Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 establishes the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. There's never been a more important time for parliamentary accountability and oversight over defence decisions. The stakes are higher than at any time since the Second World War. As the 2024 National defence strategy stated, Australia faces the most complex and challenging strategic environment since that time. Conflict has returned to Europe. Conflict has returned to the Middle East. We've also seen conflict in our own region in South-East Asia. We face evolving threats as well—cyber threats, grey zone tactics and foreign interference, as well as continuing threats like that of nuclear conflict.

In a time of geostrategic uncertainty, it has never been more important to maintain independent oversight of our defence community. Engaging the parliament and the public in these matters is vital to the way that Australia responds to these challenges. The new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will enhance transparency, accountability and oversight of defence decisions. It will provide scrutiny to all parts of the defence ecosystem at a significant moment in Australia's history.

I want to acknowledge at this point my colleague the member for Bruce, Assistant Minister Julian Hill. This bill would not be before the House but for the work of Minister Hill in chairing the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in the previous parliament. He led the inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making which led to the bill before the House being with us today.

The parliament plays a crucial role in scrutinising and debating decisions of the executive government and the implementation of those decisions by departments and agencies. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will provide oversight of all areas of our defence ecosystem. The circumstances demand a coordinated, whole-of-government and whole-of-nation approach to our nation's defence. That's why this legislation is so important.

The committee is modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and provides a mechanism for classified parliamentary intelligence briefings and oversight of defence. The PJCD fills a gap in the current oversight framework by enabling scrutiny of classified matters in a secure setting. The bill gives the committee broad information-gathering powers. The committee's information-gathering powers include the ability to request a person to give evidence or to produce specified documents. The committee is empowered to receive and consider classified information subject to appropriate safeguards. These safeguards balance the government's commitment to greater public transparency with the necessity for the protection of information. These safeguards will ensure that information which maintains Australia's security and that of our international partners is protected and the arrangements for information handling will be closely modelled on those that apply to the PJCIS today.

The PJCD will have oversight of the ADF, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and portfolio agencies, including the Australian Submarine Agency, Defence Housing Australia and the Australian War Memorial. It will also include the performance of key independent regulators, including the Inspector-General of the ADF and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. The committee's functions will include oversight of administration, expenditure and personnel matters, and it will have the ability to scrutinise Australia's defence capability development, including strategy, planning and acquisitions. The committee will also be responsible for monitoring and reviewing the findings of royal commission inquiries relating to defence. The committee will be able to assess war, war-like and major non-conflict operations in the event of the executive deciding to enter into armed conflict.

The establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence is just one part of the government's strategy with regard to our defence and security. Greater oversight and transparency is necessary at a time when we have been lifting our defence engagement with regional partners in order to build the kind of region that we want to see—a region that's peaceful, prosperous, secure and stable, governed by rules, norms and international law, a region where sovereignty is respected and countries are free to make their own choices, where no country dominates and no country is dominated.

As outlined in the 2024 National defence strategy our enhanced defence cooperation and activities with key partners 'build depth and trust in Australia's relationships, support collective deterrence and demonstrate Australia's value as a reliable partner'. In response to the more complex security environment facing the Indo-Pacific region, we have established upgraded bilateral defence arrangements with a number of partners. We've established upgraded defence agreements with partners including Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Japan, Korea, India and Indonesia. These agreements will facilitate deeper and more sophisticated practical cooperation between the ADF and our partners.

In particular, we've been lifting our engagement with the Indian Ocean region. The 2024 National defence strategy identified the north-east Indian Ocean region as an area of primary strategic interest that is critical to Australia's security. It was identified in the National defence strategy because the Indian Ocean matters to Australia. It's critical for our prosperity and security. It's home to the world's fastest growing economies. Around half of Australia's sea-bound exports set sail from Indian Ocean ports, and the shipping lanes of the Indian Ocean are vital to Australia and the broader global economy. More than a third of the world's bulk cargo traffic and two-thirds of global oil shipments travel through the Indian Ocean.

