Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some questions, obviously. My first question is: can you tell me whether or not Defence Housing still does any sponsorship? Is it still spending its money on sponsorship?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, this is a relatively narrow bill, and it doesn't go to the budget of DHA. It simply goes to a set of amendments to the Defence Housing Australia Act 1987. I don't have, consequently, information with me about the Defence Housing Australia budget, particularly at that level of granularity, and I might need to direct you to the other opportunities in the Senate to ask questions of that kind.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just over 61,000 personnel. Apparently, that's the new August number for this year. I think it is 61,229, to be precise. By the early 2030s—I don't know what you mean by 'early'; I'd say 2031 or 2032—you want to grow that to 69,000. How many houses, or married quarters or housing, is DHA going to be required to build in the next five years just to get you to the 2030s, if you are able to get 69,000, or another 7,000, defence personnel into the miliary?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, thanks for your question. Of course, as I indicated in my second reading contribution, the provision of housing for personnel remains critically important, and it's the core function of Defence Housing Australia. We have spoken in other forums about some of the initiatives that are underway to better understand the housing requirements of ADF personnel and to provision for them. Again, though, I would indicate that the bill before us is actually quite a short bill and that it's also quite narrowly constructed. It has a very limited purpose, which is simply to expand the capacity of DHA to provide housing, beyond ADF personnel, to a limited number of other categories. So I don't have detailed information of that kind, and I think questions about DHA's planning and Defence's budget are best dealt with in budget estimates or in some of the other forums available to senators.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, this is integral because I want to know whether or not you've got enough married quarters and all the rest out there to get where you need to be by 2030 in bringing extras in. So you should have numbers in front of you. That's the first thing. We're going to go over quite a substantial thing because I need to make sure that our own have got housing if they're in uniform. That's what I want to know, and right now, because I've got no numbers and you can't give me any, there is no guarantee. That is my biggest problem. While we're here looking at numbers, can you tell how many members are in choice accommodation, how many are in living-in accommodation, how many are accessing rental assistance and how many are in service residences? I need those up-to-date numbers so you and I can go on with the conversation this morning.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Lambie. I will provide the information that I have for you, Senator, but I think one of the things to draw the Senate's attention to is that this bill doesn't ask the Senate to make a decision about provisioning for Australian personnel or for philanthropic organisations, nor does it make a decision about provisioning for foreign service personnel. It simply creates a legislative capacity for DHA to do work of this kind. There are subsequent decisions that will need to be taken about the volume of housing that might be necessary in different places and at different times under the provisions of this bill, if it's passed, but that's not the decision that's in front of the Senate right now. The only decision before us is the decision contained in the legislation, which is, really: as a position of principle, is it okay for DHA to do work of this kind? Obviously, the government is bringing forward this bill because we believe that it is appropriate and, indeed, that it is important. I can tell you though—and I will do my best, where I can, Senator, to get the information you're asking for—that we anticipate an expansion in the order of 30,000 homes by 2040. That's the advice I have before me, Senator.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you say there's an expansion of 30,000 homes—I'm assuming through Defence Housing—are there estimates of how many of those homes or what proportion of those homes will be for foreign troops and foreign contractors as opposed to Australians?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I can't add a great deal to the answer I've already provided. The bill before us is relatively narrow in scope. It asks us to allow, in principle, DHA to do work of this kind. Other decisions about how much, where and who are part of the ordinary budget processes of Defence. As you and I know, there are many opportunities to canvass those budget decisions during the budget estimates hearings and in other forums.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was asking you about the information you brought to the chamber. You say that there is a prediction that there'll be these 30,000 homes built. You're now seeking the committee's agreement to allow an unknown chunk of those homes to be handed to US personnel and to foreign defence contractors. Is it your answer that you can't tell the committee how many of those homes will be now earmarked for foreign defence personnel and foreign defence contractors and that you don't have that information?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've indicated, I'm trying to be careful about the information that I provide the committee, because it is important that it be accurate. The bill expands, in general, the capacity of Defence Housing Australia to provide housing for a range of personnel, including foreign personnel. I do have information about the housing demand for the estimated number of US and UK personnel coming to WA for SRF-West, if that would be of assistance. Of the 1,100 expected US and UK personnel, it is estimated that approximately half will be accompanied by their families and approximately half will arrive unaccompanied or are single. That translates into a housing demand of approximately 550 family residences and a combination of 550 one-bedroom apartments and/or on-base single living-in accommodation.

