Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to 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.

Ellie Whiteaker (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to add my strong support to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. This bill represents an important step forward for this parliament. It strengthens our ability to scrutinise some of the most serious, complex and consequential decisions any government can make—decisions about defence policy, military capability, major procurement and, in the gravest of circumstances, the commitment of Australian forces to conflict. These are no ordinary policy questions. They involve immense public resources and consideration of long-term horizons, strategic risk and, most importantly, the lives and the wellbeing of the women and men of the Australian Defence Force and the civilians impacted by these decisions. It is entirely appropriate that this parliament equips itself with the right structures to examine those matters with care, depth and seriousness.

The creation of this committee responds directly to the recommendations of the inquiry undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into international armed conflict decision-making. That inquiry identified a clear gap. While parliament debates defence policy and scrutinises defence expenditure through existing processes, it has not had a dedicated mechanism to examine defence strategy, capacity and operations in a way that allows access to important classified information. That gap matters. In the strategic environment we face, many of the most important questions about defence cannot be meaningfully examined using only publicly available information. The details that shape capability choices, operational risk, contingency planning and the conduct of operations are often classified for good reason. Without access to that material, parliamentary scrutiny is necessarily partial.

This new committee is designed to address that reality. It is modelled on the established and respected framework of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That committee has shown that it is possible for members of parliament from across parties and from both houses to receive and consider highly sensitive information while maintaining the test of agencies and protecting our national security. This bill extends that proven model into the defence portfolio.

Let me be clear: this is not about expanding the parliament into operational decision-making. This committee will not direct the Australian Defence Force or make decisions about deployments. It will not override the prerogatives of our executive government. Those important constitutional settings remain unchanged. What this committee will do is strengthen parliament's capacity to understand, to question and to scrutinise.

The functions of this new committee are broad and forward looking. They include examining defence strategy and planning documents, scrutinising capability development and major acquisitions, being apprised of war or warlike operations and monitoring significant non-conflict operations at home and abroad. The committee will also consider matters relating to defence personnel and veterans and the performance and independence of key oversight bodies, such as the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. That matters because defence is about our people, our Australian people. It is about the responsibilities we carry towards those we ask to serve and the way we manage the risks that they are exposed to. Strong parliamentary scrutiny is part of that duty of care.

Senate committees will continue to examine defence legislation and budgets through established processes, including Senate estimates. Other statutory committees will retain their roles. But this bill will complement those existing mechanisms.

The key innovation in this bill is that the new committee will be able to receive classified briefings and information, subject to clear and robust safeguards. It is those safeguards that make this workable. Defence agencies and our international partners must have confidence that sensitive operational information, intelligence-derived material and details about highly sensitive capabilities will be managed appropriately. This bill provides that framework with private proceedings, with defined categories of protected information, with ministerial authorisation being required before certain highly sensitive materials can be compelled or disclosed and, importantly, with offences for the unauthorised disclosure of information obtained through the committee's work. Some might see these provisions as focused on the limits, but I see them as enablers. Without strong legal protections, agencies will be understandably reluctant to share the information that gives scrutiny its real substance. With those protections in place, the committee can operate in a way that is both responsible and effective.

It is also worth making another important point. Scrutiny conducted in private is not lesser scrutiny and, in many cases, is more searching. When witnesses are able to speak frankly in a secure setting, without the pressure of public performance, members can ask the hard questions, assumptions can be tested and risks can be explored in detail.

This committee also represents a step forward in the institutional maturity of our parliament. Defence planning and capability development are long-term endeavours. They extend beyond the electoral cycle. They involve investments measured by decades and decisions whose consequences will be felt by future governments and future generations of Australians. A standing joint committee with secure access to information provides continuity. It allows the parliament, across party lines, to build deeper expertise and institutional memory in this field. That continuity strengthens democratic accountability. It ensures that scrutiny of major defence decisions is sustained and informed.

