Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. It is a fact that, in 2026, Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. That is not rhetoric; it is the sober assessment of defence planners, intelligence agencies and, more concerningly, our closest allies. It is a reality that demands seriousness, urgency and of course responsibility from this parliament. The Liberal Party supports the principle of this bill, which is strengthening parliamentary oversight of defence, provided that oversight remains bipartisan—and this is a very clear point—as well as disciplined and focused on strengthening Australia's defence capability, not politicising it.

The bill has, quite frankly, been a long time coming. It builds on the work of Liberal Party parliamentarians over many years. They understood that defence is not just another portfolio. In fact, in the Liberal Party we have always said, time and time again, that defence is the most fundamental responsibility of any national government. Liberal Party senators such as the late Jim Molan, Linda Reynolds and David Fawcett consistently argued for stronger parliamentary engagement with defence—engagement that improves accountability and understanding without undermining national security. In fact, the late Senator Jim Molan said in 2018, the time of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report Contestability and consensus:

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

That was the late Senator Jim Molan, somebody respected on all sides of politics. What he said was true back then, in 2018, without a doubt. But, jump forward to 2026 and, as I said, we now are in the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. The statement made by former senator the late Jim Molan is even more true now.

Australia is unusual amongst its closest security partners. Unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, our AUKUS partners, Australia does not have a dedicated parliamentary committee focused solely on defence. We believe that, done properly, this committee can fill that gap. It can provide a trusted forum for scrutiny, improve parliamentary understanding of defence programs, and strengthen accountability around delivery without undermining Australia's strategic objectives or our national security. But, again—and I go back to the point I have just made—the committee must build confidence in defence. It cannot become another platform for political games. It cannot add unnecessary bureaucracy. And it must not become a forum for grandstanding or pointscoring. It must enhance scrutiny whilst at the same time supporting Defence's ability to plan, decide and—possibly most importantly—deliver at speed. We believe that, at its best, this committee could actually strengthen bipartisan consensus around Australia's strategic interests. It can improve how Defence engages with the parliament, reduce excessive risk aversion and help ensure that every dollar spent on defence is actually well spent.

For those reasons, the Liberal Party supports the bill in principle, and we will support it when it goes to a vote. At the same time, we will be holding the government to the longstanding conventions that protect Australia's national security. This is incredibly important. Defence demands continuity, competence and, most importantly, bipartisanship, not politics. This committee must follow the proven model of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, otherwise known in this place as the PJCIS. It's a committee that I currently sit on.

For more than two decades, 20 years, the PJCIS has operated on the basis—for the very obvious reasons of what we are dealing with—that membership is drawn from the government and the opposition only. The convention exists for a reason. I think anybody would understand that committees dealing with sensitive national security matters require trust—trust between members, trust with Defence and the intelligence community and, most importantly, trust with our allies. Appointing Greens or independents would politicise classified defence matters, undermine that trust and weaken the purpose of the committee. It would also undermine and break longstanding bipartisan practice, upheld by every single prime minister since former prime minister John Howard. Whether the current prime minister, Anthony Albanese, respects that convention, quite frankly—we'll support this bill, but this is going to be a test of both his leadership and his judgement.

Appointing members committed to defunding defence—just read their speeches or look at their platforms—undermining our alliances or opposing Australia's core strategic partnerships would directly contradict the intent of this bill. What's worse than that, quite frankly, is that the committee could potentially become a laughing stock. It would weaken the committee and, worse than that, would actually weaken our great nation of Australia.

As I said, we have a fundamental principle here: the committee must strengthen defence capability and accountability; it must not dilute it. So whilst this committee is a welcome step—as I said, we're not opposing the bill—it cannot substitute for readiness, and this is important.

Australia's strategic environment is deteriorating rapidly. In Europe, Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine has entered its fourth year, a reminder that major war has returned to the international system. In the Middle East, instability driven by state sponsored terrorism has shown how quickly regional conflict can escape and spill beyond borders. In our own region coercion, grey-zone pressure, cyberactivity and rapid military build-ups are now the norm, as opposed to what they were in the past: the exception. Those realities demand honesty about the threats we face. More importantly, they demand urgency in our response.

