Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the minister here in this consideration of detail debate when it is so disappointing that many of his ministerial colleagues haven't bothered to attend their particular portfolio. Thank you, Minister.

A budget needs to prioritise national security, transparency and families over bureaucracy. However, Labor's 2023 budget does the opposite. Labour's budget is very disappointing on many levels. It's especially disappointing in the Attorney-General's portfolio. It is important to protect Australia's security and prosperity a time when nations are facing a growing number of challenges. Australia's security environment is expected to continue to be complex and challenging, with key threats including terrorism, espionage and foreign interference. All too often governments are forced to act in the midst of a crisis or its immediate aftermath. It is clear that the Labor government is not planning to be proactive but, rather, reactive.

As a start, this budget takes money away from front line agencies that keep Australians safe. It gives it to lawyers, public servants and oversight bodies in true Labor government fashion. It rips almost $26 million out of our intelligence agencies to fund officials, parliamentary departments and the new oversight mechanisms. It redirects almost $130 million out of our defence budget to pay for ongoing inquiries into Afghanistan. I appreciate that the ongoing inquiries need to take place following the withdrawal from Afghanistan, but why does the funding need to be plucked from the defence budget?

Furthermore, Senate estimates have only confirmed what the coalition had feared: that there is no new money, only cuts and lack of ambition for our nation's defence. Strangely enough, the Labor budget commits to protecting Australians from homegrown terrorists for just two years. What is the plan to protect Australians from homegrown terrorists after the two years are up? There is no detail on this matter.

It is simply clear that this is not a budget of a government that is serious about our national security. Why does this Labor government not prioritise national security?

This budget also has trickiness and hidden funds everywhere. This budget takes $31.8 million that the coalition committed to local and regional voices but only spends $20 million. What happened to the rest? Where has the remaining $11.8 million gone? To which department, we wonder.

The budget commits to spending legal fees on a number of international legal actions but won't disclose the amounts. Furthermore, given the recent revelations in respect to the Brittany Higgins case, it's becoming more evident that senior Labor politicians and other high-profile people are implicated in this most extraordinary affair; which begs the question: why has the Attorney-General's department not been open and transparent about the compensation payout to Ms Higgins? This is taxpayers' money. Australians want to know the details of why the payment was made and why any counterargument to the contrary was excluded. Why is this, Attorney-General?

In true Labor fashion, this is a budget for public servants, not for families struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. This budget sees an additional $95 million pumped into just one department of public servants. Once again, I assume the funding will be for a department in Canberra, not for the regions. Meanwhile, funding for programs, like the Lighthouse Project in the Family Court, which does groundbreaking work to identify the risk of family violence, drops off a cliff in 2026-27. The Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the Hon. William Alstergren, explained that the data around the Lighthouse Project demonstrates the need to expand and increase the focus on safety and welfare for families involved in the family law system. The Lighthouse Project has enabled the court to shine a light on the details of allegations raised in individual cases and provide critical, tailored support for these families. Furthermore, he has said that in many parts of the country this needs critical support. What will the Labor government commit after 2026? Or will this program be axed?

In respect to the Voice, who will make up this body? How many representatives will there be? Will they be elected or appointed? How do you qualify? How often will the body change? Will these people be paid, and, if so, how much? Will they have bureaucratic support, and, if so, to what extent? These are questions that also need to be answered by this department. (Time expired)

See this speech in context