I want to acknowledge the direct connection to the work already being undertaken in this parliament by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and, in particular, the Defence Subcommittee, chaired by my colleague Senator O'Neill. I am very lucky to be a member of that committee. Through that committee, I have seen closely the work involved in scrutinising the current defence policy settings and capability development and our important role in the region. The work of that committee really matters. It builds on the practical work of parliamentarians and the executive, who have been grappling with the limits of existing arrangements. But we understand that a deeper and more structured scrutiny is needed. The inquiry that led to the recommendation to establish this committee came from sustained engagement by members of that committee, who saw both the importance of defence oversight and the constraints of trying to do that work without access to classified information.

It would be remiss of me to talk about defence in this place without talking about our great state of Western Australia and the importance of Western Australia to this government's defence strategy. Western Australia is not peripheral to Australia's defence posture; it is central to it. I've spoken here before about my local community, which is absolutely central to our government's defence work and absolutely central to the defence of the AUKUS partnership. From HMAS Stirling and the growing strategic importance of the Indian Ocean to the infrastructure and workforce that will support the future of our conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine enterprise, my local community of Henderson is central to that work. Western Australia is at the heart of some of the most significant defence developments underway in this country.

Decisions about capability, basing, sustainment and long-term investment, decisions that will shake the jobs, the skills, the industry and the local communities in Western Australia for decades to come, deserve the scrutiny of a committee like this. Western Australians deserve to know that these vast, complex and long-term decisions are being scrutinised carefully, with access to the right information, not only by the executive but by the parliament as well. A dedicated parliamentary joint committee on defence will help ensure that the national interests and the interests of communities, like mine, that host and support major defence activities are being examined in a serious, informed and sustained way. This bill has real significance for my home state of Western Australia and the local community in which I live—a place that is playing an increasingly central role to Australia's defence and strategic future.

Around the world, trust in public institutions is under strain. Complex policy areas, particularly national security, can easily drift further away from public understanding. Never has parliamentary oversight been more important. Creating structures that allow elected representatives to engage seriously and responsibly with these issues is part of keeping our system healthy and robust.

This bill does not solve every question about war powers or defence governance, and it does not attempt to. What it does do is make a practical, carefully designed improvement to the way this parliament performs its oversight and scrutiny role. It responds to considered recommendations. It draws on an existing model that has proven to be effective through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It balances transparency with the protection of national security. It strengthens our capacity to honour the responsibilities we carry towards the Australian people and the members of the Australian Defence Force. For all of those reasons, I commend this bill to the Senate and support its passage.

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

I rise on behalf of the Greens to oppose the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee—'secret boys club'—on Defence) Bill 2025. This is a bill that just goes to show how broken the war parties and the status quo parties are in this parliament. They're setting up yet another dark, smoke-filled cigar room where those who get the tick of approval, from Washington and from the likes of Richard Marles, maybe, or our security heads, can sit in their little private circle and furiously agree on how we should spend even more money buying US weapons to go to war with China on behalf of Donald Trump.

They're the same club of people who have got us into an impossible, embarrassing mess on pretty much everything they've touched in defence. This same club of war-hungry, war-mongering war parties, who call themselves parties of government, are the ones who have secret oversight of our security agencies. How's that going? That is now the subject of royal commission review and repeated criticism—the failure of ASIO to get out and communicate with the state police and the failure of state police to talk with the Federal Police. That's all oversighted by the private club that is the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That's a disaster zone, a complete mess. Nobody thinks it works.

So what do the geniuses in parties of government decide to come up with? Let's take the secret, dysfunctional club for security oversight and let's make it part of a secret, dysfunctional parties-of-government oversight of defence. Then we get the representation from Labor: 'Do you know why this is great for democracy and why this is great for parliament? The real magic sauce in this thing is that it will all be in secret and nobody will see it happening.' That's the magic sauce in this oversight. It's a secret meeting of people who already agree, who want post-politics careers in the defence industry, who love Washington and who love Donald Trump. It will all happen in secret, and secrecy is the magic. In secret, in a room where everyone agrees, you can ask the hard questions. You can ask the hard questions and get the likes of Defence Secretary Moriarty to give you the hard answers, because that's going to work in secret. You couldn't make this stuff up, right? It's a joke.

