Defence Portfolio

Ms PENFOLD (Lyne) (18:11): I rise during the consideration in detail of the defence portfolio appropriations to address what is arguably the first responsibility of any federal government: the defence of our nation. Australia faces the most challenging strategic environment since the end of the Second World War. The Defence Strategic Review made that clear.

It warned that the assumptions which have underpinned our security for decades can no longer be taken for granted. It warned that the prospect of major conflict in our region can no longer be dismissed. It warned that Australia faces a far more uncertain and dangerous future.

Against that backdrop, Australians expect honesty from government. That is why serious questions must be asked about this budget and the government's claims about defence spending. Despite the warnings of the Defence Strategic Review, defence spending remains around two per cent of GDP under the government's current funding profile.

At a time when the strategic environment is deteriorating, Australians are entitled to ask whether that is enough. Recent reports have suggested that the government's headline defence spending figures include items such as military superannuation, veterans' income support payments and funding for agencies outside core defence capability expenditure. Australians strongly support our veterans and those who have served our nation.

They should. But Australians are entitled to know whether the government is inflating defence spending figures while the capabilities needed to defend Australia today continue to face delays and deferrals. The question is not how large a headline figure can be constructed.

The question is whether the Australian Defence Force is becoming more capable. The question is whether our defence personnel are getting the equipment, resources and support they need. The question is whether Australia's deterrent capability is strengthening at the pace demanded by our strategic circumstances.

I want to be clear: I support AUKUS, and the coalition supports AUKUS. The coalition has committed to lifting defence spending to at least three per cent of GDP. We believe Australia's strategic circumstances demand it.

We support AUKUS, but we also recognise that submarines alone are not a defence strategy. Australia needs stronger capability across the board. We must have military precision in our defence procurement.

The development of a sovereign nuclear-powered submarine capability is one of the most significant defence investments in our nation's history. But the Albanese government must do better than force Defence to choose between AUKUS and capability, because we need both. We will need nuclear-powered submarines in the decades ahead, but we also need a defence force today that is fully equipped, properly resourced and ready to respond to the strategic risks identified by the Defence Strategic Review.

Yet concerns continue to be raised that projects critical to Australia's immediate capability have been delayed, reduced or reprioritised while funding is increasingly concentrated on the AUKUS pathway. The challenge for government is not simply to fund AUKUS; the challenge is ensuring that AUKUS does not come at the expense of other critical capabilities that strengthen deterrence before the first submarine enters service.

That includes guided-weapons production. It includes autonomous systems. It includes cyber capability.

It includes logistics, sustainment and force readiness. And it includes ensuring that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have access to the equipment and resources necessary to meet their extraordinarily high standards of service. The government frequently speaks about a future Defence Force, yet the difference between two per cent of GDP and 3 per cent of GDP is not simply an accounting exercise; it represents additional investment in capabilities that strengthen deterrence now, not just decades into the future.

So my question to the minister is this: if the government genuinely accepts the finding of the Defence Strategic Review that Australia faces its most dangerous strategic environment in decades, why does this budget ask the Australian Defence Force to wait years for much of the capability it needs, and how can the government assure defence personnel and the Australian people that the defence of our nation is being strengthened now, rather than simply promised for the future?