The Defence Strategic Review provided the diagnosis, and the National Defence Strategy set out the plan. The Integrated Investment Program was meant to turn those words into a real-world capability. But, sadly, under Labor these documents remain largely paper exercises. The truth is that the Defence Strategic Review and the National Defence Strategy were underfunded from the moment they were released. Announcements have far outstripped resources. Defence insiders themselves have warned that much of the Integrated Investment Program is underfunded, that the cost curve for new projects is outpacing the budget and that essential investments—particularly in northern base upgrades, missile manufacturing, cybercapability and sustainment—are now being pushed off into the never-never. That should worry every single Australian.

Despite claims of billions in new defence investment, just $700 million has been allocated this final year to implement the National Defence Strategy. At the same time—this should worry every Australian—billions of dollars in projects have been cut, delayed or reshaped to make the numbers look tidy. And capability—again, this should worry every single Australian—itself drifts. It's a very simple fact that reviews and announcements sound good but do not deter aggression; readiness does. Australians understand that. They want peace through strength. They want faster decisions, more local defence industry jobs and equipment that arrives on time to keep Australians safe. Announcements without allocations do not deter adversaries. In fact, it's the opposite: they see the announcement, they see no action and they say, 'This is fantastic; we are now emboldened.' Every year of delay and every dollar not spent widens the gap between what the ADF needs and what they are actually getting.

We have been incredibly clear. We, as the Liberal Party, will change course. We will move Australia from rhetoric to where we need to be, given the deteriorating strategic environment—readiness. We have said that we will set a credible, fully costed pathway to lift defence spending to three per cent of GDP, ensuring deployable capability is delivered sooner, not decades from now. That commitment is about credibility, it is about matching defence funding to defence tasking and it is about ensuring strategy documents translate into real capability.

We have said that a Liberal government would ensure that the National Defence Strategy and the Integrated Investment Program are fully funded and delivered, not treated as slogans. Again, slogans sound great, but I tell you, if they aren't implemented, you've got a bit of a problem when you need readiness as the No. 1 capability.

We have said that we will prioritise minimum viable capability quickly over gold plated projects that arrive too late. We will build sovereign mass in missiles, drones, cyber and undersea systems so Australia can stand on its own two feet within our alliances, because allies—it is a fact—help those who are prepared to help themselves.

This is especially critical for AUKUS. AUKUS, signed under the former coalition government, is a generational opportunity for Australia's security and our economy. It offers high skilled jobs, apprenticeships and a durable pipeline of work, particularly for South Australia and for my home state of Western Australia. But AUKUS—it is a reality over the last five years, under the Albanese government—has also been underfunded. Labor has promised the most ambitious industrial build in our history—again, a great slogan, a great press release. Look behind it. They have not allocated the money to make it real. Seriously. As a result, AUKUS is now cannibalising the existing defence budget and leaving Australia in the worst of both worlds. Key decisions remain unfunded under this government. Infrastructure is lagging under this government. Skills pipelines are uncosted under this government. Pillar II, with its enormous economic and technological potential, is now underresourced.

The recent United States review of AUKUS has only heightened the risk. Scope and schedule are under pressure. Every dollar delayed now will cost more later. Drift or underfunding will not just erode deterrence. It therefore has the flow-on effect of weakening trust with our allies and risking breaking faith with the Australian communities being asked to carry this incredibly important project.

Again, just like when in government, we have said that a Liberal government will back AUKUS with real funding—we have to—through our pathway to raising defence spending as a percentage of GDP so that one capability is not sacrificed to pay another. We have said we will drive timelines, we will co-invest to unblock bottlenecks with our allies and we will ensure Australian workforces are trained and ready when the yards need them, not years later—remember, readiness. If you do not have readiness, quite frankly, I don't know how you can do anything.

But, above all, what we have said is this, and it is a clear message to our defence forces: we will put people at the centre of Defence. Defence does not run on press releases; it runs on people. Recruitment, retention, housing and family support are not secondary issues; they are foundational issues in Defence. Morale and readiness begins with our fantastic men and women who serve and, importantly, with their families, who are there to support them. The Liberal Party will fix the people challenge first because credibility, quite frankly, in defence starts there.

Again, as I said, this bill is a constructive step—and I do go back to the words of the former and late senator Jim Molan back in 2018—and it must be about strengthening Australia's defence, not weakening the conventions that protect it. The Liberal Party supports strong oversight. We support serious bipartisanship and we support a defence force ready to meet the times. We will support the bill, but I will be very clear: we will continue to hold the government to account for delivering the capability Australia needs, importantly, to keep Australians safe.