The pretence that a secret club of people who agree, who are looking for their post-politics career in a Defence contractor is going to hold Defence to account is an embarrassing joke, and the country can see it. They can see that this shrinking part of the parliament, who wants to hold onto the status quo, who wants to keep shovelling endless billions of dollars into US defence contractors, nuclear submarines, the world's most expensive frigates on the planet, drones that can't defend themselves and US weapon systems that get sold by some tech bro in an afternoon spiel, doesn't work. They can see that Defence is a mess. They can see that the club is taking Australia in the wrong direction, and that's why more than a third of the country and a growing part of the country are voting for anybody but the war parties and the status quo parties. But I've got to tell you this. This is a bill that says: 'We're going to set up a new secret committee. It's going to be dominated by the government. We're going to let the opposition in, but only the opposition. It's going to operate in secret, and that's going to fix Defence.'

One of the questions I'm asking is: who are the parties of government now that are even going to sit on this? They used to occasionally invite a Nat in, but I suppose they're on the outer now too. So it's just going to be the Labor Party and the Liberal Party—just the Labor Party and the Liberal Party furiously agreeing on how to screw up our national budget on Defence, and then getting the patsies from Defence to come in and say: 'Yes, we need this new weapon system. We haven't tested it for value for money, but we think you should spend $8 billion acquiring this new weapon system, because we want to press a button and see it go whoosh, and our friends in Washington would like it because it makes us more interoperable with the US military, and we can be part of the next US war in Eurasia. So actually we should buy this for $8 billion. I don't think we need to tell the public anything about this. I don't think we need to trouble the great unwashed with the reasons why we're doing these dumb decisions. We'll just do It quietly amongst ourselves. We already agreed before we came into the room. We agree even more now. Let's just spend the money on this next US UK weapons system.'

It is such a gross misrepresentation to say that this is about oversight. It's just getting the club to give another big rubber stamp on their war plans and upon their complete and utter surrender to Washington. That's what it is. Why do we even pretend to have parliamentary oversight anyhow? Why don't we just set up a small approval process in the Washington embassy? We could just do that. You could just set up a small desk. You could have a proposal. It wouldn't have to originate in Canberra. It could easily originate in Washington. You could then send it over to the secretary of Defence. Minister Marles could add his usual value to it, with no doubt a very insightful analysis of whatever's come from Washington and the Defence secretary! Then you could send it to the desk in Washington, and they could invite whoever Vice-President Vance wants to send in, and they could just approve it. It would be much more efficient! You wouldn't have to go through the pretence of a sovereign process. Why don't you just do that? Or you could set up a secret committee amongst yourselves which you don't tell the public about, and you could just do it here anyway. You've chosen the secret committee path.

What have the war parties—sorry, the parties of government—delivered? What have the parties of government delivered so far for Defence? We're in the middle of spending $9 billion to build the United States a nuclear submarine attack base just off Perth to make Perth a nuclear target and to ensure that Australia will be involved in a US war with China. You've done that. I personally think that making Perth a nuclear target by spending $9 billion of Australian taxpayers' money to build the US a nuclear submarine attack base is probably a bad decision. I think that's a misspending of money, but you guys agree on it, and you can agree on it in secret now. Terrific!

You've decided to spend $375 billion on some speculative gamble to get nuclear submarines. Well, that's a disaster zone. The US has no spare submarines. We just heard today that the US will only supply submarines to Australia if we guarantee to use them in a US war on China. Otherwise, you know, we can go whistle!

Currently, we're shovelling billions of dollars to the United States to increase their industrial capacity to make more nuclear submarines so they have some spare for us. That has not worked. It has not shifted the dial. The United States is still producing about 1.2—in a good year—nuclear submarines a year out of their industrial capacity. Unless they produce about 2½ a year for the next decade, going forward there will be no spare submarines for Australia. We won't get any submarines. That money is lost. Well, it's lost to us—again, by the United States.