ASA and Defence will work closely together to respond to that. It will of course seek to do so in a manner that is cognisant of any impacts on local communities. That's partly why we're looking to make the changes to the legislation today. Defence Housing Australia have a well-developed business model that sees them work with private providers in the market to bring on new projects. In part, that is the model anticipated to be used to meet some of this demand. It has flow-on benefits for communities—because we have quite a number of examples where arrangements of that kind also enable bringing forward housing development that is then, through the same projects, offered into the private market.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for that additional information, Minister. I have two questions that flow from that. Is it intended those housing units be in addition to the 30,000 that you've indicated, or are they part of the 30,000 that you've indicated? That's my first question. My second question is: you indicated that the department expects the need to build 550 family homes for US and UK troops in Western Australia; is that what Senator Whiteaker was referring to in her contribution when she said Defence Housing Australia has already signed contracts for 550 new homes near Fleet Base West in the southern suburbs of Perth over the next five years?

My first question is: is that in addition to the 30,000 or part thereof? My second question is: are the 550 homes for US and UK defence personnel you're referring to the same 550 homes that Senator Whiteaker was referring to when she spoke about the signed contracts?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, in relation to whether or not the 30,000 homes includes those homes intended to be used by visiting personnel, the answer is yes. In relation to the contracts that have been entered into by DHA with developers, yes, those contracts have been entered into broadly with the intention of meeting the needs of the growth in workforce, some of whom will be workforce personnel associated with the UK and US.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, what legal basis did Defence Housing Australia have to enter into contracts to build houses for US and UK troops when it signed those contracts for 550 new homes near Fleet Base West? Did they just decide that they weren't limited by the law—that they could just sign contracts to build homes for foreign defence personnel without troubling themselves with having the legal authority to do that?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Defence Housing Australia is tasked with providing housing necessary to meet Defence's operational requirements. These contracts were entered into as part of their ordinary portfolio management. Defence Housing Australia has a portfolio of homes. It includes leasing and constructing, and this is the ordinary way in which Defence Housing Australia conducts its business.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, my hope would be that the ordinary way in which Defence Housing Australia conduct their business is by only entering into contracts to build homes where it is lawful to do so. I ask you again: did Defence Housing Australia sign contracts to build homes for US and UK defence personnel as part of the signed contracts for 550 homes Senator Whiteaker refers to? If so, on what possible legal basis did they do so?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll refer you to my answer, Senator Shoebridge; that is the same question as the one you just asked.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I will give you a third opportunity to identify whether there was any lawful legal basis for Defence Housing Australia to sign contracts to build homes for foreign defence personnel, as Senator Whiteaker and you have now confirmed is the reality. Was there any legal basis for doing so? And, if not, will your government ensure that agencies act in accordance with the law?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the third time I'll answer this question. Defence Housing Australia maintains a portfolio of properties. They do so under their ordinary obligations to bring forward a portfolio of properties and manage that so it can meet Defence's operational needs. Defence Housing Australia has not entered into an agreement with a foreign military, but they are working on developing the housing requirements that will be necessary to meet the overall workforce demands in Western Australia as a consequence of the SRF—West arrangements.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, there's a proposed DHA development in the north of Lawson, here in the ACT, and the development proposes 443 dwellings on approximately 47 or so hectares of land. A number of community groups and a large number of constituents have contacted my office with concerns that the development will have significant environmental impact. The proposal would have a significant impact on natural temperate grasslands, which form one of the most threatened ecosystems in Australia. Less than 0.5 per cent of the ecosystem remains in good condition across the country; 99.5 per cent of it has either been destroyed or is in poor condition. You can't offset that. You can't offset a critically endangered temperate grassland. We know that Defence Housing Australia have form on this. If you look at their range of projects, they're constantly coming up against the EPBC Act and often just disregarding it. This is a very serious thing that I would expect a Labor government to care a bit more about. Given the potential impact that clearing will have on golden sun moths and striped legless lizards, I'm interested in whether these changes will make it more likely that the Lawson grasslands project will go ahead.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for your question, Senator Pocock. The broad answer is that we expect Defence Housing Australia to comply with all the environmental requirements in all the jurisdictions in which it operates. I'm not in a position to provide particular information about a particular development in the ACT. I'm aware it's one that you have a strong interest in. There will be other occasions in the Senate program where you can ask questions of officials, including at estimates, about the way they're approaching particular developments. The broad implications of the legislation before us are simply to allow Defence Housing Australia to provide housing support to a broader range of categories of persons than is presently the case under the existing legislation.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, what budget line item did Defence Housing rely upon to sign contracts to build hundreds of new homes for US defence personnel in Perth? Was there a budget allocation for this? If so, what was it?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it would assist Senator Shoebridge and perhaps the Senate more generally to talk a little bit about the business model for DHA. DHA doesn't receive funding through budget appropriations; it's self-funded, and that occurs through rents, fees, charges or other revenue earned through the application of its housing portfolio and service provision, and also the sale of any surplus developed land and properties. It is a government business enterprise and it exists to provide support to the Department of Defence, and the particulars of that support are operationalised through a service agreement with the Department of Defence.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are there any payments being made by the Department of Defence under that service agreement to Defence Housing for these 550 housing units in relation to which this contract has been signed and which we now understand are for US and UK troops?