It's critical for our Defence Force posture. Half of Australia's naval fleet is based in the Indian Ocean. It's home to Fleet Base West, which is critical for Australia's capacity to deploy major fleet units for sustained operations off our west coast in the Indian Ocean. It's also home to Submarine Rotational Force - West. Submarine Rotational Force - West will help Australia build the necessary operational capabilities and skills to be sovereign ready. It will ensure Australia can safely and securely own, operate, maintain and regulate a fleet of nuclear powered submarines from the early 2030s. Submarine Rotational Force - West will accelerate our efforts to develop Australia's capability to safely and securely operate and sustain its future nuclear powered submarines. It's an investment in AUKUS and a significant contribution to the security and stability of the Indian Ocean region.

Our defence relationships in the Indian Ocean region are an important part of our regional engagement, and the gifting of the first Australian built Guardian class patrol boat to an Indian Ocean country, the Maldives, will enhance its capability to protect its sovereign waters. It will also contribute to collective maritime security in the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean also saw in 2025 the largest ever participation in Exercise Talisman Sabre, with over 30,000 military personnel from 19 nations partaking and an additional three nations observing. Joint exercises like Talisman Sabre reflect the strength of Australia's alliance with the United States and demonstrate our commitment to working with like-minded partners in the region. Bilateral defence cooperation between Australia and regional partners enhances collective strength, contributes to all countries' security and makes an important contribution to regional peace and security.

The context in this bill is that we're also undertaking a long overdue program of base hardening and investment in our northern and western defence bases. The Albanese government is hardening Australia's northern defence infrastructure in the Northern Territory, North Queensland and Western Australia, and we're doing this because the Defence Strategic Review identified improving the ability of the ADF to operate from Australia's northern bases as a key priority. Given our strategic circumstances, the ADF must be optimised for littoral operations in northern land and maritime spaces. The ADF must be equipped to support operations in the north through surveillance, air defence, strike and air transport.

Development of defence estates will address force posture requirements and enhance an integrated, focused force as outlined in the 2024 National defence strategy. In order to realise this, the government is upgrading defence bases, including $1 billion for upgrades to land and joint estate capabilities, $600 million in maritime estate investments, including HMAS Coonawarra, HMAS Cairns and the Harold E Holt naval communication station, and an additional $200 million towards the acceleration of additional projects. The ADF will be better equipped to defend Australia's north thanks to $14 billion to $18 billion of funding for resilient bases under the 2024 Integrated Investment Program.

In the Indian Ocean, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands is a key territory for Australia. The island is located 2,000 kilometres from Australia's north-west coastline, adjacent to vital Indian Ocean sea lanes. As argued by Professor Peter Dean and Alice Nason in a recent report by the United States Studies Centre, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands is a key Indian Ocean asset for Australia. That's why we're investing $567.6 million to upgrade the airfield there to sustain Defence operations in the Indian Ocean. This investment is expanding infrastructure in this territory and will see its operational significant to Australia only grow in the future.

Despite this clear strategic imperative, the implementation of upgrades to Australia's northern defence network has been impaired by significant delays and rising costs. Under the previous government, we lost a decade of work on these projects. The lack of oversight and focus in the development of these bases in the north and north-west led to a decade-long delay between the 2012 Force posture review and the 2023 Defence strategic review. That's why the establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence is so significant for Australia. Our government's defence base hardening is important for Australia's security, and the delay between the 2012 Force posture review and the 2023 Defence strategic review meant that our key bases in the north and west faced vulnerabilities. It also means that they now require significant, rapid investment and hardening.

We got to work doing this as soon as we came to government, so it's important that we have committees like this to ensure that issues and investments like that maintain the focus of the parliament that they desire. More than ever, we need to ensure our defence ecosystems are transparent and accountable and have appropriate oversight. We need to ensure there is oversight of strategically key investments. We need to ensure Australia's defence ecosystem can meet the challenges of the time, and that is what the bill before the House represents. I cede time to my colleagues on the opposite side of the chamber to address this bill.

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

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm speaking on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. I would like to quote two people—one is one of the soldiers that has seen the most active warfare than any other soldier in Australian history, probably, and the other one is a very close friend of mine, a Cloncurry boy, whose best friend was one of my best friends. To the soldier with great experience, I said, 'What do you think about the new rifles and the light calibre of the bullet?' He said, 'It stinks.' I said, 'Why?' He said: 'When you squeeze the trigger, I want the bloke dead. The idea that it will only wound him and will take three men out of the front line—in warfare, that is not how anyone looks at it. When I squeeze the trigger, I want him dead.'