That first part of AUKUS, about getting some spare second-hand US nuclear subs, is a disaster going badly—billions being wasted, a big black hole—but you could meet in secret and agree on how good it is. That might be nice. You won't have to persuade the public—you can just persuade each other—about what a great deal that is, in secret. That might be nice for you. It's bad for taxpayers. It's bad for Australia. But it might be nice for you.

You've already handed countless billions of dollars off to the UK for their nuclear submarine industry. Most of it's gone to Rolls-Royce because, you know, Rolls-Royce obviously deserves it. Those poor people in Rolls-Royce suffer a lot. Defence Minister Marles and Prime Minister Albanese, with the support of the Liberal Party, have found a way that Australian taxpayers can give billions and billions of dollars to Rolls-Royce. That money is rolling out now, to Rolls-Royce, to produce nuclear reactors for the AUKUS submarine project. Meanwhile, the UK's own audit office says that that program, which we're putting billions of dollars into, is in a terminal spiral of failure and will not produce nuclear reactors. It's been red, red, red, red, red for the last five years. We're pumping billions of dollars into the UK for nuclear reactors and an AUKUS nuclear submarine project that will not happen.

Then we have the Barrow-in-Furness project in the UK, which is where they're going to be—allegedly—producing the reactors and the next class of AUKUS submarines. When the head of the delivery agency for the Barrow-in-Furness project, Lord whatever-his-name-is, says, 'Actually, it's not working. We haven't got the infrastructure. We're not going to be able to build this stuff here. We don't have a solution to the multiple infrastructure bottlenecks. We're not going to have the workforce ready to produce the nuclear submarines,' what does Australia say? Australia says, 'You can ignore all that!'

Ignore the fact that the audit office has said the reactors won't work. Ignore the fact that the head of the delivery agency in Barrow-in-Furness says it won't work. Ignore the fact that the entire UK budget is in a meltdown and they don't have the money to build submarines. Ignore the fact that they can only put one of their current nuclear submarines in the water because they can't afford to maintain—and don't know how to maintain—the rest of them. You can ignore all that, because it's all on track. It's all on track! And we can keep shovelling them billions of dollars.

The good news about your secret committee is that you can agree on that in private now. You can meet together in private, slap each other on the back and say, 'It's all on track!' You can ignore reality. That's the great thing about a secret committee. Why don't you go and meet about the Hunter frigates and agree on what a great job you guys are doing on the Hunter frigates! There's a lot of talk at the moment about 67 Defence sites, which are prized and cared for by the community, which have beautiful green open spaces and heritage sites, which are great spots for public housing. But no—Defence Minister Marles and the supporting cheer squad in Defence have decided to flog them all off, to sell them all off, for property development. They think that, over the next five to 10 years, they could net $1.8 billion from selling all of this prized public land all across the country. The good news about that is, for $1.8 billion, you could almost build one fifth of one Hunter frigate in Adelaide. You could probably get the bit that has the helicopter landing pad on it. You could almost get one-fifth of one of those for selling off 67 prize sites.

The same club that wants to meet in private and agree in this committee has signed off on the $45 billion Hunter frigate deal, which is before the NACC on a corruption inquiry and is producing the most expensive warships, pound for pound, on the entire planet. When we asked the defence department, 'Is there any more expensive warship on the planet than these Hunter frigates that we're making in Adelaide?' they hemmed and hawed and then they said, 'Maybe a US nuclear powered submarine is more expensive.' They found one—a US nuclear submarine. India produces entire aircraft carriers and fits them out for less than what we're paying for a single Hunter frigate. The same bozos who are in charge of that and have sent us down that corrupted, hopeless process for Hunter frigates can now meet in private and secretly agree on what a great idea it would be to do that again. Maybe we could have the same people who met in secret and agreed to produce another class of boats, which of course Defence cannot find a purpose for—maybe they could agree to put billions more into that project as well.