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've given this answer to other senators and yourself. The legislation before the chamber asks senators to make a decision, essentially. To paraphrase it—you have the legislation in front of you—it's essentially an in-principle decision: should we allow DHA to do work of this kind? The Senate is not being asked to approve budgets, nor is it being offered the opportunity to scrutinise budgets; the Senate makes a very particular allocation of time for that task, and when we do that we bring the relevant officials to the table through the Senate estimates process. I encourage you to focus your questions and contributions on the legislation before us rather than a wider-ranging discussion about the budget, which is more appropriately conducted at budget estimates.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that direction, Minister. Going back to your words and your contribution on the bill, you say, on the costs in relation to building the US and the UK troops' housing, 'negotiations are proceeding under previous trilateral cost-sharing principles for the AUKUS trilateral partnership'. That's how you said this housing will be funded—under previously agreed trilateral cost-sharing principles under the broader AUKUS trilateral partnership. Is that true?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't have the speech in front of me, but that reasonably accurately describes the words I used in my second reading speech.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are the trilateral cost-sharing principles under AUKUS?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those aren't able to be shared in this forum.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the answer, finally, regarding how these houses are being paid for isn't something neutral like, 'Defence Housing will pay for it itself.' It's not going to come from a specific line item in the budget. It's going to be paid for by Australian taxpayers under a secret trilateral cost-sharing agreement under AUKUS. That's how the houses will be paid for. Is that what we should understand?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think you can conclude that from the advice I've just provided you.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please explain how I was wrong then.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is not going to add to that answer. Senator Lambie.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have a follow-up question to that. Since ours are required to pay for their married quarters, you can't possibly tell me you're going to bring in diggers and commanding officers from overseas and not make them pay what our own are paying. You cannot be serious about that this morning. Please tell me: if they are renting something, if that is how it's going to go, is it going to be paid for? Can you imagine our diggers going, 'Look at these buggers from overseas here, getting free accommodation while we're paying for it.' Come on.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to both Senator Shoebridge's and Senator Lambie's contributions, I'll just go back to the advice that I provided the Senate. This is an ongoing discussion within the AUKUS discussions. It is not a concluded discussion, but I've sought to give information to the Senate about the approach we will take. It is subject to ongoing cost-sharing negotiations with the UK and with the US.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nampijinpa Price.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, what guarantees will you put in place to ensure foreign officials are properly vetted?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Nampijinpa Price. I did provide some information about this in my second reading contribution because I had noted your remarks about this in yours. Essentially, the specifics of security clearance processes are, of course, confidential, but they do require extensive checks to identify and manage risk. The Australian Government Security Vetting Agency independently conducts security assessments for all individuals who require a security clearance, and these assessments are rigorous and ongoing.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the director-general of security's assessment that 'Australia's defence sector is a top intelligence collection priority for foreign governments seeking to blunt our operational edge, gain insights into our operational readiness and tactics and better understand our allies' capabilities', do you assess an increased risk to our defence facilities?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have tried to provide some information to you about the screening processes, as you raised that in your second reading speech; however, I think we are now straying well beyond the bill that's in front of us. Of course, the Australian government is highly attentive to any risks that might present to our national security infrastructure. You cited contributions from some of our officials, and we listened to those very carefully. But, essentially, this bill is really not about those matters at all. This bill has a reasonably simple proposition. It's before senators, and we're asking for the Senate's support to pass it.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill helps to operationalise AUKUS, and we need AUKUS to help deter aggression in the region and maintain peace. So why is the government so reluctant to be up-front with the Australian people about the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party's military aggression?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again—and I thank Senator Nampijinpa Price for her question—it strays well beyond the confines of the bill that's in front of us. Even noting her careful framing to take us from AUKUS into broader questions of national security and our foreign policy, I really think it's a bit of a stretch. I think the government has made very clear our approach to our bilateral relationships with a range of partners in our region, and I would refer you to comments made by ministers about those matters in other forums. This debate is essentially about a quite narrow piece of legislation.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the defence of our nation and the threats that are posed to us as a country are all very relevant and speak to the ability to fund housing appropriately as well. It speaks to our spend in terms of Defence, so I think it's all very relevant. How will you ensure new housing when there is no additional funding associated with this bill?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, the answer I will provide reflects the information I have given Senators Shoebridge and Lambie. Budgeting and provisioning for housing requirements for the ADF, and, indeed, for any other housing requirements associated with the operational imperatives of the ADF, are matters for the budget process. This bill is really narrow. It simply says, 'Is it appropriate for Defence Housing Australia to do work of that kind?' As I have indicated to other senators, the government believes that it is, and it is on that basis that we are seeking your support. I note that the coalition does intend to vote for this bill.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While you continue to highlight that this is a very narrow bill, it also speaks to spending in Defence, which is an important commitment. Will the government commit to lifting Defence spending to at least three per cent of GDP?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am really reluctant to continue to entertain questions from senators that really seek to initiate a broad-ranging discussion about defence, foreign affairs and any other matters that are tangentially associated with the bill. I think it is ordinary practice for the government to come and provide answers that are relevant to the bill that is before us, but questions of the overall quantum of Defence spending really are best prosecuted in another forum. I imagine we will talk about them at estimates, and question time occurs later today. There are other forums where this can be canvassed.

