucydides, on the Peloponnesian War of Athens versus Sparta in 416 BC, there is another very apt one: 'The strong will do what they can, and the weak will suffer as they must.' It's once more a reinforcement that, if you want to protect your liberty, you have to be strong, which is why I always say you've got to become as powerful as possible as quickly as possible—and we are not. We are not.

I want to go to something just briefly to shine some light on that. We have six Collins class submarines. They're from about 1993. They're antiquated, to be honest. China has 79. We have six; they have 79. We have three destroyers—and that's being kind about them. China has 62. We have seven frigates, and they're very dated. China has 58. We have two amphibious warfare ships. China has 12 amphibious transports, 32 landing ship tanks and 32 landing ship mediums. And that's before we get to the 1.3 million people they have in their army. Just giving this speech is in breach of China's '14 grievances' against Australia, both No. 7 and No. 14. In No. 7 of these grievances—they came out in 2020—we can have no criticism of China's political system by Australian politicians, and grievance No. 14 is opacity in doing the bidding of the United States.

What we saw, when Wang Yi went to Timor-Leste, the Solomons and Kiribati, and had communications with the Cook Islands, Vanuatu, to name a few, and attempts with both PNG and Fiji, was the tactics of the encirclement of Australia. It's not the Chinese people, of course; it's the Communist totalitarian regime. Encirclement means they have the capacity of duress over Australia and to put a foot on our throat, and one of the mechanisms that they could enforce is on trading terms.

You've got to remember that everything you do, whether you realise it or not, is in US dollars, if it's traded. US dollars is the trading currency. It's a democracy, and we're very lucky it is. China's vision—this came from some bankers from New York, who I was lucky enough to be discussing this with, maybe, a year and a half ago in London—is that the RMB becomes the mechanism of exchange. At that moment, everything in Australia would be determined in Chinese yuan, and at that moment the whole aspect of the Australian economy and the value of everything we have would be turned on its head, without the firing of a bullet. The threats to us are not just military, but we must be strong in order to push back against that.

What we have to do is understand that becoming as strong as possible as quickly as possible is one of the reasons I fight so virulently against things such as net zero, because you can't be strong if you don't have a manufacturing base. Australia's got the lowest manufacturing base in the OECD, so we can't manufacture what we require in a time of peril. It's not there—even the componentry of an artillery shell. Whether we can produce everything that's required is highly dubious.

In closing, I want to quote Dwight D Eisenhower, who was the 34th President of the United States, from 1953 to 1961:

Some day there is going to be a man sitting in my present chair who has not been raised in the military services and who will have little understanding of where slashes in their estimates can be made with little or no damage. If that should happen while we still have the state of tension that now exists in the world, I shudder to think of what could happen in this country.

That was the USA, and for us it's vastly more dangerous than when he said that. So how are we going? We've got Richard Marles over in the United States who can't crack a meeting with Pete Hegseth—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for New England, please use correct titles.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The defence minister—and the Prime Minister of Australia cannot meet the President of the United States. This is not good. This is very, very bad, and we are in a dire position which we've got to get ourselves out of.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the very first things that the Albanese Labor government did in its last term of office was the commissioning of the Defence Strategic Review by the Hon. Stephen Smith, himself a former defence minister, and Air Chief Marshal Sir Angus Houston. The defence minister received that review in 2023 and described it, quite rightly, as the most ambitious review of our Defence Force and structure since the Second World War. Everything that has followed, including the surface fleet review, the National Defence Strategy and the Defence Industry Development Strategy, has pivoted from the Defence Strategic Review. As that National Defence Strategy reconfirms, we confront the most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War, and we do so at a time when Australia's economic connection with the world has never been greater.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies has described the AUKUS agreement as the 'boldest strategic declaration of the 21st century'. To deliver on this declaration, the Albanese government has increased defence funding to record levels, and that includes record levels towards acquiring new capabilities for the ADF. This is the biggest peace-time increase in defence spending in Australia's history. Labor's 2025-26 budget included an additional $10.6 billion over the forward estimates and $57.6 billion over the decade in defence funding. Defence funding is currently at 2.04 per cent of GDP and will reach 2.36 per cent by 2033-34. Last financial year, Defence had spent $16.6 billion on acquisition, which is the highest on record by over $2 billion, and this financial year, 2024-25, we're on track to spend more than $17.4 billion on acquisition.

For reference: during the election, in particular, we heard those opposite talking about their own position looking like an afterthought. The member for Canning, at the time, said it was difficult to talk about defence at all during the campaign, because they had no policy. That is evidenced by their own MPI today, which they've had a good half an hour or more to speak on. There's probably been only one or two minutes actually on topic because they simply have nothing—no detail, no timelines and no idea of where their ideas for money will come from or where the money will be spent.

By contrast, for Western Australia we now have a sector that will be second only to the resources sector in terms of the billions—tens of billions, in fact—that will be spent on defence capabilities, creating nearly 5,000 direct jobs at the shipyards and 6,000 more for small to medium-sized businesses in support of the primes.

In addition to this, we will also see the establishment of the Defence Industry Skills Centre of Excellence at the south metro TAFE in Perth, which is underpinning the skill development needed to ensure that we have that sovereign capability to meet our defence industry needs. While at present a lot of the workers in the sector are in professional scientific and technical areas, we have now got a growing number of graduating skilled trades workers. They're gaining practical experience by being deployed at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in the US and will be returning to Henderson in due course to apply that new expertise and knowledge.

Many of the new WA defence related activities and industries are, in fact, close to the coast, but Hasluck has not been overlooked. In addition to announcing the recent Geelong treaty between Australia and the UK, which will underpin bilateral cooperation to deliver the SSN-AUKUS, and the $480 million investment in the shipbuilding and submarine workforce in SA, there's also a new industry led supplier qualification program with Huntington Ingalls Industries, or HII, the largest military shipbuilder in the US. What this means in a practical sense is that, for the first time, Australian companies are now qualified and are entering the pipeline.

I encourage the member for New England to come and visit Hasluck, because, if he had joined me, even just last week, to visit Hofmann Engineering with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence Industry and also our WA colleague the Hon. Paul Papalia, the state minister for defence industries, along with Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead and many others, he would have been there to hear the announcement that Hofmann Engineering is now the first qualified Australian company to receive a request for quote to supply its parts into the US supply chain. This is a historic moment for Hofmann Engineering but also for the country, as it's the beginning of Australian companies directly contributing to the global supply chain and preparing our country to make the parts necessary for submarines here and for the sustainment of submarines into the future.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This discussion has now concluded.