Right now we have a defence department that is hollowing itself out to pay for nuclear submarines we'll never get, that is shelling out billions of dollars overseas for projects that won't produce reactors or nuclear submarines, and that means that there's no money left to buy things for the rest of defence. We have a defence department that's building a handful of the most expensive warships on the planet in Adelaide, and they want to do more of that. We have a defence department that's had a recruitment crisis forever—it turns out people don't much like joining a defence force which is led by such a bunch of bozos and directed by a bunch of noddies in the parties of government. We have a defence force that is designed not to defend Australia but to be part of US deployments around the world and not have an independent sovereign capacity. We have a defence force that is probably a global leader in the failure of procurement and the failure of strategic thinking. You want the same bunch of people that have got us into this mess to now oversight it in secret while they agree with each other in a quiet, smoke-filled, private cigar room. This will surprise you: the Greens say no.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think that surprises us at all, Senator Shoebridge. I rise today to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which improves oversight of Australia's defence. I support this bill because the proper governance and accountability of the defence of Australia is more important today than on any other day since World War II. The Liberal Party believes that strength is peace and that strength in defence is necessary even in times of peace. The Liberals' unwavering allegiance to the sovereignty of this great nation is unmatched. The opposition understands that sovereignty is first and foremost secured by the brave men and women of the Australian Defence Force, and I take this opportunity to again thank those in uniform, past and present, for their service and dedication to preserving the freedom of this great nation.

The Liberal Party is committed to the key function of this bill, which is the creation of a new defence committee to oversee, prioritise and enhance the ADF and the defence architecture of this nation. This area of governance is sadly in need of urgent reform, and we've seen weak and ineffective Labor members of government not understand, or refuse to face, the challenges in the Indo-Pacific in 2026 and beyond. In support of this bill, the opposition reaffirms that we follow the proven bipartisan track record of the practices of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This practice demands that only parties of government be included on the committee, so those who seek to weaken defence, like those in the Greens political party or the teal political movement, are unwelcome. Just rewind a little to hear the contributions from Senator Shoebridge and you will understand why they are not welcome on this committee.

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

Senator Shoebridge, you were heard in silence.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those who are unwilling to hold the sovereignty of this nation above all else and who would seek to use this platform to defund and hamstring our defence forces are unwelcome. This convention must be followed. If not, our prime minister, Anthony Albanese, will send a message to Australians and foreign adversaries that he not serious about defence.

This committee is essential today. Australia faces the greatest military threat to peace and security in generations. Already, Royal Australian Navy personnel have been injured by the forces of Xi Jinping's navy while in international waters. Our aircrews have been subjected to life-threatening manoeuvres by Chinese aircraft. Even our civilian aircrews have been put in danger by reckless CCP operations in our region. Under the Liberal Party, these provocations would be met with strength. We would deliver peace through strength. A Liberal government would deter these events. We would invest in and increase capability that would detect threats by air, land, sea and space assets that the Labor government has failed to procure.

This government must change its course. The strategic circumstances are too precarious to ignore the warnings. Grey-zone tactics are ramping up. These grey-zone tactics have ranged from illegal free-trade attacks to unprecedented cyber intrusions into our democratic institutions and, finally and most dangerously of all, to state sponsored terror last year. With the Liberal Party at the helm of Defence once more, Australians would be reassured that they will no longer fear waking up to yet another attack on our freedoms, which, under Labor, have all too often been met with fake smiles, hand-wringing and platitudes from our prime minister.

Australia's defence must be made more resilient, and we must stand on our own two feet. Allies help those who help themselves. That means building sovereign mass in missiles, drones, cyber, undersea systems and sustainment here in Australia. Manufacturing at all levels must be unlocked, and the red and green tape hampering our defence and critical sovereign manufacturing capabilities must be abolished. This new committee must strengthen defence capability and accountability, not weaken it through politicisation and the appointment of anti-defence MPs. This committee must recognise the importance of AUKUS to Australia's security. The AUKUS submarines are the most complex machines ever built by man. On this committee, the Liberal Party will see that that agreement and the respect and lethality of our brave men and women of the ADF are given the funding and direction they deserve.