I will provide this in the interest of being helpful, Senator, but I really am not intending to open up a broad-ranging debate, because it's not the approach that we ordinarily take in this chamber. You would know that we are investing an additional $10.6 billion over the forward estimates and $57.6 billion over the decade in Defence. We brought $1 billion forward in the forward estimates in our budget in March. These are very significant efforts to improve both the quality and the quantum of our spend in Defence, and, frankly, they represent an important intervention to tidy up a decade of waste, mismanagement and wrong priorities which unfortunately characterised the approach and the chaos that occurred under your government.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To return the discussion to housing, Minister, you and other Labor senators have indicated that this bill is intended to permit and green-light the construction of some 550 homes for US defence personnel in and around Fremantle. Minister, given the average cost of building on and acquiring the land for a home in Perth is now $750,000, where is the $412-odd million to build those homes going to come from?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that this question in some ways misunderstands the existing business model of Defence Housing Australia. This has been canvassed in estimates on occasions when we've been together, but Defence Housing Australia has entered into what is being termed a New Builds Volume Leasing Program agreement in Rockingham. That is with four Western Australian businesses, and that is to support the delivery of new properties. Essentially, the nature of that arrangement is that suppliers will offer investors the chance to purchase off the plan, and, once built, those homes will be leased to DHA. That model essentially incentivises investors by providing some measure of certainty about the likely occupancy of the homes once built.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who will be paying the leases to fund the $412 million in costs?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've indicated in answers to your earlier questions, the specific arrangements on the housing of AUKUS personnel are subject to ongoing cost-sharing negotiations with the UK and the US.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now we circle back. This is yet more of the secret billions and hundreds of millions under AUKUS. I understand. Minister, there are now 169,000 households waiting to be allocated public housing, with most people waiting somewhere between five and 20 years across this country. What do you say, and what does your government say, to Australians sleeping rough, Australians who can't afford a new home and Australians fleeing unsafe housing? Please explain to them how secretly funding hundreds of homes for the US military is more important than giving them a home.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, that question, once again, as is regrettably characteristic of your party, asks us to make false choices. The Australian Labor Party consider that we have an obligation to invest in our national security, and we intend to do so. We also believe that we have an obligation to address the housing crisis, which has been a generation in the making. For too many Australians—and we acknowledge this, Senator—homeownership feels too far away and being a renter feels too insecure. That is why we have a $43 billion plan to make it easier to buy, to make it better to rent and to build more homes.

