COMMITTEES

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (11:15): At the request of Senator McKim, I move the following amendment to Labor's amendment in the terms circulated in the chamber: Omit paragraphs (c) and (d), substitute "and: (c) the provisions of the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October 2025; and (d) the provisions of the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October 2025".

The amendment that we are moving provides that the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October. We're also seeking that the Orwellian named Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025 not go to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Labor-coalition stitch-up, but instead go to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.

We'd really like to take at least one of those secret security bills out of that dark, smoke-filled room of the war parties and instead put it to a public inquiry—particularly this bill, which is proposing to give the PJCIS even more powers for their secret review of intelligence. But I really want to dwell on the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025.

You can't make some stuff up in politics, but what about this? In the last parliament, we saw Labor coming up with a million reasons they couldn't do anything on public housing. They couldn't help people out on rents, they couldn't build public housing, and they kept saying it was all the Greens' fault for not supporting their crap bills.

Then, in this parliament, they start with a public housing bill. Well done, Labor! You bring a public housing bill into the chamber.

You push it through the lower house. And do you know what public housing they're building? They're building public housing for US troops under AUKUS.

That's their public housing bill. Right now, they want to build 700 public housing units over in WA—not for Australians who haven't got a place to live and not for renters who can't afford to buy a home. They're building public housing for US troops because Uncle Donald asked them to.

Surely they read this bill, didn't they? Didn't somebody in the Labor caucus say, 'Our first public housing bill in the new parliament can't be to build housing for US troops under AUKUS'? Surely someone did a reality check.

But no. That's their bill. And do you know what?

They can't even say how many hundreds of millions of public dollars will be used to build public housing for US troops under the bill. Even the coalition were asking some questions about it. The coalition normally wave through anything to do with AUKUS.

If it's anything to do with the US alliance, they'll wave it through. But even the coalition downstairs asked some little, quiet, tentative questions like: 'Please, sir, can you tell us how much money we're going to be paying to build the US troops public housing? Please, minister, you haven't explained in the bill how much this is going to cost; is it going to come from the Defence budget or some other budget?' When the coalition got no answers, they crawled back into their shell and went quiet on it.

And that's so typical of this non-opposition opposition— The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr: A point of order on the language being used by Senator Shoebridge. Senator Shoebridge can do better than using language like 'crawl'.

Yesterday, we had 'crunch' from the other side. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Scarr. That's quite enough on your point of order.

It's not unparliamentary language, but I would suggest that all senators and Senator Shoebridge can do better. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Thank you, President. Maybe the problem is the 'Uncle Donald' reference.

Maybe it's that the coalition and Labor are embarrassed about the fact that they're teaming up today to help the Senate ram through legislation to build public housing for US troops under AUKUS. It is a bloody disgrace. The PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge— Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I withdraw that.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: There are already 2½ thousand US marines cycling in and out of Darwin. Are we building housing for the 2½ thousand marines cycling in and out of Darwin?

There are already plans to put 700 US troops into the surrounds of Garden Island, off Fremantle, with all their families. How many houses are we building for US troops in Fremantle under this bill? There's already a housing crisis over there.

We say to both the coalition and Labor: if you're going to do another stitch-up on AUKUS, at least have the guts to do it in public. At least have the guts to take this bill to an inquiry so we can find out how many hundreds of millions in Australian taxpayers' dollars are going towards building housing for US troops under the plan from the war parties, Labor and the coalition.

AUKUS is already bleeding us dry, with billions of dollars going to Donald Trump and billions more going to Rolls-Royce in the UK. And now, in the first housing bill that Labor brings into this new parliament, they decide to put an unknown number of millions of dollars into building houses—not for people in Australia who can't afford them, but for Labor's mates in the US and for US troops.

It's a disgrace. Send it to inquiry. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the Greens amendment as moved by Senator Shoebridge, and standing in the name of Senator McKim, to the amendment moved by Senator Walsh be agreed to.