Now, the last head of the armed forces is reputed to have given orders that they were not to use the word 'kill'. This person has spent $40,000 million buying patrol boats that have no ordinance. They can't kill anybody. Well, what is the bloody use of having them? They're supposed to be our front line of defence and they can't kill anyone! They've got a machine gun! So we spent $40,000 million buying 15 machine guns.

My platoon—in two wars, we were on 24-hour call-up to fight in Borneo and, later, in Vietnam—had 23 machine guns amongst the 32 of us, and he spent $40,000 million buying 15 machine guns. The man should have been jailed. And he issued instructions that they are not to use the word 'kill'.

Well, I tell you, I was a weapons instructor for about 11 years of my life, as most of us were at my age. I was born in 1945, the year the war ended. Obviously, no-one was going to be doing bayonet charges in the sixties or seventies. That was not going to happen, so why were we doing bayonet drills? You charged and you let out a bloodcurdling scream and you plunged your bayonet into the dummy and you screamed out 'en garde!' and then charged the next dummy. What was all that about? It was about training people to kill without thinking. That goes back to my good friend—the soldier whose probably seen more combat than anyone else in Australian history. He said it's about killing people; don't have any illusions about this. It's interesting that America calls them armed forces. We call them defence forces. That is a very interesting comment.

The second person I want to quote is a very good friend of mine from my home town of Cloncurry. His mutual friend was one of my closest friends. He'd come back from Vietnam, he came to see me and he said, 'Robbie, I was in the unit that was responsible for the so-called massacre.' I felt so sorry for the blokes that went to Vietnam. It was a terrifying experience and I don't think any of them came back the way they were before they went there. He said, 'Our commander, our lieutenant, said that there are VC coming down the track'—Vietcong—'and he said, "When I fire, you will all fire, you hear me?" and the 23 of us nodded our heads.' Then he said, 'Anyway, coming down the track were some women and young people and he started firing.' He said, 'I was on a GPMG'—a machine gun—'so I started firing.' He said: 'Robbie, they were women and children that we killed. But I swear to you that they were carrying ordinance.'

Are you people in this place going to judge these people that have to make those sorts of decisions in a fraction of a second about whether they're going to die or not or whether they're going to let down their platoon and have their platoon wiped out? You're going to judge them? What the hell would you know about it? You've never been near a firearm in your life, most of you, apart from any other consideration. There are people here talking about how wonderful our defence forces are. What a joke! A flotilla of Chinese warships circled Australia and, I don't know about other people, but it had a very bad psychological effect upon me. I felt like I was on the side of the road in a road accident with the kites and hawks circling around overhead.

We didn't even have warships that could've tracked them. They just sailed around Australia, letting us know that they were the bosses of the southern Pacific and we were nobody and nothing, and we're here at their pleasure or displeasure. You say America—well America happens to be about 4,000 or 5,000 kilometres away from Australia, and I didn't notice any Americans around at Kokoda or at Milne Bay. In fact I didn't notice any Americans there at all when our country was about to be invaded. My own father was sitting behind a machine gun outside of Brisbane. He wouldn't have been very happy if he'd known that the government of Australia had already given northern Australia to the enemy—the decision had already been made.

If you want to be serious, then clearly you have to have a fortress wall. Ever since man has been man, he has had a palisade—maybe thorn bushes, maybe fire. He's got a fire in the cave where he's living. We have had a protective wall of some description around us. Obviously, in days past, that was a huge construction that was very, very high, which people had to breach if they wanted to take the city. The modern fortress wall, clearly, is the missile umbrella that is over Israel, given to them by the Americans. We have a coastline that precludes us from that approach, but, if we have 80 vessels—I'd call them defence forces, because we don't actually have a vessel of this type. It's a bit bigger than a patrol boat, but able to carry missiles and interception capacity and interception of drone capacity. If we've got 80 of them—maybe 40 in Darwin and 40 at Cairns or Townsville—then you come sailing around our waters, we'll say hello to you and it won't be a very friendly hello. We'll now be stalking you; it won't be you stalking us. You say, 'What can we do against a country the size of China?' Well, China had better make the best of it, because in 25 or 30 years, the vast bulk of the population will be over 70 or under 13. They better make hay while the sun shines, I say to them.