I remind senators of the approach that the Greens political party took in this place when we were attempting to legislate part of that agenda. Their approach was to block, delay and defer instead of to bring forward practical solutions for the people that you now, in this debate here, claim to be so concerned about. If you had been genuinely concerned about bringing on new housing supply and about making arrangements to make it better, fairer and safer for the many Australians who are experiencing housing insecurity, you would have voted with us in this place to support the HAFF and you would have supported the other initiatives that we have been bringing forward to try to expand the availability of housing for Australians.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have the service residences, the member choice accommodation and living-in accommodation—for those people on the outside who don't understand that: military members live in the lines. It's actually cheaper for them, usually. Then we have this thing called rental assistance. Rental assistance is usually for those who do not have families, who are pushed outside, off the base, to live in apartments. That is not a DHA thing. However, it will be a government problem if they cannot give me the figures for those using rental assistance at the moment. Because of the influx of foreigners that you're going to bring in and now put in our married quarters, how much more money is coming from the taxpayer? That will cost the taxpayer. If you haven't got them living in lines or in married quarters, the taxpayer picks up that rental assistance. The taxpayer picks up the difference; that's what it does. What do your numbers look like once this is done in 2030?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Lambie. I acknowledge, Senator Lambie, that you have detailed knowledge about not just the policy arrangements for housing personnel but some of the practical implications of it. I think we have spoken at estimates before about the significance of adequate, affordable, appropriate housing for personnel. I think we would acknowledge that one of the features of our efforts to improve both recruitment and retention is thinking very carefully about housing and how we go about providing the housing that's required for personnel.

I don't have a breakdown of the kind that you request, but I would say that the government is very focused on ensuring that we are doing what we can to ensure that people have the housing that they require. Obviously, DHA provides a whole range of services to the ADF. That includes supporting housing solutions in a range of places where we're seeking to deploy personnel.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have childcare places on base—I'm assuming that we still do. Some of them are just outside the front gate. Is that DHA? Do they actually own those houses that we're using the child care for?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice I have is that DHA doesn't operate the childcare services.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I probably didn't phrase that right. I'm not asking you if they operate them. I'm asking you whether they own the buildings that our childcare centres are set up in on base. Are they DHA housing?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice I have is no. There may be some individual circumstances where this occurs, but the advice I have before me right now is no. If there's anything different, I will advise you. If there's anything to the contrary of that, I'll let you know.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I don't have any more questions after this, but I will state one thing. We're already having childcare issues on base where we've got excess children and not enough child carers. I'm just asking you, while you consider this with the families coming over, that childcare services are provided in those areas, because there are many right now that are not.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, do you want to respond to that? It wasn't a question; it was a statement.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd just like to assure Senator Lambie that I will refer that to the minister. Thanks for the contribution.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is my final question, Minister. You say you can't share the AUKUS cost-sharing principles, because they're secret. You won't answer the actual cost to budget, if there is a cost to budget, for the building of those homes. Perhaps you'll answer this simple question: for the homes that are being built for US troops, will the ultimate cost be paid for by the US government or by the Australian government?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, I have already provided information to you on a number of occasions about how the costs will be determined. I don't have anything further to add to the answer I've already provided.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister previously tried to get around the question of defence spending by saying what the government would do 'over the decade'. That money is largely gone to fund the nuclear powered submarine. What additional money is the government willing to commit to defence in this term, including for defence housing?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've already explained on a number of occasions that I think that questions about the broader defence budget really can be asked in other forums. They're not immediately relevant to the legislation that's before us, and I'd encourage senators to return their attention to the amendments that are in front of us.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, a small cohort of advancing personnel from the United States will arrive in this quarter. Is there adequate housing in place to support these advancing personnel?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice I have is yes.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3383 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 10 to 12), omit the definition of government.

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 13 to 21), omit the definition of government body.

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 22 and 23), omit the definition of military organisation.

(4) Schedule 1, items 3 and 4, page 3 (line 30) to page 4 (line 21), omit the items, substitute:

3 After paragraph 5(1)(d)

Insert:

and (e) accredited representatives of registered charities and their families;

I spoke on this in the second reading contribution. This would remove from the bill the ability for Defence Housing to build housing for US and UK troops, for Israeli defence contractors, for employees of Lockheed Martin. I commend the amendments to the committee.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3383 be agreed to.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will now move to two-minute statements.