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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. When it comes to defence, the Albanese Labor government has just promised Donald Trump another billion dollars for the US to build their own nuclear submarines, on top of the billion dollars Labor has already given them for that. Labor's building the US an $8 billion nuclear submarine base in Perth. Labor's building the US troops hundreds and hundreds of homes, and now Labor is planning to serve up Australia's critical minerals to US corporate and military interests. Minister, has your government ever said no to Donald Trump or the US? Are there any limits?

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

I thank Senator Shoebridge for the question. This is, of course, a key difference between our party and the Greens political party. It's been explored on many occasions, Senator Shoebridge. Fundamentally, your position, as I understand it and as has been articulated by you and many of your colleagues over time, is that you do not support the US alliance. That is not true for the Australian Labor Party. We consider that the relationship with the United States is of great significance to our national security. It's a relationship that is long, deep and multidimensional.

We were pleased the Prime Minister was able to meet constructively with the United States administration, with President Trump. We are pleased that we are able to come to an agreement with our ally the United States about the development of critical minerals resources, understanding the significance of that supply chain for our security and for our economic interests. We do think that the acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines is important for our national security for a range of reasons, which we have explored many times in the estimates hearings. So we will continue, on every occasion, to contemplate the national interest in this relationship and in all of the international work that is undertaken by the Prime Minister and by the ministers who are sworn to the foreign affairs portfolio. It's a focus for our government, ensuring that we engage constructively and sensibly in the world, in accordance with our national interest.

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

Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary?

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

Just this week, Minister Wong said, in relation to proposed changes to the EPBC Act, for example:

… the US relationship matters more than some domestic politics about environmental reform.

Minister, is that why Australia's defence budget is so skewed towards US interests—because your government openly puts US interests before Australia's?

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

(—) (): I have regrettably learned that it is not wise to accept assertions from members of your party when you seek to characterise statements made by members of the government. In my experience, those characterisations are rarely accurate. However, I'll confirm the advice I provided to the chamber in my response to your primary question. We, on every occasion, consider our national interest, and we do frequently make the point that, when it comes to the relationships that we are pursuing with other governments in our national interest, from time to time, responsible political organisations might also wish to consider the national interest before seeking to weaponise relationships that we seek to establish with others. (Time expired.)

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

Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary?

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

When Minister Wong was standing right there, earlier this week, she also said:

… one of the rules of politics is that you try not to play the US relationship into your domestic politics.

Minister, is that the reason that you won't give a straight answer on how much Labor is planning to give the US under AUKUS—because of this rule?

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

The point that I would make—and, again, I don't accept the characterisation of Senator Wong's contribution—about the way we approach foreign affairs and our international relationships is that we consider our national interest. Now, in the time I've been in this chamber, I struggle to recall an occasion when the Greens political party actually accepted that any of the national security threats or challenges that have been brought into this chamber were real. I struggle to recall an occasion when any of you accepted that the measures that have been contemplated by this chamber were necessary in relation to national security questions—

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

Minister McAllister. Senator Shoebridge.

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

It's a question of relevance. My question was about this rule, the rule that Senator Wong referenced earlier this week, not about the Greens political party.

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

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. The minister is being relevant to the question, and I'll listen carefully to the next six seconds.

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

I can sum it up this way. We will always put the national interest before petty party electoral interests which is— (Time expired.)