This government must soon commit to the construction of a new submarine base on the east coast, and this committee will examine the decisions behind this serious endeavour. We need this scrutiny because the Labor government has been unwilling and unable to produce the location of this base. Labor's inertia on this critical project disrespects the needs of industry partners who are core to the AUKUS agreement and of the communities of my home state of New South Wales in having a say about their future. The people of Port Kembla, the likely location of this east coast base, deserve a government that is upfront, and the Australian manufacturing base needs support to deliver for our sailors. The Albanese government has delivered neither—no certainty to the people of Port Kembla and no support to our sailors.

A trusted, disciplined committee should build bipartisan consensus around our strategic interests and enhance the ability for Defence to interact with parliament. The committee should reduce risk aversion and support better outcomes not just to protect Australians but in how we ensure every dollar on defence is spent well, because good economic management is important to defence too.

With the Liberal Party in support of raising defence spending to three per cent of GDP to bring us in line with both the threat faced and our allies' commitments, only the Liberal Party is clear eyed and ready for the challenges in this 21st century. The Labor government has cut defence spending in real terms. Don't believe the spin. The budget papers clearly show this decline, but, when we ask the defence minister about it, all we get are smokescreens and subversion. The Minister for Defence is happy to point to ships that aren't built yet, to munitions yet to be acquired and to troop numbers that couldn't fill a bus. It does not change the fact that we are dangerously undermanned and underequipped. Service on this new committee must therefore come with advice and clear moral convictions to do the hard things that this government won't do. Australians want peace through strength. They want faster decisions, more local industry jobs and equipment that arrives on time to keep our people safe. That is what the Liberal Party will champion in this committee, and, with that commitment, I commend this bill to the Senate.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. I do so with a deep sense of responsibility and with a conviction that this measure is essential to strengthen parliament's capacity to scrutinise, to advise and to hold to account the institutions charged with protecting our nation. Like many in this chamber, I wish for peace above all. Peace is the aspiration that guides our diplomacy and our values. Yet we must be clear eyed about the world we inhabit. Peace is most reliably preserved when a nation is prepared, when our defence forces are properly funded, when they're well trained and when they're ready to respond. That readiness depends not only on equipment and strategy but on robust parliamentary oversight that ensures capability, accountability, public trust and, indeed, public pride in the defence of our sovereignty.

In my role as chair of the defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have had the privilege of visiting bases, meeting with personnel across ranks and hearing directly from those who plan and execute our defence posture. I've met exceptionally talented, brave and committed men and women, young Australians who volunteer to serve, who display professionalism and courage and who embody the Anzac spirit in a modern form. Their dedication demands that parliament do its part to scrutinise, to support and to ensure that the institutions that serve them are fit for purpose.

The nature of conflict has changed. Warfare in the 21st century is significantly a technological endeavour. The domains of space, cyber and autonomous systems are now central to strategic thinking. The conflict in Ukraine has provided a painful and costly education to militaries around the world about the interaction among tactics, industrial capacity and the rapid iteration of both hardware and software. What's happened in Ukraine has shown the value of both high-end, sophisticated systems and cheaper, flexible, expendable devices. For Australia the lesson is not to replicate another theatre's approach but to learn, adapt and build sovereign capability and capacity suited to our geography and our strategic circumstances.

Our geography matters. We are an island continent in the Asia-Pacific. Critical communication, trade and transit sea lanes lie immediately to our north. That reality drives the investments we are seeing in our northern bases, in Townsville, Darwin and key sites in Western Australia, which will serve as staging posts and first lines of deterrence. These investments are not merely about hardware and platforms; they're about people and communities. If we are to sustain a credible presence in the north, we must make it an attractive and sustainable place for defence personnel and their families. That means modern facilities, reliable infrastructure, quality education, access to health services in place, including maternity care, and community support that enables families to thrive and benefits the communities that wrap their arms around our defence personnel.

Central to our deterrence posture is the strategy of denial, ensuring that any adversary is deterred from attempting to reach our shores. The acquisition of nuclear powered submarines through the AUKUS partnership will be transformational for our nation. These platforms represent a step change in stealth, endurance and deterrent capability. They will also be a national endeavour—

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

Senator O'Neill, it being 11.15, the debate is interrupted. You will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.