James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question as to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, the government is facing a rank-and-file party revolt over AUKUS ahead of next week's Labor National Conference, with media reporting more than 40 Labor branches all calling for a review. Is this division within the Labor Party the reason for the Albanese government's billions of dollars in cuts to the defence budget, which is being forced to absorb more of Australia's commitment to Ukraine, reallocate defence funds to DFAT and is still expected to find additional as-yet unidentified savings from within the remaining defence budget?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to that is no, although it was a multi-pronged question. I think it is 'no' generally, certainly to the first point. We are a party that has our debate in public. I'm sure it's of great interest to you, because yours is not. I'm sure it's also of great interest to the Greens, because they like private conferences as well. But we are a broad based party that have our debates in public. We're prepared to have the debates in public, and what you will see at that conference is the leadership of the Australian Labor Party articulating very clearly why AUKUS is important for our nation's security. I have spoken about it at length, including at the National Press Club, which you may not have read, Senator Paterson, but you may wish to, and I've also responded publicly and very clearly to criticisms from various sources about AUKUS. We have articulated the strategic circumstances which have rendered the government's approach necessary. We have articulated the benefit of the technology sharing of the AUKUS partnership, and we are committed to ensure that we deliver continued progress on AUKUS, as was demonstrated at the recent AUSMIN meetings.

In terms of the various other aspects of his question, I would make the point that Sir Angus Houston and Mr Smith who wrote the DSR did talk about the importance of DFAT contributing to assuring the peace through the work that DFAT does diplomatically. That is about making sure we use all levers of national power, strategic deterrence and military deterrence but also diplomacy in pursuit of a peaceful, stable and prosperous region. That is a good thing. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Foreign Affairs will be interested to know I did, of course, read her National Press Club address. Prior to the election the Prime Minister stated national security is above politics and that this would be a government which delivers on its commitments and brings the country together as a key element of ensuring a stronger and safer Australia. With over 40 Labor branches openly revolting against the AUKUS agreement, isn't it clear that the Prime Minister is failing even to bring his own party together to support Australia's most significant national security commitment since the ANZUS treaty?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, if I can, I ask for a reminder of relevant funding in relation to Defence and DFAT. I'd make the point that in 2023-24 total DFAT resourcing is $7.8 billion and total Defence resourcing in 2023-24 is $55 billion, so I think the senator's question ought to be taken in the context of those figures. Yes, we do believe national security should be above politics. We don't believe that, in pursuit of an election victory, a government should try and scare Australians about the drums of war. We don't believe, in pursuit of an election victory, a government should try and smear a senior member of the opposition as the 'Manchurian candidate'. We don't believe in making unilateral decisions which are contrary to the position Australia has held for decades because a government wishes to win a by-election. So you're right. If you want to be part of making sure national security is about politics, I'm happy to have a discussion.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson, second supplementary?

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Media are reporting that the Prime Minister is attempting to shut down debate on AUKUS at the national conference to avoid embarrassment to the government. If the Prime Minister cannot trust his own party to be unified in support of AUKUS, how can Australians and our partners trust the Prime Minister to reverse defence cuts and deliver on his commitments to AUKUS?

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the minister, I would ask those on my right particularly to refrain from interjecting and pointing.

Senator Green!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you can see the leadership that the Prime Minister and the cabinet are articulating on these issues. I do accept these are different times. I understand why it is important for us to have that discussion with the community, including inside our own party and beyond, and we have been. We understand that we are asking the country for a multidecade commitment when it comes to not only the AUKUS partnership in general terms but also the submarines. That is a multidecadal commitment which has to be bipartisan—in fact it has to be multiparty—and I'm happy to spend the time I do spend alongside the Deputy Prime Minister, in party forums and more broadly, articulating the strategic rationale for AUKUS and for the submarines, and we will continue to do so.