I spoke to one of the leading people in the Australian Army about Ukraine. Obviously, my electorate goes into Townsville. I said, 'What's your take on Ukraine?' They said, 'It's very interesting, isn't it? It's not about rockets or missiles, as everyone thought it would be.' They're too expensive apparently, but they're hurling 10,000 mortar bombs at each other every day. Where are our mortar bombs? I doubt we have 150 or 200 mortar bombs. We probably need about 2,000.

The other interesting thing—and I hate to say this because I have very great respect and very great admiration for John Howard, and it wasn't entirely his decision. I'm not going to go into what happened. I was still in the party room at that stage. There were two million or three million rifles in Australia that were taken off us, so we could not defend our homes. I will add the largest number of signatures ever collected in Queensland history were on castle law: your right to defend your own home. There were 130,000 signatures by the time period closed. It was the highest ever recorded in Queensland history. Those people want the right to protect their home. You can try defending your home with a cricket bat if you want, but I know what I would need to defend my home.

You say, 'Oh, what will happen if everyone has a rifle?' Lady, I was brought up most of my life when everyone did have a rifle in this country. I'll give you one statistic that wipes out your arguments. When Queensland had no gun laws at all, I went to buy a pair of socks, and they had AK-47 rifles for sale, so I bought an AK-47 rifle and 350 rounds of ammunition instead of buying my socks. There were no gun laws at all in Queensland, and there were eight deaths with guns. Just remember that figure. In the same year, in New South Wales, with its Draconian gun laws, there were 36 deaths with guns. With fierce Draconian anti-gun laws in Victoria they had 54 deaths with guns. If you think that's an isolated phenomenon, check the deaths with guns in Switzerland, Sweden and Finland where every home has a gun. Check the figures.

East Germany had the highest death rate with guns in Europe, and guns were banned in East Germany. The neighbouring country Switzerland, where every single home had a gun, had the lowest death rate with guns in Europe. In America, North Dakota and South Dakota have the highest gun ownership in the world, and there were two deaths with guns in three years. Places where there are very restrictive gun laws—guess where the highest death rate with guns were? They were Chicago, Washington DC and California, the capital city.

I am not keen to rob a house if I think that house might have a gun in it. I think I'll raid that house and not this house. But every house in Australia now has a sign on it saying, 'You're quite safe to rob this house.' Not only do we not have castle law, the right to defend ourselves in our own homes; we don't have the wherewithal to defend ourselves in our own home. You say, 'Oh, the police will look after you.' Well, the down time in Queensland is about 40 minutes, so I think it will be all over red rover by the time the police arrive. So don't even think about that one.

Once upon a time, my country, Australia, believed in the right of the individual, not the government. This bill is the complete opposite. It takes away the rights of the individual and says, 'We people sitting in our ivory towers, in our plush, air conditioned rooms, here in Canberra will pass judgement on men that are out there risking their lives for this country.' Young men are risking their lives for this country. They're on bivouac and they're marching 40 kilometres a day with a 40-pound pack on their backs. They're not even in combat, but they're doing it for their country. It amazes me that the young people in the Army, and a lot of them are in the Kennedy electorate, do it for patriotic reasons. You sit down at the pub with them, listening to them. It's amazing how many of them actually do it out of patriotism, believe it or not.

Here we are today, taking away the rights of the individual and taking away our right to protect our country, and now we have a Star Chamber. For those of us who have had legal training—I was in the final year of law at the toughest law school in Australia, with a 72 per cent dropout rate, so, when it comes to the law, I know what I'm talking about. We have a Star Chamber here. The Star Chamber is notorious in English history. There was a period under one of the totalitarian kings in England when they could simply pass judgement upon you in closed shop. No-one knew what was going on, and they could pass any judgement on you they liked. They were not bound by the rule of law.

Do you want to know the difference between a civilised country and an uncivilised country? The country that has democracy, rule of law, industrial awards and Christianity—I make no apologies for saying that—are the civilised countries. As far as I'm concerned, people that come from countries that don't have those four things should not be coming into our country. I feel very, very fearful of what is going on with immigration. Whether that undermines the security of our country, I won't address today— (Time expired)

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

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the bill be now 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 the bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will return to the House for further consideration.