I rise today to speak about whether we as a country have properly learnt about, from our experience of a global pandemic, our dependence on the rest of the world. During the pandemic, supply chains broke down, essential goods became scarce and governments scrambled to secure supplies that we'd previously taken for granted. We spoke about national resilience. We spoke about sovereign capability. We recognised the danger of being too dependent on others for the things that we could not do without. But recognising a vulnerability is not the same as addressing it. COVID was supposed to be our wake-up call. We should not need another crisis to remind us of the consequences of being unprepared.

The conflict in the Middle East has again demonstrated how instability overseas can put pressure on Australia's fuel supplies and household budgets. For the people of my electorate that is not an abstract discussion about global markets. It's the tradie filling up between jobs; the small-business owner facing higher freight costs; and the family commuting on the M1, trying to work out how much further the household budget can stretch. Those are the everyday consequences of the economic exposure I am raising today. Make no mistake: I am ringing the alarm bell.

The Australians we represent cannot resolve a conflict overseas. They cannot negotiate the passage of international shipments. But they are expected to absorb the consequences when things do go wrong. So they are entitled to expect their national parliament to take those vulnerabilities seriously. No government in Canberra can control every event beyond our shores, but we do have a responsibility to consider how exposed we are, what we can do about it and whether the decisions we make today will leave Australians better prepared tomorrow. This is about generational and long-term thinking.

Fuel is one of the clearest examples. Australia's allowed its domestic refining capacity to decline, leaving us increasingly reliant on imports. The assumption has been that international markets will deliver what we need when we need it and at a price that we can afford. That's an assumption we must be prepared to question, because fuel is not simply another item in the household budget. It supports the transport of food, equipment and medicines, and it provides back-up power for critical services. The availability of fuel matters to the functioning of this country, and it also matters to our defence capability. We cannot separate the security of our essential services and supplies from the security of our nation. An island nation that cannot be confident in its access to fuel is an exposed nation, and the consequences do not stop at the petrol pump. When it costs more to move goods, those costs flow through to businesses and consumers. A disruption overseas becomes yet another pressure on an already stretched Australian family. This is where economic exposure becomes personal.

The same principle applies beyond fuel. Imagine just for a moment going to your local pharmacy with a prescription and being told that the medicine that you need is unavailable, not because you can't afford it but because the supply has been interrupted. Imagine discovering that there is no alternative available—no generic—and no domestic capability to fall back on. That's the distinction we must understand. Affordability matters enormously, but affordability offers little comfort when the product itself cannot be obtained. We should be asking those questions before a crisis, not discovering the answers in the middle of one. That is what sovereign capability should mean in practice—a clear understanding of what Australia needs to keep functioning, where we are vulnerable and what options we have when normal arrangements fail.

But there are two mistakes that we must avoid. The first is complacency—assuming that global markets will always meet our needs, without giving sufficient thought to the risks. The second is overcorrection—assuming that the answer is to manufacture everything ourselves, supported by permanent subsidies and government picking winners. Neither is a sound foundation for our future.

Australia does not need to make everything, but we do need to be clear eyed about what we cannot afford to lose. We should focus on targeted strategic capability in areas that are critical to our national interest and products for which Australians have a comparative advantage. We should back high-value, high-skilled manufacturingwhere Australians can compete. Where a capability is essential, we should not be comfortable with having no alternative to complete dependence on others. This is not an argument for protectionism; it's an argument for resilience. Nor is it an argument for abandoning free enterprise; it is an argument for creating the conditions in which Australian enterprise can build the capabilities that we need.

Government has an important role—there is no denying that—but it must play the right role. That means cutting unnecessary red tape. It means ensuring competitive energy and input costs. It means supporting the skills and training that industry needs and delivering infrastructure that allows businesses to develop and expand. We must not make investment harder and then act surprised when the capability we want does not emerge. We can't burden enterprise with unnecessary costs and then assume that some sort of government subsidy will provide a lasting solution. Our objective should be industries that can compete, innovate and endure, not industries whose future depends on the next announcement from Canberra. Competitiveness is not separate from resilience; it's central to building capability that lasts.

Alongside that domestic effort, we must diversify. In my first speech to this parliament, I said:

I am a firm believer in diversifying our import and export markets so we don't rely on any one country and expose ourselves to being held ransom by adversaries.

That remains my view. We should not confuse participation in the global economy with dependence on a narrow part of it, and Australia has seen the consequences of this directly. Diversification does not mean turning our back on trade. It means giving ourselves more options, more sources of essential supplies, more markets for Australian businesses and less exposure to the decisions of any single country.

Consider the example of Taiwan. According to figures reported by Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council, China's share of Taiwan's outward investment fell from 83.8 per cent in 2010 to just 2.7 per cent in the first quarter of 2025. That is a substantial change in the concentration of investment. Australia's circumstances are different, but the principle is relevant. Economic exposure is not something we must simply accept. We can make deliberate decisions to broaden our options and reduce our vulnerabilities. The purpose is not to withdraw from the world. It's to engage with the world from a stronger position.

I believe in personal responsibility and preparation. Those principles should apply to the way we govern this country as much as they apply to individuals. We should not treat national preparedness as something to consider only when an emergency makes it unavoidable. Measures to manage an immediate disruption matter, but the responsibility of government extends beyond managing the next difficult week. It includes preparing for the challenges that may emerge many years from now.

I've decided to raise this subject during a grievance debate. And I am aggrieved, because I do not see this government approaching sovereign capability as a long-term national task. I don't see them being clear about which capabilities are essential to our security and our economic functioning. I don't see them addressing the barriers that prevent viable Australian businesses from developing them and making diversification a practical priority in our economic relationships. These objectives belong together. Domestic capability without competitiveness risks becoming a permanent burden; international trade without sufficient diversification can leave us exposed—and neither will provide lasting security without the discipline to prepare before a crisis arrives.

The people of McPherson should be able to pursue their livelihoods without being left unnecessarily vulnerable to events beyond their control. We cannot promise Australians a world without disruption, but we should be determined to build a country that is better able to withstand it. Australia should not abandon free markets. We should operate within them more strategically, with a clear understanding of our national interests, our vulnerabilities and our strengths. COVID was our wake-up call. But, more than five years later, this government has failed to learn the lesson. We cannot control every crisis that comes our way, but we can control how prepared we are. The failure to prepare today is a decision to leave Australians more vulnerable tomorrow.